And until these questions are answered, nanotech .
is regarded as silly (Stix 98). .
But the nanotech optimists are still out there. They contend that the progress made by a team at .
IBM who was able to write letters and draw pictures atom by atom actually began the birth of nanotech .
(Darling 49). These same people answer the scientific questions by replying that a breakthrough is not .
needed, rather the science gained must be applied (DuCharme 33). In fact, Drexler argues that the .
machines exist, trends are simply working on building better ones ("Unbounding" 24). Drexler continues .
by stating that the machines he spoke about in "Engines of Creation" published in 1986 should be .
developed early in the 21st century ("Unbounding" 116). .
However many scientists still argue that because nanotech has produced absolutely nothing .
physical, it should be regarded as science fiction (Garfinkel 111). Secondly, nano-doubters rely on .
scientific fact to condemn nanotech. For example it is argued that we are very far away from ever seeing .
nanotech due to the fact that when atoms get warm they have a tendency to bounce around. As a result .
the bouncing atoms collide with other materials and mess up the entire structure (Davidson A1). Taken in .
hand with the movement of electron charges, many regard nanotech as impossible (Garfinkel 106). But .
this is not the entirety of the obstacles confining nanotech development. One major set-back is the fact .
that the nanostructures are too small to reflect light in a visible way, making them practically invisible .
(Garfinkel 104). .
Nevertheless, Nanotech engineers remain hopeful and argue that; "With adequate funding, .
researchers will soon be able to custom build simple molecules that can store and process information and .
manipulate or fabricate other molecules, including more of themselves. This may occur before the turn of .
the century."(Roland 30) There are other developments also, that are pushing nanotech in the right .