As histories of nanotechnology are created, one question arises repeatedly: how influential was Richard Feynman’s 1959 talk, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”? It is often said by knowledgeable people that this talk was the origin of nanotech. It preceded events like the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope, but did it inspire scientists to do things they would not have done otherwise? Did Feynman’s paper directly influence important scientific developments in nanotechnology? Or is his paper being retroactively read (...) into the history of nanotechnology? To explore those questions, I trace the history of “Plenty of Room,” including its publication and republication, its record of citations in scientific literature, and the comments of eight luminaries of nanotechnology. This biography of a text and its life among other texts enables us to articulate Feynman’s paper with the history of nanotechnology in new ways as it explores how Feynman’s paper is read. (shrink)

The mad scientist stories of fiction and film are exercises in antirationalism, particularly its Gothic horror variant. As such, they convey the argument that rationalist secular science is dangerous, and their principal device for doing so is to invest the evil of science in the personality of the scientist. To understand this cultural critique of science, it is necessary to understand how the symbols of the scientist's personality are manipulated. This article argues that mad scientists become increasingly amoral as nineteenth-century (...) texts are adapted to twentieth-century films. The consequence is that this cultural critique is becoming even more severe, due to external reasons independent of the glories or the crimes of real scientists. (shrink)

As histories of nanotechnology are created, one question arises repeatedly: how influential was Richard Feynman’s 1959 talk, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”? It is often said by knowledgeable people that this talk was the origin of nanotech. It preceded events like the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope, but did it inspire scientists to do things they would not have done otherwise? Did Feynman’s paper directly influence important scientific developments in nanotechnology? Or is his paper being retroactively read (...) into the history of nanotechnology? To explore those questions, I trace the history of “Plenty of Room,” including its publication and republication, its record of citations in scientific literature, and the comments of eight luminaries of nanotechnology. This biography of a text and its life among other texts enables us to articulate Feynman’s paper with the history of nanotechnology in new ways as it explores how Feynman’s paper is read. (shrink)

One of the more salient concerns about nanotechnology is the fear that it will harm privacy by collecting personal information and distributing it. This sentiment is complicated by the fact that the specific nanotechnologies that might affect privacy are located more in the near future than in the present, so our knowledge of them is more speculative than empirical. To come to terms with these issues, we will need both knowledge of the science – what is realistic and what is (...) not – and a sense of the on-going discourses on privacy and technology that are likely to frame feelings about nanotech. (shrink)

Lorsque les sciences humaines et sociales analysent les nanotechnologies, que révèlent-elles de ces disciplines? Ici, je propose six éléments de réponse. Tout d’abord, nous pouvons nous demander si notre travail est issu de travaux antérieurs sur d’autres sujets scientifiques, tels que les organismes génétiquement modifiés ou le programme ELSI du projet du génome humain. Deuxièmement, comment jugeons-nous les promesses extravagantes associées à les nanotechnologies? Troisièmement, que concluons-nous sur les origines des nanotechnologies? Après cela, le problème de la définition des nanotechnologies. (...) Ensuite, la question de savoir s’il aurait pu ou dû exister un consensus sur l’éthique en nanotechnologie. Et enfin, la responsabilité de communiquer nos découvertes et nos points de vue aux communautés scientifiques et d’ingénieurs qui créent les nanotechnologies. (shrink)

Lorsque les sciences humaines et sociales analysent les nanotechnologies, que révèlent-elles de ces disciplines? Ici, je propose six éléments de réponse. Tout d’abord, nous pouvons nous demander si notre travail est issu de travaux antérieurs sur d’autres sujets scientifiques, tels que les organismes génétiquement modifiés ou le programme ELSI du projet du génome humain. Deuxièmement, comment jugeons-nous les promesses extravagantes associées à les nanotechnologies? Troisièmement, que concluons-nous sur les origines des nanotechnologies? Après cela, le problème de la définition des nanotechnologies. (...) Ensuite, la question de savoir s’il aurait pu ou dû exister un consensus sur l’éthique en nanotechnologie. Et enfin, la responsabilité de communiquer nos découvertes et nos points de vue aux communautés scientifiques et d’ingénieurs qui créent les nanotechnologies. (shrink)

Nanotechnology—the control of matter at the level of atoms and molecules—has evoked a large body of literature on moral and ethical issues. Almost all of this is expressed in secular voices. Religious commentaries about nanotechnology have been much more rare. And yet survey research indicates that religious belief will be one of the most powerful influences in shaping public views about nanotechnology. This paper argues that it is worth knowing what religious voices have said about nanotechnology, so that we might (...) anticipate additional religious reactions in the future. After that, this paper presents seven cases of religious reactions to nanotechnology from a variety of faiths. This information gives us some insights about how religious individuals and institutions think about this technology, and also insights about how a new technology evokes a variety of hopes and fears. (shrink)