Gallery

Nanohorror

Posted on 14 Jul 2003 at 16:39

More worrying than surveillance dust is the potential of nanotechnology to take chemical and biological weapons to a new level of effectiveness. Buckyball fullerenes are being used as cages to hold chemically active molecules that will act as catalysts or environmental sensors. These could be used as surface coatings to detect or neutralise harmful chemicals. They might also be used to deliver the fragile molecules of potent poisons or biological agents. An alternative nanoweapon that has been suggested is the molecular disassembler, which works invisibly to degrade and destroy buildings, vehicles or whatever.

The military role of nanotechnology needn't be confined to actual nanoweapons, though. There's active research into so-called fourth-generation nuclear weapons that use tiny pellets of deuterium and tritium imploded by non-explosive means such as a laser beam or magnetic constriction. Since the yield is small, maybe less than a tonne of TNT equivalent, they aren't covered by current treaties on weapons of mass destruction. These bombs require extremely precise manufacturing and positioning on the scale of nanometres, which is why it's no coincidence that weapons laboratories, such as Sandia, have been at the forefront of MEMS research.

And, for the ultimate in believe-it-or-not technology, try this on for size. Last year, the US Army gave the Massachusetts Institute of Technology $50 million (£30m) to set up ISN (Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies). One of its prime aims will be to create new types of combat clothing using novel nanoparticles. Examples given at the launch of the Institute included paper-light bullet-proof armour; soft fabrics that can set like plaster over a broken limb or turn into a rock-hard forearm karate glove; a suit of light-deflecting nanoparticles that will render the wearer almost invisible; and leaping shoes that store energy and release it through tiny actuators, allowing soldiers to jump over obstacles with ease.

'Imagine,' enthused ISN director Professor Ned Thomas, 'the psychological impact upon a foe when encountering squads of seemingly invincible warriors protected by armour and endowed with superhuman capabilities, such as the ability to leap over 20ft walls.'

Political battlefield
All this emphasis on the bizarre and threatening uses of nanotechnology shouldn't obscure the potentially beneficial applications. Reducing the scale of computing improves all computers and chemically active nanoparticles may tackle pollution much more easily than any current solution - stronger tyres based on nanotubes and thinner, lower-powered flat-screen displays are also obviously desirable. Taking their lead from the movie Fantastic Voyage, nanotechnologists have long promised a future including invisible tools that will flow through the bloodstream removing plaque from artery walls and battling cancer cells. You can't argue with that.

Admittedly, some of the supposed benefits appear less compelling - Kris Pister at the University of California, tries to put a benign face on surveillance dust by suggesting it could be used to monitor a baby's breathing. Though it isn't clear why an invisible baby monitor would be so much better than a conventional one.

So far, unlike the battle over genetically modified crops, the arguments about nanotechnology have been relatively genteel. Many proponents of nanotechnology admit that it entails dangers, but argue that these can be managed and are far outweighed by the benefits. Many opponents concede that there will be benefits, but are willing to do without them because the potential risks appear so great. As neither side can prove that either the global risks or the boundless benefits will actually materialise, it all comes down to your point of view. But there's no doubt that the voices of doubt and doom have become increasingly common in the past few years, and they represent a much broader constituency than the traditional techno-sceptic community.