Robotic soldiers anyone? They’re coming but should such machines feel pain or regret? And if (when) there’s an accident, who should be held responsible? Would you trust a robot to administer a general anaesthetic and perform general surgery on you? These are just some of the questions that are already popping up as science and technology move centre stage.

Products such as TiVo allow users to time shift their TV viewing habits. Similarly, Apple’s i-Pod, like Sony’s Walkman before it, allows users to shift their music listening to any place they like. So what if, in the future, you could be in two places at the same time or physically travel backwards or forwards in time? This is pure science fiction of course, but science and technology are allowing us to literally look back and forward in time, for example to identify future genetic time-bombs inside our bodies.

A Cambridge (UK) scientist has developed a prototype computer that can ‘read’ users’ minds by capturing and then interpreting facial expressions – such as concentration, anger or confusion. In experiments using actors the computer was accurate 85% of the time although this dropped to 65% with others. The technology raises a number of privacy-related issues, not least the collection of highly-sensitive personal data. Toyota is allegedly already working with Professor Peter Robertson, the inventor, to link the emotional state of drivers with various safety controls and mood sensitive features in cars. Other customers might include insurance companies wanting to crack down on dishonest claims, banks targeting identity fraud, teachers trying to teach (does the student really understand?) or governments wanting to identify terrorists or social security cheats. In the future, car companies or local councils could even tailor road maps or directional signage to the level of aggression of individual drivers. What intrigues me most, however, is whether you could link mood sensitivity to products like radios and televisions so that they tune into ‘happy’ music or programs. There is also the fascinating possibility of online retailers tailoring their home pages, product offerings and even product descriptions to the emotional state of their customers.

Interruption science is the study of why people get distracted and how best to interrupt people. For example, in the late 1980s NASA needed to find ways to deliver important importation to busy astronauts. This might seem trivial but if an important communication is not distracting enough it may get ignored, while anything too distracting could ruin a multi-million dollar experiment. In other words, the timing and style of delivery of communications is vitally important. Text-based communications, NASA found, were routinely ignored while visually-based communications seem to get through. So what’s the relevance of this to people with their feet firmly planted on earth?The simple answer is that many of us suffer from too much information thanks to faster computers and connectedness. We are constantly subjected to a torrent of interruptions ranging from e-mail to mobile phone calls. Indeed, a recent survey found that employees spend on average eleven minutes on a task before being distracted by something else. Furthermore, every time an employee was interrupted it took almost half an hour for them to return to the original task and 40% wandered off somewhere else. In other words, information is no longer power. Getting and keeping someone’s attention is. We are so busy watching everything and multi-tasking that we are unable to focus on or finish anything except after hours or at home. Given that computers and the Internet are largely to blame for this, it’s not surprising that computer and software companies are taking the issue very seriously. Part of the problem is that our memory tends to be visual and computers only allow the display of limited amounts of information on a screen. Some people solve this problem by sticking low-fi post-it notes around the sides of their screen. Another way might be to say no — unsubscribe and unplug parts of your life.If this isn’t for you then technology may once again come to the rescue by changing the way that information is delivered. For example, if a computer could understand when you were busy (via a camera, microphone or keypad monitor) it could rank e-mails in order of importance and then deliver them at the most appropriate moments. Information could also become more glanceable in the same way that aircraft instruments are laid out. In the more distant future we may even figure out a way of getting rid of computer screens altogether and embedding glanceable information in everyday objects.

If the convergence of computing and communications led to the Information Age, then perhaps we are on the cusp of another dramatic shift. Engineering and computing started to converge some time ago and other disciplines are following suit. For example, natural sciences like biology are merging with physical sciences like engineering. In automobiles, what was essentially an engineering industry is merging with areas like computers, while computing itself is being greatly influenced by biology and neuroscience. Of course, historically science started off as one discipline, which only fragmented into a series of specialisations in the 19th and 20th centuries – so perhaps we’ve been here before. However, our education system is still predicated on the idea of specialisation.

Expect computers to become more intelligent than humans by about 2025. At this point humankind will be faced with something of a dilemma. If machines become more intelligent than their makers, what’s to stop them taking over? You could of course design machines with certain in-built controls (see I Assimov’s Robot Rules in I Robot) but there will be a very strong temptation for mankind to see what would happen if you don’t. The other intriguing (if not outright alarming) aspect of this issue is the convergence of computing, robotics and nanotechnology which could give rise to self-replicating machines. Add to this the possibility of not only downloading intelligence into a machine but downloading consciousness too, and you are faced with the question of whether it is better to live forever in a machine or live for a limited time as a carbon based biped. Personally I think downloading consciousness is impossible but you should never say never.

Nanotechnoloy (i.e.the manipulation of structures at an atomic level — or the science of very small things) is the hyped technology of the new millennium. It’s unlikely to disappoint either because it’s a disruptive technology. Nanotech will effect every industry from toothpaste to car tyres and from to glass to clothing. Also expect a major Nanotech accident by around 2025 (see Bill Joy’s article entitled ‘Why the future doesn’t need us’).