As a nanotechnologist, I read Dr. Goldstein's article with dismay. While nanotechnology is promising and we therefore have a responsibility to think deeply about the new social and ethical problems it will no doubt eventually create, to claim that "There has never been anything like nanotechnology," as Dr. Goldstein does, is no service at all. Science is incremental, and only rarely revolutionary. As such, we are lucky enough to do things that aren't so different, and can therefore learn from our past. Are we so rash as to discard everything we have learned about the ethics of science in the past 300 years?

The American military has been by far the largest funder of basic research in the physical sciences for the past 50 years. So the fact that the military, and ostensibly military objectives, will be behind the latest wave of scientific research is not surprising. As such, creating alarm about this alone is premature and frankly, unsupported in the article.

Nanotechnology has the potential to build us smaller computers, amazing devices, and yes, integration between artificial materials and biology. However, such integration is not new -- how many people already have artificial hips, kneecaps, cochlear implants, or pacemakers? Given the current state of the art, and the realistic pace of scientific research, most of Dr. Goldstein's predictions look more like the predictions from 50 years ago that today we'd be driving flying cars and having talking robots as butlers than like realistic visions of a foot soldier 10 or even 20 years in the future. A new generation of artificial devices and technologies promises, as the old devices do, more in (modest) non-military benefits than military benefits.

I sincerely hope that future articles in this series will consider the science of today and the opinions of the researchers who must slog through the endless experiments for even a tiny advance. Most of these researchers are more focused on goals like a cure for cancer or better technologies for peace than on a super-soldier, even if the military pays for their work.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Schulman

(Doctoral candidate at the California Institute of Technology)

I respect Ms Schulman's opinion, and she is right that scientists are working hard to make incremental advances in science; and few scientists would claim to be making a super soldier. However, it must be obvious to Ms Schulman and the rest of us that the left hand does not always know what the right hand is doing. Rarely do scientists foresee or even envision the end results of their research. Dr Goldstein may have unique access to military research that enables him to see a larger picture that other scientists cannot. Finally, scientists like Ms Schulman simply may not want to believe that their work could lead to such horrors. In this case, I understand their denial. However, even hard, cold science does not exist in a moral or consequence-free vacuum. I would hope that all scientists understand and accept this burden.

Ya know, we get enough fear mongering from the Bush Administration that we don't need a reporter screaming "booga booga" at us. I find it ironic that Mr. Goldstein is criticizing military funded science as being inherently evil while writing for Salon, a webzine which uses a form of communication created and funded by the US military.

Anywho, as for the supersuit, I think it sounds great! When is it getting to the private sector? There are entire, peaceful, industries which will benefit highly from this technology, modern medicine being one of them.

The author begins discussing the dangers of biological warfare as a basis to malign research into soldier protection using nanotechnology as somehow evidence of concurrent development of offensive biological weaponry. This logic is flawed in that because one has the ability to create devastating new weapons with existing technology does not mean that those weapons will be created. Biological weapons are case in point. You can bet that the U. S. government could develop an anthrax-based weapon, yet none exists in our arsenal.

Meanwhile much criticism is placed on the Bush Administration, and rightly so, for not equipping our soldiers in Iraq with adequate protection. The research suspiciously described by the author is directed toward that very end.

As a researcher in DoD in the area of nanotechnology for explosives and propellant applications, I consider my work an act of patriotism as much as anything else. The weapons being developed base on my and my colleagues' research is aimed and REDUCING collateral damage by improving energy release characteristics so that, for example, single rooms are affected rather than whole buildings or city blocks.

As for his discounting of the "spin-off" argument, ahem, the internet was a "spin-off." How many people benefit from it's existence?

Why on Earh would anyone use an ultralight material to make bullets? So they won't break the skin?

I believe Alan Goldstein provides a public service when he translates "nanosoldierspeak" into English. We should always welcome scientists who devote some of their time to inform the public about complex research subjects.

On several occasions, postings at the MIT website, which highlighted ISN-sponsored student contests, have used elements of the above "nanosoldierspeak" to promote the ISN within the MIT community. Students there will be better educated if they are also provided with alternative, critical views of the "cool" or hyped research labs that try to attract them.

Nanotechnology apparently offers a myriad of possibilities in the realm of materials science, biotechnology and their related fields. Efficient warfare (and death) are unfortunately among them.

I am of the opinion that the goals of the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology are incompatible with MIT's mission and should be closely reviewed by the MIT community.

Regards,

A. M. de Figueredo

Eisenhower: "Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded."

Goldstein: "Vast government contracts have corrupted the American university system, turning off the fountainhead of unfettered ideas and scientific discovery. 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."

These are not minor changes. As a longtime reader of Salon, I expect quite a bit more intellectual honesty in your reportage.