Nanotechnology:
The Library of Congress in Your Pocket

Ten years later, in 1975, she was a student at the same university, taking a course in computer programming. She struggled with writing code in gibberish that only the computer could understand, producing a stack of punched cards to turn in at the counter, and then waiting interminably to receive the results of her efforts from a line printer, only to find out that somewhere in that stack of cards there was an error in her code, and she had to start the process over again. She bought her first pocket calculator about that time for $85; three months later the same model cost $20.

Another ten years went by, to 1985, and she was working at that university. Now, she had a computer on her desk that was not much larger than a portable television set. She could produce technical documents on the computer, which eliminated the hours of cutting and pasting and typing pages over, which had been necessary with a typewriter. She could track her department's budgets and grants and therefore maintain better control of expenditures, rather than waiting for the university's accounting department to send statements once a month. She could dial into her university's library to search the catalog, and she could communicate with her boss in Switzerland via BITNET. She was also enrolled in another programming class, this time studying a high-level structured programming language, which meant that she could write her programs using English words and divide the program into modules which could easily be changed or used elsewhere. The power, speed, and memory of that desktop computer far exceeded anything that the producers of the big mainframe in 1965 imagined. It meant that the computer in her office could use a simple graphical user interface and that the computer in the programming lab could utilize a compiler to translate her English-language code into machine language that the computer could understand.

She doesn't yet know what she will be using in 1995, but chances are it will be a descendant of what is available to her now in 1992: hard drive storage in small boxes with capacities of hundreds of megabytes, RAM in the tens of megabytes, speeds approaching 50 megahertz. She now has access to laptop computers that have many, many times more power and storage capacity than that huge mainframe of twenty-seven years ago. She can do complicated accounting or financial analysis, statistical analysis, desktop publishing, multimedia, databases, hypertext, animation, telecommunications, and more. And while the power of computers has increased exponentially, the ease of use has also increased. Now there is no need to know programming languages or cryptic commands: the graphical interface found on a Macintosh or a DOS-based PC running Windows 3.0 makes the computer accessible to almost anyone.

This is, of course, a familiar story. Most of us can tell similar accounts of how we have followed technological growth through its shrinking. And this has not been limited to computer hardware: we have seen the same growth in capacity and physical shrinking in computer storage media, from the 500 kilobyte 8 inch floppy disks of a few years ago to 2 megabyte 3-1/2 inch floppies to 700 megabyte CD-ROMS to small digital tape cartridges that hold gigabytes. Other types of information technologies have also evolved in this way: television sets which were once huge consoles with vacuum tubes and a black and white screen can now fit in your pocket complete with a two inch color display.

There is every reason to believe that this trend of miniaturization will continue. As scientists and engineers continue to refine production methods and make more sophisticated components, we will see further miniaturization of the products we use now, old products made better, and new products made possible through this micro-engineering. The laws of nature, however, will eventually limit how much smaller products or components of products can be made using current techniques. The point will come when it will simply not be possible to make things any smaller through this top-down approach to manufacturing.

A new science has been born which may solve this problem, as well as many other problems previously regarded as unsolvable. That science is called molecular nanotechnology, defined as "thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter based on molecule-by-molecule control of products and byproducts; the products and processes of molecular manufacturing." (Drexler, 1991, p. 19) Nano means one-billionth, as in one-billionth of a second (nanosecond) or one-billionth of a meter (nanometer). In the world of molecular manufacturing, we will think in terms of nanomachines and nanomotors, and in the world of its products we will speak of nanocomputers and nanomedicine. (Ed. note: was Mork ahead of his time? "Nano, nano.") The challenge of research in nanotechnology will not be how to make things smaller, the top-down method, but how to make molecules and collections of molecules larger, a bottom-up approach.

Human beings have always tried to control the environment (i.e., matter) around them, but until recently have only been able to do so in a crude and visible fashion. It is a bit staggering to think of being able to control and manipulate matter at the molecular level, but in fact scientists have doing just that for a number of years. Chemists have been able to build larger molecules, and biotechnologists have been able to manipulate genes and proteins (hence genetic engineering and protein engineering). Molecular modeling through the use of computers is already firmly established, and more recently the techniques of virtual reality have enabled researchers to don gloves and goggles and actually walk around the image of a molecule and to maneuver two molecules together (molecular docking). (Rheingold, p. 14-15)

Nanomachines that are used for molecular manufacturing can already be found in nature, most prominently RNA and DNA, as well as enzymes which contribute to cell repair and reproduction and to the fabrication of proteins. And we already have man-made molecular machines such as artificial antibiotics which are "programmed" to seek out specific disease organisms and destroy them. The next step will be accomplished when scientists can manipulate the same molecules in different ways by changing inputs or stored instructions. Custom-built molecules which can process information and fabricate or manipulate other molecules can be used to assemble other molecular machines and could replicate themselves, just as in nature. Primitive nanoassemblers could build better assemblers, which could build even better assemblers, which could build a wide variety of products and accomplish a wide variety of tasks, which could alter the way that we live! The idea of molecular entities both reproducing themselves and also behaving as building blocks not only has models in nature but also in computer science. Many of us by now have had some experience with computer viruses which are usually premised on some form of self-replication. Researchers already write computer programs that have only the purpose of writing other, more advanced computer programs. Using tools to build better tools is an ancient tradition.

Nanocomputers might not be products of silicon and solder molecules: naturally occurring molecules can be induced to change state back and forth, acting as a switch, through pulsing laser light or minor electrical charges. Trillions of such molecules, whether natural or synthetic, could form a nanocomputer that would produce unimaginably vast storage and processing capabilities.

Nanotechnology was first proposed as a field of endeavor by the Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman when he suggested that someday it would be possible to put the entire 24 volume Encyclopaedia Britannica on the head of a pin. He demonstrated that theoretically, at least, such a feat was possible. "Biological systems can be exceedingly small, but they can do all kinds of marvelous things," said Feynman. "They can manufacture various substances, store information and walk around. Consider the possibility that we too can make an object very small that does what we want." (Ghosg) Some of what Feynman predicted has come true. With the invention by IBM researchers in Switzerland of the scanning tunnel microscope (STM) in 1979, it is possible to look at molecules, even atoms, and also to place them in precise positions. In April 1990, a team in the IBM Research Division placed thirty-five xenon atoms in a precise pattern and spelled out the letters "IBM". The logo was 60 billionths of an inch wide, or 13 millionths of the diameter of a human hair. (Woods)

In nanotechnological circles, the name that is most widely known is that of K. Eric Drexler, an MIT graduate and visiting professor at Stanford University. Drexler has written a number of technical journal articles and books on the subject including Engines of Creation (1986) and Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution (1991). (Nontechnical readers who wish for a better understanding of the subject are encouraged to read the books in reverse order of their publication. The latter text serves better as a general introduction, and the former is more detailed and abstract.) In both books, Drexler proposes a number of potential benefits of this new technology, some of them mind-boggling. He is also careful in both books to point out the potential hazards of molecular manipulation, some of which are not too hard to imagine. Several ideas follow.

The environment: Drexler suggests that molecular manufacturing will leave no waste and therefore no pollution. Molecules can be devised which will clean up the toxic wastes and other ground and water pollution produced in the 20th century. Other molecules will be able to consume the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and solve the problem of the greenhouse effect and holes in the ozone layer. Products made through nanotechnological means could be disassembled and therefore recycled. Molecular manufacturing will need to consume little to no natural resources and will use very little energy. Forest land and plains which have been cleared for lumber or for farming and grazing could be quickly restored.

Medicine: Nanorobots could be injected into the bloodstream and consume fatty cells or plaque in the walls of the blood vessels. They could also repair cell damage caused by cancer or AIDS. They could rebuild severed limbs and organs. Nanomedicine could reverse the effects of aging; we would not be able to live forever, but we could live a very long time (though, as Drexler points out, after several decades of bad TV we may long for the peace of the grave). Nanomouthwashes could eliminate gum disease and tooth decay. Nanomachines could act as security guards and attack any foreign entity in the body. And all could be programmed to leave the body through normal elimination when their work is complete.

Manufacturing: Almost any product we now use and many that we have never thought of could be made through molecular manufacturing. Materials would be stronger, more durable, very inexpensive, and could even be "smart" enough to self-repair tears or fraying. Factories with smokestacks would be a thing of the past. Housing, food, clothing, appliances, all would be cheap, abundant, and flawless.

Transportation: Lightweight and fast spacecraft could be made inexpensively, and space travel could be available to anyone. Molecular tunneling machines could rapidly and at low cost create thousands of miles of tunnels underground, paving the way for a national or international subway system with trains which could operate at aircraft or spacecraft speed. Automobiles, for those who still wanted one, would be very cheap, very light, and very safe. They would burn clean, inexpensive fuels very efficiently at high mileage. They could be loaded with all the luxury options anyone could ever want and still be easily affordable.

Computers and information technology: A desktop computer composed of trillions of nanocomputers would possess more power and speed than all of the world's computers of today put together. Nanocomputers could make possible three-dimensional images so realistic that they could be photographed. The virtual reality technologies of today and the near future would seem primitive compared to those made possible by nanocomputing. Research being done now into ubiquitous computing could lead, through nanocomputers, to a scenario much like we see in the TV series Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation in which one needs only to speak and the computer will respond to requests for information, for changes in temperature and lighting, for food, and so on. Advanced computing problems posed by artificial intelligence and hypertext systems would be easily solvable and in turn would contribute greatly to the easy use of nanocomputers. Cables resembling string could be run anywhere and would enable one to hook into a worldwide data network. Small devices the size of a pocket calculator could readily contain the information and knowledge of every volume in the Library of Congress.

There are, of course, negative uses to which this technology could be applied. It is important to keep in mind that, like money, any technology is neutral and should be seen as a tool. Like money, tools and technologies have no inherent good or evil built into them. It is the purposes to which we apply these tools that are good and evil, and since we human beings are fallible creatures, we have to safeguard against possible abuses. Military and intelligence applications come immediately to mind. Economic domination could be another danger. Any scenario which enables one person or group of people to have power and control over another has to be considered. Other hazards might include too much leisure and too much abundance: would we just get lazy and fat or would we use our wealth and time constructively? Would some problems that nanotechnology may not be able to solve, such as overpopulation, get worse because of it?

Because of the newness of the technology and the potential hazards it presents, there are many in the scientific community who argue that nanotechnology is neither possible nor desirable. Some of these arguments merit further discussion, and others are the products of naysaying. The specifics will not be covered here, but suffice it to say that there are also a great many highly respected researchers who take Drexler's claims very seriously and believe that nanotechnology is not only possible but inevitable. Research in nanotechnology is under discussion and in some cases under way in companies such as IBM, Du Pont, and AutoDesk (one of the five largest software companies in the US). A number of universities have also begun research programs with MIT leading the way. Japan has established highly visible programs at three research institutes and has at least five projects under the sponsorship of ERATO (Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology Organization) (Drexler, 1991, p. 112).

Where might librarians and information technologists fit in this rather fuzzy picture? First, it is safe to assume that information related occupations will continue to be important in such a world. Second, the possibilities of information and knowledge being available ubiquitously, whether by pocket libraries or access to worldwide data networks or by very powerful desktop computers, may lead us to examine not only our current roles but how those roles could be expanded. For one example, there are some in the education and information worlds today who propose that the existence of pocket calculators obviates the need for students to learn manual methods of computation -- as long as the student can learn to use the calculator, doing arithmetic by hand is not really necessary. (This in no way implies that mathematics should become obsolete -- concepts and theories still need to be taught.) Let's extrapolate that notion to the pocket library: if a student can have all the world's knowledge in her pocket, why should she spend 12 or 16 or 20 years of her life memorizing facts and figures? This in no way is meant to imply that education should become obsolete, but the emphasis could be on using education to teach students how to think, guiding them in creativity, and encouraging their curiosity and enthusiasm for learning. Librarians could play a much more direct role in the educational process by acting as guides through all that information in the pocket and might even replace traditional teachers.

For the technologists, the opportunities for shaping telecommunications and computing in a nanotechnological world are endless. It is up to us to insure that new information technologies will serve not only our needs and the needs of our immediate colleagues but also the needs of all people, similar to our profession's commitment to access to information. The quantity of information stored in pocket libraries and desktop computers will require that the information and knowledge be organized in a useful manner. Even if hypertext links are used, someone has to determine what those links are. Worldwide and ubiquitous data networks will mandate policy discussions far exceeding anything we are facing with the NREN. Some estimates predict that we will begin to see real progress and even products from nanotechnology in the next five to ten years. We must become knowledgeable about the implications of nanotechnology for our profession, and, as we have done with other issues such as access to information and the NREN, we must be sure that our voices are heard and that our expertise is included in the development of critical decisions along the way.

K. Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986).

K. Eric Drexler, Chris Peterson, and Gayle Pergamit, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1991).

Deborah Erickson, "Not Biochips? There May Yet Be Computers Made with Organic Molecules," Scientific American, 263:136-136 (November 1990).

Simson Garfinkel and K. Eric Drexler, "Critique of Nanotechnology: A Debate in Four Parts," Whole Earth Review, 67:104-113 (Summer 1990).

Pallab Ghosg, "Profit on a Pin Head: When Physicist Richard Feynman Dreamed of Putting the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Head of a Pin, He Gave Birth to the Science of Nanotechnology," Management Today, 140-141 (September 1989).

Howard Rheingold, Virtual Reality (New York: Summit, 1991).

Jon Roland, "Nanotechnology: The Promise and Peril of Ultratiny Machines," The Futurist, 25:29-35 (March-April 1991).

Paul Saffo, "Think Small (and Mechanical)," Personal Computing, 13:219- 221 (September 1989).

Kenan Woods, "The Micro Frontier," PC-Computing, 2:147-150 (September 1989).

Wendy Woods, "IBM Ushers in Age of Nanotechnology," Newsbytes, (April 7, 1990).