2003-05-19 02:55:01葉諼/bee/彭弼聲
【科學家的對話】他真的生氣了20030519
【科學家的對話】他真的生氣了—K. E. Drexler給Smalley的公開信
今天考完博士班，有點想鬆懈一下，這一陣子，雖然很忙，但天天看SARS的相關新聞，覺得人生很無常，也為那些不幸得病的人哀悼，前一陣子我不是要寫馬洛斯克嗎?對比於這次的事件，在之前的寫作計劃裡，人的疑懼，以及最後有點喜劇式的結尾，似乎不會同時出現，畢竟這種災厄，不是微觀巨觀的問題，而是一種銘記。
晚上看了幾個好久沒去的網站，結果發現一件很有意思的事，這可以寫一篇長長的文章呢…關於科學家的信念，以及科學家的席位(習味)問題。歷來科學家之間的對話與爭戰有不少，但是在奈米科技這個領域的，好像還沒有幾次。喔，要是我是K.E. Drexler，我會故意舉出一些占星術或者中國方士的故事作為文獻回顧，因為…………原來的公開信在以下的網站http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Letter.html
Drexler writes Smalley open letter on assemblers
Posted on Nanodot, April 20, 2003
Foresight Chairman K. Eric Drexler has sent Nobel laureate Richard Smalley an open letter to rebut Smalley's statements that molecular assemblers are not possible. The letter was also sent directly to several dozen leading researchers, decision makers, and journalists in the field. Reportedly Prof. Smalley has promised a response.(我們就等Smalley回吧)
Drexler wrote to Smalley:
Prof. Smalley:
I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of my work.(這句話真直接又不太客氣)
As you know, I introduced the term "nanotechnology" in the mid-1980s to describe advanced capabilities based on molecular assemblers: proposed devices able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision. Since "nanotechnology" is now used label diverse current activities, I have attempted to minimize confusion by relabelling the longer term goal "molecular manufacturing". The consequences of molecular manufacturing are widely understood to be enormous, posing opportunities and dangers of first-rank importance to the long-term security of the United States and the world. Theoretical studies of its implementation and capabilities are therefore of more than academic interest, and are akin to pre-Sputnik studies of spaceflight, or to pre-Manhattan-Project calculations regarding nuclear chain reactions. (其實引進Nanotechology這個字的是不是Drexler應該值得商榷，久保1953指出物質重組的性質(?)，1974，日本科學家Norio Taniguchi指出微米以下的研究是納米，美國人認為是費曼1959的演講成為濫觴，呵呵，另外一種故事，不過Drexler1986的Engine of Creation的確指出一種分子級製造的趨勢，他的反駁不無道理，理論研究的成真與落實比起學院的學術興趣的確要來得’前期’一點)
You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it. From what I hear of a press conference at the recent NNI conference, you continue to do so. In particular, you have described molecular assemblers as having multiple "fingers" that manipulate individual atoms and suffer from so-called "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems, and you have dismissed their feasibility on this basis [1]. I find this puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither have nor need these "Smalley fingers" [2]. The task of positioning reactive molecules simply doesn't require them.(證諸往史，也可見利用權力或位勢而排除異己的例子，NNI是? ，fat and sticky，哈，有點苛的形容詞，不過，Smalley Fingers暗諭這種觀點無非是藉學術名氣打壓別人?)
I have a twenty year history of technical publications in this area [3 - 12] and consistently describe systems quite unlike the straw man you attack. My proposal is, and always has been, to guide the chemical synthesis of complex structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by manipulating individual atoms. This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis, and before scientific audiences around the world. It rests on well-established physical principles.(這一段說的很有意思，藉著化學反應機制與物理學說的結合，而不是純粹只是原子的操控)
The impossibility of "Smalley fingers" has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you.(這段如果這樣表達，喔，真素謝謝你喔，不然人家還不知道我的名字是什麼跟我是幹什麼的……)
You apparently fear that my warnings of long-term dangers [13] will hinder funding of current research, stating that "We should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology....NNI should go forward" [14]. However, I have from the beginning argued that the potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by the U.S and its allies imperative [13]. Many have found these arguments persuasive. In an open discussion, I believe they will prevail. In contrast, your attempt to calm the public through false claims of impossibility will inevitably fail, placing your colleagues at risk of a destructive backlash.(回想建造加速器計劃的終止也是因為錢的分配!)
Your misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion of genuine long-term security concerns. If you value the accuracy of information used in decisions of importance to national and global security, I urge you to seek some way to help set the record straight. Endorsing calls for an independent scientific review of molecular manufacturing concepts [15] would be constructive.
A scientist whose research I respect has observed that "when a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." The scientist quoted is, of course, yourself [16].(呵呵，我怎麼都會想到K. Popper的否定實證論，還有以子之茅，攻子之盾)
K. Eric Drexler Chairman, Foresight Institute
----------------------------
1. Smalley, R. E. (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots - How soon will we see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other molecular nanotechologists? The simple answer is never. Scientific American, September, 68-69. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~smalleyg/rick's%20publications/SA285-76.pdf
2. Drexler, K. E., D. Forrest, R. A. Freitas Jr., J. S. Hall, N. Jacobstein, T. McKendree, R. Merkle, C. Peterson (2001) A Debate About Assemblers. http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html.
3. Drexler, K. E. (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natnl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. 78:5275-5278. http://www.imm.org/PNAS.html
4. Drexler, K. E. (1987) Nanomachinery: Atomically precise gears and bearings. IEEE Micro Robots and Teleoperators Workshop. Hyannis, Massachusetts: IEEE.
5. Drexler, K. E., and J. S. Foster. (1990) Synthetic tips. Nature. 343:600.
6. Drexler, K. E. (1991) Molecular tip arrays for molecular imaging and nanofabrication. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology-B. 9:1394-1397.
7. Drexler K. E., (1991) Molecular Machinery and Manufacturing with Applications to Computation. MIT doctoral thesis.
8. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Bookstore.html#anchor1025139
9. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Molecular Directions in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology (2:113).
10. Drexler, K. E. (1994) Molecular machines: physical principles and implementation strategies. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure (23:337-405).
11. Drexler, K. E. (1995) Molecular manufacturing: perspectives on the ultimate limits of fabrication. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A (353:323-331).
12. Drexler, K. E. (1999) Building molecular machine systems. Trends in Biotechnology, 17: 5-7. http://www.imm.org/Reports/Rep008.html
13. Drexler, K. E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html
14. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in: W. Schulz, Crafting A National Nanotechnology Effort. Chemical & Engineering News, October 16. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanotechnology/7842/7842government.html
15. Peterson, C. L. Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 9 April 2003. http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm
16. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in N. Thompson, Downsizing: Nanotechnology---Why you should sweat the small stuff . The Washington Monthly Online, October. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.thompson.html
今天考完博士班，有點想鬆懈一下，這一陣子，雖然很忙，但天天看SARS的相關新聞，覺得人生很無常，也為那些不幸得病的人哀悼，前一陣子我不是要寫馬洛斯克嗎?對比於這次的事件，在之前的寫作計劃裡，人的疑懼，以及最後有點喜劇式的結尾，似乎不會同時出現，畢竟這種災厄，不是微觀巨觀的問題，而是一種銘記。
晚上看了幾個好久沒去的網站，結果發現一件很有意思的事，這可以寫一篇長長的文章呢…關於科學家的信念，以及科學家的席位(習味)問題。歷來科學家之間的對話與爭戰有不少，但是在奈米科技這個領域的，好像還沒有幾次。喔，要是我是K.E. Drexler，我會故意舉出一些占星術或者中國方士的故事作為文獻回顧，因為…………原來的公開信在以下的網站http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Letter.html
Drexler writes Smalley open letter on assemblers
Posted on Nanodot, April 20, 2003
Foresight Chairman K. Eric Drexler has sent Nobel laureate Richard Smalley an open letter to rebut Smalley's statements that molecular assemblers are not possible. The letter was also sent directly to several dozen leading researchers, decision makers, and journalists in the field. Reportedly Prof. Smalley has promised a response.(我們就等Smalley回吧)
Drexler wrote to Smalley:
Prof. Smalley:
I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of my work.(這句話真直接又不太客氣)
As you know, I introduced the term "nanotechnology" in the mid-1980s to describe advanced capabilities based on molecular assemblers: proposed devices able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision. Since "nanotechnology" is now used label diverse current activities, I have attempted to minimize confusion by relabelling the longer term goal "molecular manufacturing". The consequences of molecular manufacturing are widely understood to be enormous, posing opportunities and dangers of first-rank importance to the long-term security of the United States and the world. Theoretical studies of its implementation and capabilities are therefore of more than academic interest, and are akin to pre-Sputnik studies of spaceflight, or to pre-Manhattan-Project calculations regarding nuclear chain reactions. (其實引進Nanotechology這個字的是不是Drexler應該值得商榷，久保1953指出物質重組的性質(?)，1974，日本科學家Norio Taniguchi指出微米以下的研究是納米，美國人認為是費曼1959的演講成為濫觴，呵呵，另外一種故事，不過Drexler1986的Engine of Creation的確指出一種分子級製造的趨勢，他的反駁不無道理，理論研究的成真與落實比起學院的學術興趣的確要來得’前期’一點)
You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it. From what I hear of a press conference at the recent NNI conference, you continue to do so. In particular, you have described molecular assemblers as having multiple "fingers" that manipulate individual atoms and suffer from so-called "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems, and you have dismissed their feasibility on this basis [1]. I find this puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither have nor need these "Smalley fingers" [2]. The task of positioning reactive molecules simply doesn't require them.(證諸往史，也可見利用權力或位勢而排除異己的例子，NNI是? ，fat and sticky，哈，有點苛的形容詞，不過，Smalley Fingers暗諭這種觀點無非是藉學術名氣打壓別人?)
I have a twenty year history of technical publications in this area [3 - 12] and consistently describe systems quite unlike the straw man you attack. My proposal is, and always has been, to guide the chemical synthesis of complex structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by manipulating individual atoms. This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis, and before scientific audiences around the world. It rests on well-established physical principles.(這一段說的很有意思，藉著化學反應機制與物理學說的結合，而不是純粹只是原子的操控)
The impossibility of "Smalley fingers" has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you.(這段如果這樣表達，喔，真素謝謝你喔，不然人家還不知道我的名字是什麼跟我是幹什麼的……)
You apparently fear that my warnings of long-term dangers [13] will hinder funding of current research, stating that "We should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology....NNI should go forward" [14]. However, I have from the beginning argued that the potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by the U.S and its allies imperative [13]. Many have found these arguments persuasive. In an open discussion, I believe they will prevail. In contrast, your attempt to calm the public through false claims of impossibility will inevitably fail, placing your colleagues at risk of a destructive backlash.(回想建造加速器計劃的終止也是因為錢的分配!)
Your misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion of genuine long-term security concerns. If you value the accuracy of information used in decisions of importance to national and global security, I urge you to seek some way to help set the record straight. Endorsing calls for an independent scientific review of molecular manufacturing concepts [15] would be constructive.
A scientist whose research I respect has observed that "when a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." The scientist quoted is, of course, yourself [16].(呵呵，我怎麼都會想到K. Popper的否定實證論，還有以子之茅，攻子之盾)
K. Eric Drexler Chairman, Foresight Institute
----------------------------
1. Smalley, R. E. (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots - How soon will we see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other molecular nanotechologists? The simple answer is never. Scientific American, September, 68-69. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~smalleyg/rick's%20publications/SA285-76.pdf
2. Drexler, K. E., D. Forrest, R. A. Freitas Jr., J. S. Hall, N. Jacobstein, T. McKendree, R. Merkle, C. Peterson (2001) A Debate About Assemblers. http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html.
3. Drexler, K. E. (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natnl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. 78:5275-5278. http://www.imm.org/PNAS.html
4. Drexler, K. E. (1987) Nanomachinery: Atomically precise gears and bearings. IEEE Micro Robots and Teleoperators Workshop. Hyannis, Massachusetts: IEEE.
5. Drexler, K. E., and J. S. Foster. (1990) Synthetic tips. Nature. 343:600.
6. Drexler, K. E. (1991) Molecular tip arrays for molecular imaging and nanofabrication. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology-B. 9:1394-1397.
7. Drexler K. E., (1991) Molecular Machinery and Manufacturing with Applications to Computation. MIT doctoral thesis.
8. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Bookstore.html#anchor1025139
9. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Molecular Directions in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology (2:113).
10. Drexler, K. E. (1994) Molecular machines: physical principles and implementation strategies. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure (23:337-405).
11. Drexler, K. E. (1995) Molecular manufacturing: perspectives on the ultimate limits of fabrication. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A (353:323-331).
12. Drexler, K. E. (1999) Building molecular machine systems. Trends in Biotechnology, 17: 5-7. http://www.imm.org/Reports/Rep008.html
13. Drexler, K. E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html
14. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in: W. Schulz, Crafting A National Nanotechnology Effort. Chemical & Engineering News, October 16. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanotechnology/7842/7842government.html
15. Peterson, C. L. Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 9 April 2003. http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm
16. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in N. Thompson, Downsizing: Nanotechnology---Why you should sweat the small stuff . The Washington Monthly Online, October. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0010.thompson.html
來點學術研究