Nowhere is this division clearer than in the studies being performed by the UK’s Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering, and the studies required by the new 21st Century Nanotechnology Bill passed by the US administration last week.
The US act includes measures to “ensure that ethical, legal, environmental and other appropriate societal concerns, including the potential use of nanotechnology in enhancing human intelligence and in developing artificial intelligence (AI) that exceeds human capacity, are considered during the development of nanotechnology.”
This emphasis on human intelligence and AI is repeated later in the bill, with calls for a one-time study on the responsible development of nanotechnology “including, but not limited to, self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices; the release of such machines in natural environments; encryption; the development of defensive technologies; the use of nanotechnology in the enhancement of human intelligence; and the use of nanotechnology in developing AI.”
On the other hand, the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering study commissioned by the UK government contents itself with attempting to:
• define what is meant by nanoscience and nanotechnology;
• summarize the current scientific knowledge on nanotechnology;
• identify applications of nanotechnology, both currently and potentially, with indications of when they might be developed;
• consider environmental, health and safety, ethical and social implications of the technology, both now and in the future; and
• suggest areas where additional regulation should be considered.
The major difference between these two studies is that the US bill presupposes that molecular nanotechnology, of the sort involving nanoscale machines, is already feasible and has jumped immediately to assessing its impact, whereas the Royal Society study is open minded about what nanotechnology is.
So are we seeing a transatlantic schism in the nanotechnology world? Certainly nowhere in European legislation or research is there a mention of enhancing human intelligence or linking nanotechnology with AI.
One thing we often complain about is European scepticism in the face of new ideas, compared with the willingness of the US to adopt new technologies. We have seen this lead to political and economic difficulties with both GMOs and the Internet in recent years. However, in this case the bottom line is that, given the comparable levels of funding between the US and EU, the US nanotechnology efforts are being needlessly diluted while, just for a change, Europe seems to be getting on with applying nanoscience to European industry. Diverting nanotechnology funding to unconnected areas may be a pyrrhic victory for the lobbyist, and looks very much like an own goal by the US.
Brussels 1, Washington 0.