Convergence Science (NBIC – Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) is a new branch of science since 2000, and it has been extensively developed at leading universities around the world. NBIC combines to create nightmarish combinations that defy understanding. However, when you try to critique these NBIC scientists and their works, they hide behind their original scientific disciplines to throw stones at you. Other nay-sayers come from outside the NBIC world and have no basis to critique it in the first place.

If NBIC science is to be critiqued at all, it must be according to NBIC science and not just from the perspective of computer science, neuroscience, nanotechnology, or biological science.

Thus, this study took a lot of heat from those outside the NBIC world, and it shows. ? Patrick Wood, TN Editor.

Abstract

Our article "Real-Time Self-Assembly . . . " (Lee & Broudy, 2024) published in this journal has attracted attention from scholars, commentators, and professional fact-checkers from around the world, most of it featuring generous praise and some of it impassioned pleas for its authors to stick to their own areas of expertise. Our reply to the critics of this study is an attempt to address and accommodate scholarly critique and answer other concerns about our perceived lack of know-how to engage in such research. In this response, we suggest that a reflexive and singular focus on the declared components of the COVID injectables represents a bias of its own, and a lack of due diligence on our critics' part. The "Nano– Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)" era of the 21st century (see Jamali et al., 2018) is an already very well-documented development (Cevallos et al., 2022; The White House, 2022), and our aim is to urge scholars to enlarge the critical lens they use to assess these phenomena. This broadening of perspective has direct bearing on science and scholarship, direct implications for the status of legacy biosciences, and requires inclusion in any explanatory framework, which we discuss briefly in this reply.