On the sci fi side of the wastebasket, a cash strapped Robert Freitas claims “The techniques of biotechnology, including genomics and genetic engineering, might well be able to cure many, even most, causes of aging over the next couple of decades. However, nanorobotic medicine will almost certainly cure aging. If my colleagues and I can induce sufficient resources (both human and financial) to be directed toward the development of molecular nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing, a nanomedical cure for aging should be within reach in 20-30 years. Of course, if such resources are not made available, it will take longer.”
There is a whole raft of sites devoted to the use of nanotech to avoid aging. Show us some nanobots and you’ll probaly get your funding.
Over on the financial side Nanoinvesting seer Josh Wolfe sticks his neck out in his weekly newsletter that “Whether a cure is imminent or not, I predict within 10 years cancer will become a treatable condition, absent pain, suffering and death–much like diabetes–that a patient can live with for the entirety of their natural lives.”
Oddly enough that is already the case for some forms of cancer, while others, despite advances in angiogenesis based treatments tend to be fatal within months of diagnosis. Unfortunately, there are almost as wide a variety of cancers as there are types of nanotechnology, making a magic bullet still somewhat of a long range holy grail for the pharmaceutical industry.
In the same spirit, we predict Greece to win the 2004 European Championship.
The oddest item however, is from the Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology, whose mission seems increasingly to force molecular nanotechnology down the throats of an unwilling scientific community, who claim that a new nanotechnology based arms race has begun before racing off into a whole nanoTsunami of unconnected technologies of dubious relevance. We particularly enjoyed the comments about making your home secure against nanobots by staying indoors and breathing filtered air.
Now there is nothing wrong with looking to the future, but it is important not to confuse this with science. To quote from Miriam Solomon’s review in ‘Science‘ of Defending Science–Within Reason Between Scientism and Cynicism by Susan Haack, “Science is messy. Experiments usually require tinkering, theories can be articulated in different ways, background assumptions can often be challenged, and data rarely speak univocally in favor of one theory or against another.”
Never mind the 30 essential studies, we’d suggest a mandatory reality check first and in the meantime let’s see an open mind on both sides of the MNT debate.