There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom

Friday's Wall Street Journal had a piece in the back opinion section (which has items about culture & religion and similar stuff) discussing Richard Feynman's famous 1959 talk "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom". This talk is frequently cited as a seminal moment -- perhaps the first proposition -- of nanotechnology. But, it turns out that when surveyed many practitioners in the field claim not to have been influenced by it and often to have never read it. The article pretty much concludes that Feynman's role in the field is mostly promoted by those who promote the field and extreme visions of it.

Now, by coincidence I'm in the middle of a Feynman kick. I first encountered him in the summer of 1985 when his "as told to" book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" was my hammock reading. The next year he would become a truly national figure with his carefully planned science demonstration as part of the Challenger disaster commission. Other than recently watching Infinity, which focuses around his doomed marriage (his wife would die of TB) & the Manhattan project. Somehow, that pushed me to finally read James Gleick's biography "Genius" and now I'm crunching through "Six Easy Pieces" (a book based largely on Feynman's famous physics lecture set for undergraduates), with the actual lectures checked out as well for stuffing on my audio player. I'll burn out soon (this is a common pattern), but will gain much from it.

I had never actually read the talk before, just summaries in the various books, but luckily it is available on-line -- and makes great reading. Feynman gave the talk at the American Physical Society meeting, and apparently nobody knew what he would say -- some thought the talk would be about the physics job market! Instead, he sketched out a lot of crazy ideas that nobody had proposed before -- how small a machine could one build? How tiny could you write? Could you make small machines which could make even smaller machines and so on and so forth? He even put up two $1000 prizes:

It is my intention to offer a prize of $1,000 to the first guy who can take the information on the page of a book and put it on an area 1/25,000 smaller in linear scale in such manner that it can be read by an electron microscope.

And I want to offer another prize---if I can figure out how to phrase it so that I don't get into a mess of arguments about definitions---of another $1,000 to the first guy who makes an operating electric motor---a rotating electric motor which can be controlled from the outside and, not counting the lead-in wires, is only 1/64 inch cube.

The first prize wasn't claimed until the 1980's, but a string of cranks streamed in to claim the second one -- bringing in various toy motors. Gleick describes Feynman's eyes as "glazed over" when yet another person came in to claim the motor prize -- and an "uh oh" when the guy pulled out a microscope. It turned out that by very patient work it was possible to use very conventional technology to wind a motor that small -- and Feynman hadn't actually set aside money for the prize!

Feynman's relationship to nanotechnology is reminiscent of Mendel's to genetics. Mendel did amazing work, decades ahead of his time. He documented things carefully, but his publication strategy (a combination of obscure regional journals and sending his works to various libraries & famous scientists) failed in his lifetime. Only after three different groups rediscovered his work -- after finding much the same results -- was Mendel started on the road to scientific iconhood. Clearly, Mendel did not influence those who rediscovered him and if his work were still buried in rare book rooms, we would have a similar understanding of genetics to what we have today. Yet, we refer to genetics as "Mendelian" (and "non-Mendelian").

I hope nanotechnologists give Feynman a similar respect. Perhaps some of the terms describing his role are hyperbole ("spiritual founder"), but he clearly articulated both some of the challenges that would be encountered (for example, that issues of lubrication & friction at these scales would be quite different) and why we needed to address them. For example, he pointed out that the computer technology of the day (vacuum tubes) would place inherent performance limits on computers -- simply because the speed of light would limit the speed of information transfer across a macroscopic computer complex. He also pointed out that the then-current transistor technology looked like a dead end, as the entire world's supply of germanium would be insufficient. But, unlike naysayers he pointed out that these were problems to solve, and that he didn't know if they really would be problems.

One last thought -- many of the proponents of synthetic biology point out that biology has come up with wonderfully compact machines that we should either copy or harness. And who first articulated this concept? I don't know for sure, but I now propose that 1959 is the year to beat

The biological example of writing information on a small scale has inspired me to think of something that should be possible. Biology is not simply writing information; it is doing something about it. A biological system can be exceedingly small. Many of the cells are very tiny, but they are very active; they manufacture various substances; they walk around; they wiggle; and they do all kinds of marvelous things---all on a very small scale. Also, they store information. Consider the possibility that we too can make a thing very small which does what we want---that we can manufacture an object that maneuvers at that level!

So if the nanotechnologists don't want to call their field Feynmanian, I propose that synthetic biology be renamed such!

Kicking the Media

One short newswire article, three spikes in my blood pressure. Impressive!

Just before heading off on a short vacation last week I spotted the news item about the two new genetic association studies which report on restless leg syndrome.

The lead paragraph drove the first spike: "suggesting the twitching condition...is biologically based". Now, I've elided the pop cultural reference for clarity, not because it was the problem (I'm actually a huge Seinfeld fan). I was left wondering what other causes were ascribed to a condition which is treatable by medication which has passed at least one double-blind placebo-controlled trial? Poltergeists? Ah, perhaps they're suggesting it is purely psychosomatic?

While away I saw in another paper a longer version of the same item -- with still no explanation of what else, besides physiology, might result in restless legs.m

But going further, spike number two. The article mentions that Kari Stefansson was an author. I don't have an inherent bias against company-sponsored or company-driven research, but why wasn't the fact he is the head of DeCode mentioned? That's important background information -- DeCode has succeeded again, but also has inherent financial conflicts of interest.

The final two paragraphs gave the kicker: a doctor pooh-poohing the results by email, complaining that it is "overhyped" and "doesn't pin down what the condition is, who has it, or what medication is needed". Gimme complete solutions or shut up, in other words. Now, I am somewhat surprised that DeCode got their paper in New England Journal of Medicine, given the small number of genetics papers published there it is striking that a relatively routine linkage study for a non-fatal disorder was published there, but editors get to pick what they like.

Via a post on Freakonomics I finally discovered some of the background missing from the newspaper items. The same doctor (Steven Woloshin) quoted in the newspaper item had recently published in PLoS Medicine an article claiming that restless legs syndrome is a poster child for "disease mongering" by pharmaceutical companies and their dupes/comrades in the media.

If one steps back from the dust & smoke, the papers are intriguing (well, the abstracts -- I don't normally have access to either journal though NEJM is apparently, at least at the moment, making the full text freely available) first because they each found the same gene (though the second paper found two more). BTBD9 is not a well-characterized gene, but it contains a BTB domain, a protein domain involved in protein-protein interactions. So, one clear path forward is to identify the interaction partners of BTBD9.

Each abstract has some additional, apparently unique information, which is intriguing. DeCode reports that the BTBD9 variant is also linked to reduced serum ferritin levels and that ferritin levels have been previously implicated in restless legs syndrome. They also report higher levels of other movements during sleep in individuals carrying the variant. The Nature Genetics paper reports linkages to one gene and an intergenic region, with the one gene (MEIS1)
previously implicated in limb development.

Hints & suggestions: no, it doesn't tell Dr. Woloshin how to treat or prescribe, but it does suggest a route towards understand the pathology, which will probably not include poltergeists.