In the article, �The (Really) Scary Soldier of the Future,� Alan Goldstein points out some important concerns about our government and the emerging field of nanotechnology, but then goes on to paint a bogeyman future through the use of scary imagery and logical fallacies. I'd like to address a few with which I specifically take issue.

Goldstein says, �Multibillion-dollar federal R&D budgets have replaced the solitary inventor with veritable armies of scientists and engineers in laboratories across the country. Public policy itself has become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.�

This is an unsupported claim. Is public policy really captive? If it is, then it's captive to the current administration, a group that no one would confuse with a �scientific-technological elite.� Furthermore, one of the bogeymen

Goldstein references is Zyvex, a company founded by an inventor of the successful software program, Freehand, and whose small former company also created the Fontographer graphics program.

�The risks -- and opportunities -- posed by today's corporate-academic-military behemoth are exponentially greater than in his day. So is the money:�

True and true again.

But then Goldstein smirks, �Oh sure, this stuff could also revolutionize medicine, communications, transportation and every other aspect of human life: the shopworn "spinoff" argument honed for decades by NASA's P.R. machine.�

Whether or not an argument has been used many times (�shopworn�) does not provide an indicator of its validity. A prime example of a technology that was developed for military use but had far more civilian uses is the laser. The author seems to indicate that although nanotech could revolutionize medicine, communications, transportation and every other aspect of human life, it�s no big deal.

The author now gives us some legitimate meat: �But whether humanity will get to use the awesome power of these new technologies -- in particular nanotechnology -- for good rather than ill is one of the key questions of the 21st century.� This is absolutely true! It�s an essential question. This would be a good point to get into the discussion. But instead, we get more fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The author says, �There has never been anything like nanotechnology.� But there has been. It�s called our world and every living and nonliving thing in it. We�re all living nanotech factories. The cells in organisms perform nanoscale operations to build proteins, enzymes, other cells, and all the other essentials of life. What�s different is our ability a-borning to join in some of this operation by choice and by our own (hopefully intelligent) design.

�[nanotech] will someday be capable of breaking the world down into its smallest parts (or creating new parts) and putting them back together again in new ways.�

That�s what we do right now: we break the world down into its smallest parts- except we use explosives, fossil fuels, and chemicals to do it. We blow up mountains, transport the pieces hundreds of miles away, apply tremendous energies, chemicals and pollution in order to manufacture something as simple as a fork, when nanotech should be able to do so on a desktop from a pile of slightly fortified dirt.

�For the past five years, unknown to most Americans�� (It�s no secret - it just hasn�t had a lot of writers telling people about it - the NSF is now spending $34 million to tell us)

�One of the NNI's chief purposes is to revolutionize military equipment. �

The stated goals of the NNI are to:

-Maintain a world-class research and development program aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotechnology

-Facilitate transfer of new technologies into products for economic growth, jobs, and other public benefit

-Develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology; and,

-Support responsible development of nanotechnology.

Among these are solar power, medical, coatings and many other beneficial technologies. Included are studies regarding safety. One of the new projects funded is the Center for the Impact of Nanotechnology on Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara (announcement at http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1348) This is not just some secret big black box churning out superweapons.

And we should not forget that nanotechnology is being funded by public and private entities. Billions are being poured into nanotech by foreign governments and by homegrown US investors.

Goldstein says, �Its members include bluebloods of the old military-industrial complex like Raytheon and DuPont, along with new blood like Zyvex ("providing nanotechnology solutions -- today") and Carbon Nanotechnologies.�

Guilt by association: by lumping Zyvex (founded by one of your missing inventors - Jim VonEhr) and Carbon Nanotechnologies with old military-industrial contractors, you implicate them as acting in the same manner. I could use the guilt by association fallacy to say that writers for Moonie newspapers like the Washington Times and BlogsForBush.com have been joined by Alan Goldstein in Salon. But of course, Salon & the Wash. Post are very different sorts of creatures. Similarly, the nanotech companies referenced are fresh, nimble, and visionary as distinct from hoary old embedded members of the military-industrial complex. Zyvex, for instance, is "creating clean, flexible, and powerful manufacturing" ( http://www.zyvex.com/AboutUs/home.html ). Raytheon, by contrast, talks about missiles right on its home page (www.raytheon.com).

Regarding projects whose stated intention is to develop protective technologies, Goldstein states, �This description of research projects -- "protection" from bullets and blasts -- makes them sound purely defensive, but there is simply no way that can be true. �

The statement suggests the fallacy of the slippery slope � it�s a fallacy of distraction. You know one thing, so you assert another, more insidious one. The author has shown no evidence or reason why the statement can't be true.