In doing reporting recently on anti-aging research, I was struck by the similarities that this truly exciting field shares with nanotechnology. In both nanotech and anti-aging research, there seem to be those – usually non-researchers with a self-professed theoretical bent – making wild claims, clamoring for constant attention. In anti-aging research, it is the live-forever crowd; in nanotech, it is the self-replicating nanobots group.
What to make of these groups? More important, what’s to be made of their impact on the respective fields? Are they simply producing irrelevant chatter that is best to ignore? Does their hype at least bring needed attention to the research? Or do they represent destructive forces that obscure the truly interesting science that is being done? It would require a sociologist of science to properly answer these questions, but as a journalist I would say the overall impact is not a positive one. In writing about nanotechnology, one learns quickly to separate the true science from the nonsense. Nevertheless, it is frustrating to see the nano hypsters continuing to get so much attention. More to the point, it continues to be frustrating to see those doing real science not getting the credit they deserve for driving forward nanotechnology.
The same dynamics seem to be taking shape in anti-aging research. Researchers in biogerontology are facing the same dilemma faced by those in nanoscience: how to respond to wild claims that have no empirical support. Richard Smalley, the chemist, nanotech pioneer, and Nobel Laureate who died late last month (see “Richard Smalley”), spent a great deal of energy battling the absurd claims of nano fantasists. Most famously, in a December 1, 2003 cover story in Chemical & Engineering News he did battle with nanotech “visionary” K. Eric Drexler. Smalley is to be greatly respected for engaging in this public argument, and for doing so in the pages of the chemical industry’s premier publication. But in the end, his note of frustration was evident:
“You and people around you have scared our children. I don’t expect you to stop, but I hope others in the chemical community will join with me in turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams.”
So, how should the biogerontology scientific community respond to the live-forever crowd? That’s for each person in that community to decide. But in making up their minds, it is worth noting the professional courage of Smalley in actively engaging the nonsense arguments, and the risk that he foresaw in letting such arguments go unchecked.
Geoffrey Hinton tells us why he’s now scared of the tech he helped build
“I have suddenly switched my views on whether these things are going to be more intelligent than us.”
ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it
The narrative around cheating students doesn’t tell the whole story. Meet the teachers who think generative AI could actually make learning better.
Meet the people who use Notion to plan their whole lives
The workplace tool’s appeal extends far beyond organizing work projects. Many users find it’s just as useful for managing their free time.
Learning to code isn’t enough
Historically, learn-to-code efforts have provided opportunities for the few, but new efforts are aiming to be inclusive.
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.