• A detailed census of the still-active molecular-machine engineering community was produced, listing core researchers (Drexler, Hall, Merkle, Freitas, von Ehr, Moriarty, Phoenix) and adjacent DNA-origami groups, while clarifying that the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing is only a virtual mailbox and funding conduit.

• Participants defended “machine-phase” nanotechnology as mechanically guided chemistry in high vacuum, distinguishing it from Smalley’s straw-man “atom-by-atom” critique and endorsing Drexler’s 1992 “Nanosystems” as the definitive technical reference (used copies ~US $6 on Amazon).

• The DIYbio movement’s identity was debated: critics argued it is drifting from garage-level open science toward capital-efficient startups that withhold design files and inflate costs (e.g., $200/mo BioCurious memberships, $30k Kickstarters), while defenders noted that successful open projects often stay secret for competitive reasons.

• Genomics X-Prize skepticism focused on the ill-defined “recurring cost” metric; participants proposed replacing the prize with a simple milestone-based purchase contract to accelerate ultra-cheap whole-genome sequencing, citing politigenomics.com cost analyses.

• New longevity and preservation initiatives were announced: a grassroots jellyfish-research collaboration for regeneration studies and the Brain Preservation Foundation’s petition promoting chemical fixation plus plastic embedding as an alternative to cryonics (sign at brainpreservation.org).