Risks from Atomically Precise Manufacturing

Editor’s note: This article was published under our former name, Open Philanthropy. Some content may be outdated. You can see our latest writing here.

This is a writeup of a shallow investigation, a brief look at an area that we use to decide how to prioritize further research.

In a nutshell

Background:

Atomically precise manufacturing is a proposed technology for assembling macroscopic objects defined by data files by using very small parts to build the objects with atomic precision using earth-abundant materials. There is little consensus about its feasibility, how to develop it, or when, if ever, it might be developed. This page focuses primarily on potential risks from atomically precise manufacturing. We may separately examine its potential benefits and development pathways in more detail in the future.

What is the problem?

If created, atomically precise manufacturing would likely radically lower costs and expand capabilities in computing, materials, medicine, and other areas. However, it would likely also make it substantially easier to develop new weapons and quickly and inexpensively produce them at scale with an extremely small manufacturing base. In addition, some argue that it would help make it possible to create tiny self-replicating machines that could consume the Earth’s resources in a scenario known as “grey goo,” but such machines would have to be designed deliberately and we are highly uncertain of whether it would be possible to make them.

What are possible interventions?

A philanthropist could seek to influence research and development directions or support policy research. Potential goals could include achieving consensus regarding the feasibility of atomically precise manufacturing, identifying promising development strategies, and/or mitigating risks from possible military applications. We are highly uncertain about how to weigh the possible risks and benefits from accelerating progress toward APM and about the effectiveness of policy research in the absence of greater consensus regarding the feasibility of the technology.

Who else is working on it?

A few small non-profit organizations have explicitly focused on research, development, and policy analysis related to atomically precise manufacturing. Atomically precise manufacturing receives little explicit attention in academia, but potential enabling technologies such as DNA nanotechnology and scanning probe microscopy are active fields of research.

Background

Terminology

There are a number of related, but distinct, concepts discussed in the context of atomically precise manufacturing, including:^[1]“’APM’ is roughly synonymous with the older term ‘molecular manufacturing,’ and is often associated with ‘molecular nanotechnology’ (a broad and less well defined concept), or ‘nanotechnology,’ a term that now often refers to substantially unrelated areas of materials science and … Continue reading

• Nanotechnology
• Molecular nanotechnology
• Atomically precise manufacturing (APM, which is roughly synonymous with ‘molecular manufacturing’)

Nanotechnology

According to the definition set by the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative:^[2] NNI Website, What It Is and How It Works, pg 1.

‘Nanotechnology’ is used in a broad sense to include APM, but also many rather different products and R&D projects. Nanomaterials (such as carbon nanotubes), DNA origami, and scanning tunneling microscopes are all considered nanotechnology, but they are not considered atomically precise manufacturing (as defined below) because they do not allow for programmable manufacturing of macroscopic structures.

Molecular nanotechnology

‘Molecular nanotechnology’ is a concept associated with Dr. Drexler’s 1986 book, Engines of Creation. Our understanding of this concept is highly limited, though we understand that:

• It involves using very small, mobile ‘assemblers’ to bond atoms into desired stable patterns, and that they could be used to “build almost anything that the laws of nature allow to exist.”^[3]“These second-generation nanomachines – built of more than just proteins – will do all that proteins can do, and more.[…]They will be able to bond atoms together in virtually any stable pattern, adding a few at a time to the surface of a workpiece until a complex structure is … Continue reading
• It has been explained with less technical detail than APM, and Dr. Drexler regards his analysis of it as more uncertain than his analysis of APM.^[4]“Engines of Creation aimed to estimate a boundary between what seems likely to be possible in the future and what does not, considering everything that could be made by manufacturing systems that could be made by manufacturing systems…that could be made by manufacturing systems that could be … Continue reading

On the first point, Dr. Drexler has received criticism from Richard Jones (a Professor of Physics at the University of Sheffield), Richard Smalley (a Nobel laureate in Chemistry), and the Royal Society.^[5]“Drexler wrote a popular and bestselling book ‘Engines of Creation’ [sic], published in 1986, which launched a futuristic and radical vision of a nanotechnology that transformed all aspects of society. In Drexler’s vision, which explicitly invoked Feynman’s lecture, tiny assemblers would … Continue reading However, Dr. Drexler has suggested to us that these criticisms are based on misunderstandings of his work.^[6] Based on materials from conversations not documented in public notes. For example, he has described the idea of “literally building ‘atom by atom’ ” as a “technically inaccurate popularization of the idea of atomically precise manufacturing.”^[7]“The idea of literally building ‘atom by atom’ is itself a technically inaccurate popularization of the idea of atomically precise fabrication—chemical processes routinely yield atomically precise results, yet never juggle individual atoms. Ironically, the popular idea that APM would … Continue reading In Engines of Creation Dr. Drexler noted that molecular nanotechnology “will not be able to build everything that could exist.” In conversation with us, Dr. Drexler said that atomically precise manufacturing—which is the focus of this investigation—”does not include the concept of a ‘universal assembler’ capable of making any possible object.”^[8]“Dr. Drexler notes that although he used the term ‘universal assembler’ in a section heading in Engines of Creation, he did not argue that assemblers could be universal in the strong sense that a Turing machine is universal, and noted that assemblers ‘will not be able to build everything … Continue reading

Atomically precise manufacturing

In a conversation with us, Dr. Drexler characterized APM as follows:^[9] GiveWell’s non-verbatim summary of a conversation with Eric Drexler, January 23, 2015.

In Nanosystems, Dr. Drexler proposes the following applications of APM:^[10] Drexler 1992, Nanosystems, pg 1. In personal communication, Dr. Drexler stated that the correct figure for tensile strengths of macroscopic components was 5 x 10^10 Pa, and that the figure of 5 x 10^10 GPa originally occurring in Nanosystems was a typographical error.

Dr. Drexler also argued that these nanofactories could be used to quickly make additional nanofactories.^[11]“Building a nanofactory using another nanofactory A nanofactory could manufacture another nanofactory, most likely by producing several separate pieces that would fit together into a new nanofactory. Dr. Ralph Merkle has designed one potential method for this. On the smallest scale inside a … Continue reading This helps clarify the definition of APM above, though we do not fully understand the significance (or even the meaning) of many of these proposed applications. However, our understanding is that these capabilities include extremely precise manufacturing, very powerful computers, very stiff materials, and fast assembly of macroscopic objects from raw materials.

Our investigation focused on APM rather than nanotechnology or molecular nanotechnology because:

• We are aware of arguments that APM and molecular nanotechnology could pose global catastrophic risks (see “What is the problem?”), but are not aware of arguments that other forms of nanotechnology could pose global catastrophic risks.
• According to Dr. Drexler, there is stronger evidence for the feasibility of APM than the feasibility of molecular nanotechnology (as noted above).

Potential development pathways for APM

Progress toward APM may proceed along two different pathways:

• ‘Soft’ approaches using biomolecular materials capable of organizing themselves into desired three-dimensional structures, such as DNA nanotechnology. DNA origami, in which DNA self-assembles in solution to form desired 3D molecular structures, is one example of DNA nanotechnology.^[12] Based on materials from conversations not documented in public notes.
• ‘Hard’ pathways such as ‘scanning probe microscopy,’ where microscopes are used to pick up individual atoms and put them in desired arrangements, one by one. For example, IBM researchers used scanning tunneling microscopes (a special type of scanning probe microscope) to spell out “IBM” on a two-dimensional surface with individual atoms, as shown here.

There is disagreement about which path is more promising. People who think the soft pathway is more likely to yield progress include:

• Eric Drexler,
• Richard Jones, and
• Adam Marblestone, scientific advisor to the Open Philanthropy Project and Director of Scientific Architecting at the MIT Synthetic Neurobiology Group.

Philip Moriarty, a Professor of Physics at the University of Nottingham, was more enthusiastic about the hard route.^[13]“The phrase ‘soft nanotechnology’ is used to refer to nanoscale objects designed with the principles at work in subcellular biological systems in mind. This contrasts with ‘hard nanotechnology,’ in which researchers attempt to extrapolate from the principles of mechanical engineering to … Continue reading

The following provides additional detail on Dr. Drexler’s preferred development pathway for APM:^[14] GiveWell’s non-verbatim summary of a conversation with Eric Drexler, January 23, 2015.

Dr. Drexler envisions using these soft nanomachines to create the more mature form of APM described above.^[15]“Transition from solution-based, soft nanosystems to dry, hard nanofactories In a nanofactory that does not transport its feedstock materials in solution, transport of molecules must instead be done mechanically, and this would require considerable complexity and progress along the technological … Continue reading We are highly uncertain about how promising these development pathways are, and have not closely investigated them.

Will it eventually be possible to develop APM?

There is no scientific consensus on whether APM is feasible in principle, and significant skepticism has been expressed in some quarters. We have not carefully considered the object-level merits of the arguments on both sides of this issue—which we believe would require substantial additional work—and therefore we focus on the perspectives of the people we interviewed and the scientific sources we considered.

The feasibility of atomically precise manufacturing has been reviewed in a report published by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report was initiated in response to a Congressional request, and the result was included in the first triennial review of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative.^[16]“In response to a directive from the U.S. Congress, the National Research Council established the Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The task to be addressed by the committee was set forth in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Section 5, Public … Continue reading It discusses APM for 4 pages under the heading, “Technical Feasibility of Site-Specific Chemistry for Large-Scale Manufacturing.”^[17] National Academy of Sciences 2006, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, pgs 106-109.  While the committee states that “many scientists foresee a long-term future in which a variety of strategies, tools, and processes allow nearly any stable chemical structure to be built atom by atom or molecule by molecule from the bottom up,”^[18] National Academy of Sciences 2006, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, pg 106.  the report was inconclusive regarding the technical feasibility of APM. It noted that Dr. Drexler’s work was hard to evaluate because its questions—about the in-principle feasibility of potential future technologies—are “currently outside the mainstream of both conventional science (designed to seek new knowledge) and conventional engineering (usually concerned with the design of things that can be built more or less immediately).”^[19]“The committee found the evaluation of the feasibility of these ideas to be difficult because of the lack of experimental demonstrations of many of the key underlying concepts. The technical arguments make use of accepted scientific knowledge but constitute a ‘theoretical analysis demonstrating … Continue reading The report did not identify specific technical flaws with Dr. Drexler’s theoretical calculations. However, it did not regard these calculations as a reliable basis for predicting the potential capabilities of future manufacturing systems, stating that “the eventually attainable range of chemical reaction cycles, error rates, speed of operation, and thermodynamic efficiencies of such bottom-up manufacturing systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time.”^[20]“Although theoretical calculations can be made today, the eventually attainable range of chemical reaction cycles, error rates, speed of operation, and thermodynamic efficiencies of such bottom-up manufacturing systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Thus, the eventually attainable … Continue reading Despite this uncertainty, the NAS report recommended research funding for experimental demonstrations that link to abstract models of APM and guide long-term vision related to APM.^[21]“Finally, the optimum research paths that might lead to systems which greatly exceed the thermodynamic efficiencies and other capabilities of biological systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Research funding that is based on the ability of investigators to produce experimental … Continue reading

A Royal Society report was dismissive of the feasibility of ‘molecular manufacturing,’ stating that they had “seen no evidence of the possibility of such nanoscale machines in the peer-reviewed literature, or interest in their development from the mainstream scientific community or industry.”^[22]“The original concept of molecular manufacturing described by Dr Eric Drexler, Chairman of the Foresight Institute, imagined the synthesis of materials and objects by a mechanical ‘assembler’; that is, a machine with the ability make any object by selecting atoms from the environment and … Continue reading However, like the NAS report, this report focused primarily on other aspects of nanotechnology rather than APM. Only pages 28 and 109 discuss concepts related to APM, and those pages only cite critical correspondence between Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley, one paper co-authored by Chris Phoenix (Co-Founder and Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) and Eric Drexler, and the opinion of George Whitesides (a Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University).^[23]The entire discussion of page 28 reads as follows: “The fact that (albeit very rudimentary) structures can be fabricated atom-by-atom has lead to speculation that tiny nanoscale machines could be made which could be used in parallel to manufacture materials atom-by-atom. The idea is to fabricate … Continue reading Moreover, these pages seem to be focused on concepts that we and Drexler associate with molecular nanotechnology rather than molecular manufacturing/APM,^[24]“Dr. Drexler notes that although he used the term ‘universal assembler’ in a section heading in Engines of Creation, he did not argue that assemblers could be universal in the strong sense that a Turing machine is universal, and noted that assemblers ‘will not be able to build everything … Continue reading so it is unclear whether these critiques carry over to APM.

The people we interviewed generally found it plausible that some form of atomically precise manufacturing was feasible in principle.^[25]“Molecular manufacturing appears to be compatible, in principle, with the known laws of physics. Biological molecular machines provide a proof of concept for roughly analogous, although not completely analogous, types of capabilities. Many specific aspects of the visions outlined by Drexler and … Continue reading However, some of them also expressed skepticism about the feasibility of some aspects of APM. For example:

• Prof. Moriarty suggested that molecular manufacturing would only be feasible with a limited range of materials,^[26]“Question: So you are still a skeptic of the concept of molecular manufacturing? Answer: I am a skeptic. I believe that the concept of molecular manufacturing – of creating macroscopic objects atom by atom for any material, is flawed. I do not believe that this technique can be scaled-up to … Continue reading though we are uncertain about the extent to which this is a disagreement with Dr. Drexler, who only discusses a limited range of materials in the context of APM/molecular manufacturing (see Drexler’s definition of APM above).
• Prof. Jones was skeptical of the feasibility of developing ‘hard’ nanosystems from ‘soft’ nanosystems.^[27]“Unlike Dr. Drexler, however, Prof. Jones is skeptical of the potential to develop ‘hard’ nanomachines from ‘soft’ nanomachines. In Prof. Jones view, it’s completely unclear how we would make that transition, but also impossible to rule it out on specific technical … Continue reading

We have an incomplete sense of which aspects of APM (such as range of materials, range of possible structures, size of structures created, speed of production, and capacity for self-replication) the people we spoke with thought were realistic, and which they did not.

Dr. Drexler’s most notable individual critic was Richard Smalley, who had an open, critical correspondence with Dr. Drexler in Chemical & Engineering News. We did not thoroughly review the correspondence between Dr. Drexler and Dr. Smalley, but no one we spoke with suggested to us that the correspondence was conclusive regarding the feasibility of APM.^[28]For example, Richard Jones, a skeptic regarding molecular nanotechnology, wrote: “The most high profile opponent of Drexlerian nanotechnology (MNT) is certainly Richard Smalley; he’s a brilliant chemist who commands a great deal of attention because of his Nobel prize, and his polemics are … Continue reading We are not aware of any specific, generally accepted, published scientific proof or refutation regarding the feasibility of APM.

When might APM be developed?

The timeline for APM development is controversial. Eric Drexler and Chris Phoenix—who had the shortest development timelines among people we spoke with—suggested that, given substantial investment and agreement about development pathways, it might be possible to develop atomically precise manufacturing—of a kind that could pose substantial risks or significantly change society—within a decade.^[29]“However, there are widespread misconceptions about the nature and in-principle feasibility of such systems, R&D projects are generally focused on shorter-term issues, and there is little coordinated effort toward developing these systems. Without a change in these perceptions and research … Continue reading The other people we spoke with (Philip Moriarty, Richard Jones, and Adam Marblestone) hold that atomically precise manufacturing advanced enough to pose substantial risks or significantly change society is further in the future.^[30]“Risks from molecular manufacturing seem relatively improbable and distant, although evaluating them can be difficult because the future of the technology is so uncertain. It is extremely unlikely that risks from molecular manufacturing as such, such as ‘grey goo’ and international … Continue reading This is consistent with the NAS report’s conclusion that development pathways for APM were unclear. Because APM is a multifaceted concept that lacks a precise definition, we are uncertain about the extent to which the people we spoke with disagree about when different aspects of APM will reach different levels of capability.

Unless APM is developed in a secret “Manhattan Project”—and there is disagreement about how plausible that is^[31]“Manhattan Project Under this scenario, one or more governments would secretly develop the technology. A government could simultaneously develop several component technologies. It could also use a ‘design-ahead’ approach, in which designs are made in advance for use as soon as necessary … Continue reading —the people we spoke with believe it would be extremely unlikely for an observer closely watching the field to be surprised by a sudden increase in potentially dangerous APM capabilities.^[32]“People who are watching the field and know what to look for would be unlikely to be caught off guard even by rapid developments in atomically precise manufacturing. While development could be surprisingly fast, it would be possible to observe the substantial advances in various capabilities of … Continue reading

What is the problem?

Is there insufficient work on, and progress toward, APM?

According to Dr. Drexler, lack of consensus about feasibility and implementation pathways is stalling progress in development toward APM.^[33]“It can be argued that it will eventually be possible to implement nanosystems capable of programmable, high-throughput, atomically precise manufacturing. However, there are widespread misconceptions about the nature and in-principle feasibility of such systems, R&D projects are generally … Continue reading At the same time, Prof. Jones argues that experimental work by nanoscientists has a direct bearing on Dr. Drexler’s proposals in Nanosystems,^[34]“A widely held view in the MNT [molecular nanotechnology] community is that very little research has been done in pursuit of the Drexlerian project since the publication of Nanosystems. This is certainly true in the sense that science funding bodies haven’t supported an overtly Drexlerian … Continue reading and that progress in the field has been slow primarily because of the inherent difficulty of the science (though he also acknowledges some institutional challenges to receiving funding for ambitious, uncertain research projects).^[35]“He thinks slow progress in the field has resulted primarily from how challenging the science is, not from a concerted effort to limit funding. For example, Don Eigler attracted interest in his atomic force microscopy (AFM) work. People invested in developing the technology, but the research did … Continue reading We are highly uncertain about the extent to which progress toward APM is held back by resolvable uncertainty about feasibility and implementation pathways and the extent to which it would be desirable to accelerate progress toward APM (given the potential risks discussed below).

What are the potential risks from APM?

APM and weapons development and production

If APM were developed, it would likely be substantially easier to create new weapons and quickly and inexpensively produce them at scale. Our understanding is that APM would make this possible because:^[36]“Advanced atomically precise manufacturing has the potential for an extraordinary range of beneficial applications, but would also enable the development of new and powerful weapons.” GiveWell’s non-verbatim summary of a conversation with Eric Drexler, October 8, 2014. “Mr. Phoenix is most … Continue reading

• As discussed above, APM would allow for the manufacturing of a superset of the products of modern industry using abundant feedstocks.
• Nanofactories could be used to produce additional nanofactories (using the same feedstocks).
• APM might speed prototyping and product development because factories could immediately build parts on site, leading to a faster design/prototype/test cycle.

We would guess some especially concerning military applications would include new types of drones and centrifuges for enriching uranium that would be much easier to produce.^[37] Based on materials from conversations not documented in public notes.

In addition to the direct use of the weapons above, some related risks include:

• The possibility that the above capabilities could disrupt geopolitics, including deterrence relationships. For example, Chris Phoenix suggested that there could be an arms race related to this technology, or that one nation might want to forcibly prevent another from gaining advanced APM.^[38]“These advanced capabilities could, if realized, result in geopolitical uncertainty and instability. For instance, if one nation had a sufficient lead in APM capabilities, it’s possible that rapid exponential growth in their supply of new weapons could give them a decisive military advantage … Continue reading
• The possibility that an individual or small group could use nanofactories to cheaply mass-produce weapons, enabling terrorist organizations.^[39] Based on materials from conversations not documented in public notes.

Grey goo

‘Grey goo’ is a proposed scenario in which tiny self-replicating machines outcompete organic life and rapidly consume the earth’s resources in order to make more copies of themselves.^[40]“The early transistorized computers soon beat the most advanced vacuum-tube computers because they were based on superior devices. For the same reason, early assembler-based replicators could beat the most advanced modern organisms. ‘Plants’ with ‘leaves’ no more efficient than today’s … Continue reading According to Dr. Drexler, a grey goo scenario could not happen by accident; it would require deliberate design.^[41]“Dr. Drexler suggests that the nature of the technologies (essentially small-scale chemistry and mechanical devices) creates no risk from large scale unintended physical consequences of APM. In particular the popular ‘grey goo’ scenario involving self-replicating, organism-like nanostructures … Continue reading Both Drexler and Phoenix have argued that such runaway replicators are, in principle, a physical possibility, and Phoenix has even argued that it’s likely that someone will eventually try to make grey goo. However, they believe that other risks from APM are (i) more likely, and (ii) very likely to be relevant before risks from grey goo, and are therefore more worthy of attention.^[42]“There has been some popular concern over whether advances in APM could result in a doomsday scenario referred to as ‘grey goo.’ Mr. Phoenix does not think this is the main threat from nanotechnology, in part because making it would serve no practical purpose and would require a range of … Continue reading Similarly, Prof. Jones and Dr. Marblestone have argued that a ‘grey goo’ catastrophe is a distant, and perhaps unlikely, possibility.^[43]“ ‘Grey goo’ is a doomsday scenario in which self-replicating nanofactories consume all the earth’s resources. Dr. Marblestone thinks grey goo is unlikely to be a risk for at least decades because self-replication and use of general feedstock – both essential for grey goo – are … Continue reading We are highly uncertain about:

• The in-principle feasibility and difficulty of grey goo,
• The extent to which APM would assist in creating grey goo, and
• Whether, if it is feasible, anyone would intentionally develop grey goo.

What are the possible interventions?

A philanthropist working in this area might:

• Help develop an academic consensus regarding the feasibility of APM and possible development pathways. This would likely be accomplished by convening meetings, commissioning feasibility research, and communicating findings. Similar efforts have faced challenges in the past.^[44]“In the short term, a philanthropist could organize meetings aiming to: Assess the feasibility of advanced atomically precise manufacturing, Assess proposed development pathways toward atomically precise manufacturing (especially ‘soft’ pathways involving structural DNA nanotechnology and … Continue reading
• Support policy research related to the development of atomically precise manufacturing. Such research could consider the goals of developing atomically precise manufacturing in addition to risks. However, such research may have limited impact in the absence of greater consensus about the feasibility and timeline of atomically precise manufacturing, and might better be left until such consensus is established.^[45]“Significant efforts to promote policy-oriented research related to atomically precise manufacturing would be premature prior to more credible and widely accepted assessments of the feasibility of the technology. In the absence of more widespread acceptance of central ideas related to atomically … Continue reading Topics of such research could include arms control, economic impacts of APM, the impact of APM on AI development, and the impact of APM on surveillance technology.^[46] See the headings under “Potential focus areas for an APM policy community” in GiveWell’s non-verbatim summary of a conversation with Eric Drexler, January 23, 2015.
• Support research and development of atomically precise manufacturing. This could include attempts to steer research in particular directions or to grow the field.^[47]“Scientific research If the group of experts decided that the technology should be developed [by hobbyists and academics], the next step would be to encourage [hobbyists and academics] to work on it. To do this, a funder could: Hire a small group of scientists (a biochemist, a mechanical … Continue reading Prof. Jones estimated that an investment of about $150 million over ten years would significantly grow the field.^[48]“Funding on the order of £10 million per year for 10 years would likely be enough to lead to progress in the field. If he had £100 million, Prof. Jones would probably first hire Ramin Golestanian of Oxford, the leading theorist and world expert on how to make molecular machines, to develop … Continue reading
• Monitor progress toward atomically precise manufacturing, potentially supporting R&D or policy research as advanced capabilities become nearer.^[49]“Dr. Marblestone suggests monitoring developments and periodically: Assessing the state of the relevant science and technology Assessing potential risks and benefits Evaluating whether a centralized or decentralized approach would be most efficient at any given time Assessing the level of … Continue reading

Dr. Drexler is not aware of any technical research agenda for this field—e.g. analogous to the technical research agendas for reducing possible risks from artificial intelligence that have been proposed by the Future of Life Institute or the Machine Intelligence Research Institute—that might help reduce the potential risks associated with APM. With respect to the risk of unauthorized use of nanofactories to manufacture weapons, he suggests that nanofactories could be designed so that they are only capable of making a limited range of products that does not include weapons.^[50]“There is no technical research agenda for the safe development of APM, such as exists for, e.g., artificial intelligence (AI). Dr. Drexler suggests that the nature of the technologies (essentially small-scale chemistry and mechanical devices) creates no risk from large scale unintended physical … Continue reading

As stated above, we are uncertain about the desirability of faster progress toward APM. Before pursuing interventions that pushed forward its development, we think it would be important to weigh the possible risks and benefits of doing so.

Who else is working on this?

A few small non-profit organizations are explicitly focused on influencing and/or promoting the development of atomically precise manufacturing and/or molecular nanotechnology. Such organizations include:^[51] Foresight Institute’s 990 for 2013
Institute for Molecular Manufacturing’s 990 for 2013

We have a very limited understanding of the activities of these organizations because our investigation of the field so far has been brief.

The 2015 US Federal Budget provides more than $1.5 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a U.S. Government R&D initiative promoting and coordinating the development of nanotechnology.^[52] “The 2015 Federal Budget provides more than $1.5 billion for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a continued investment in support of the President’s priorities and innovation strategy.” National Nanotechnology Initiative Website.  However, there is currently no focused R&D effort towards atomically precise manufacturing, though there is some relevant research toward a variety of shorter-term goals in applied and fundamental science.^[53]“Currently, there is no focused effort towards molecular manufacturing as such, but rather a range of academic research on improving programmable nanoscale spatial and chemical control, aimed at a variety of near-term applied and fundamental science goals.” GiveWell’s non-verbatim summary of … Continue reading Although some academics work on ethical and legal issues associated with nanotechnology (e.g., the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU), we have been told that little of this work is related to atomically precise manufacturing (as opposed to nanomaterials).^[54]“Many people in this field [responsible innovation] are familiar with Drexlerian nanotechnology and debates between Drexler and Smalley. They see that historical episode as a cautionary tale against focusing on technological developments in the distant future. A paper on this issue is ‘A … Continue reading

Although atomically precise manufacturing currently receives little attention, it does not yet pose a significant risk. It is hard to know how much attention it will receive if/when the technology becomes more mature.

Questions for further investigation

Our investigation in this area left us with many open questions which could be addressed in further research, including:

1. Do academic organizations studying social issues related to nanotechnology (such as the ASU Center for Nanotechnology and Society) do work that is relevant to atomically precise manufacturing?
2. How would promoting progress in atomically precise manufacturing affect the potential risks posed by the technology and/or related technologies?
3. How effectively would convening meetings and commissioning research build consensus regarding the feasibility of atomically precise manufacturing and/or build support for specific development pathways?
4. Are there possible interventions that could be useful today in directly reducing risks, as opposed to simply improving the pace of progress toward APM, or our ability to forecast such progress?
5. How confident can we be that there will be substantial lead time between early signs that APM is feasible and the deployment of APM?
6. Are there promising proposals for advancing development toward atomically precise manufacturing? If so, how soon could atomically precise manufacturing be developed?
7. Are there any technologies we would be able to differentially accelerate to offset potential risks of APM? (For example, there may be some inherently defensive technology which could neutralize weapons produced by nanofactories.)
8. To what extent do critiques of the feasibility of molecular nanotechnology carry over to APM?
9. How costly would it be to develop APM?
10. Where would APM provide the largest additional benefits in comparison with other technologies currently in existence and under development?

Our process

We decided to look into this topic because:

• Atomically precise manufacturing is discussed as a possible global catastrophic risk in some comprehensive treatments of global catastrophic risks.^[55] For example, Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder 2008, Nanotechnology as global catastrophic risk in Global Catastrophic Risks, edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic.
• Our impression was—and continues to be—that atomically precise manufacturing receives little attention from government or philanthropy.

Our investigation to date has mainly consisted of conversations with five individuals with knowledge about atomically precise manufacturing and/or its potential risks:

• Eric Drexler – Academic Visitor, Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, University of Oxford
• Richard Jones – Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation, Professor of Physics, University of Sheffield
• Adam Marblestone – Director of Scientific Architecting, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Synthetic Neurobiology Group (scientific advisor to the Open Philanthropy Project)
• Philip Moriarty – Professor of Physics, University of Nottingham
• Chris Phoenix – Co-Founder and Director of Research, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

We also had informal conversations with Eric Drexler, reviewed documents he provided, and listened to three audiobooks related to atomically precise manufacturing:

• Nano by Ed Regis
• Radical Abundance by Eric Drexler
• The Visioneers by Patrick McKray

The research on this page focuses substantially on Dr. Drexler’s perspective because work in this field has been very limited,^[56]“It is hard to find people in the nanoscience community who have significant familiarity with Drexler’s work, though there are some. No very comprehensive summary of criticism of his work has been formally published. However, there is a great deal of technical criticism at Richard Jones’ Soft … Continue reading and our understanding is that he has been responsible for a substantial fraction of the work on atomically precise manufacturing.

Relationship disclosure: This page was prepared by Nick Beckstead, who previously worked with Dr. Drexler at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.

Sources