Drexler - Smalley Response

• The main point of contention between Drexler and Smalley:
• Drexler envisions a world transformed by molecular assemblers
• Smalley views molecular assemblers as a waste of time 
• What is at stake?
• Nanotechnology
• Reputation
• Strategies they use to refute the other side.
• Drexler believes Smalley is misrepresenting his work. Drexler thinks Smalley's argument against molecular assemblers are wrong. Drexler tries to clarify some information.
• Smalley responds by questioning Drexler's research and information. He there are still unanswered problems in his work.
• How does both Smalley and Drexler develop their ethos?
• They both mention research done and books written about the topic.
• "This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis [the basis of "Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation."
• Point to atleast one logical fallacy used on both sides and explain why it is a fallacy?
• Smalley: Slippery slope "If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what it can do."
• Drexler: Straw man "The impossibility of Smalley fingers has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you."

• Who was more convincing?
• Drexler because he provides more research. Smalley just questions Drexlers work.