CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS has a big nanotechnology point-counterpoint on the feasibility of molecular assemblers. This is a big deal.

“Nanotechnology” as a term encompasses all sorts of things, but when people talk about its more sophisticated applications, they generally mean what Eric Drexler (one of the discussants) calls “molecular manufacturing,” using molecular assemblers. Whether the more exciting and spooky applications of nanotechnology are possible thus depends largely on whether molecular assemblers are possible.

Initial doubts about their feasibility were resolved some years ago, but more recently people have been raising skeptical claims again. I’m somewhat skeptical of the skeptical claims, in part because of Clarke’s First Law (“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”) and in part because the nanotechnology business community seems to have decided that the best way to deal with people who fear nanotechnology (as a result of things like Michael Crichton’s novel Prey — debunked here by Freeman Dyson in a piece that goes well beyond Crichton to raise lots of interesting points about nano- and bio-technology) is to loudly proclaim that the really scary stuff is impossible. I think that’s shortsighted, and more than a touch dishonest, but you can follow the link and see what you think yourself.

And ultimately, of course, this stuff will all be settled in the lab. I know which way I’m betting.

For more background, see my TechCentralStation column on the new nanotechnology bill from last week, and follow the many links it contains. You might also read this post by Howard Lovy. (I’ve also got video interviews with some of the players here — just scroll to the bottom).

UPDATE: Here’s Ray Kurzweil’s commentary on the debate, which has a lot of interesting and useful background on nanotechnology, and the technical and political disagreements around it, that will be especially welcome to those who haven’t followed this subject in the past. Kurzweil also includes lots of links and references. Phil Bowermaster has comments, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Foresight Institute has a press release and a list of FAQS and comments on its website.