In May of 2013, a man named Cody Wilson successfully fired the first 3D printed gun. He made the files necessary to print his weapon design available for download on the internet through Defense Distributed Defense Distributed. With this event the ATF, DHS, FBI, and members of congress went into action to regulate 3D Printing. Also taking place in May of 2013 was a medical miracle. A newborn baby named Kaiba,  received a tiny airway splint made using a 3D printer. This splint saved the child life, who was suffering from tracheobronchomalacia.

My name is Alex, and I am fan of 3D printing. With this technology I have been able to solve problems, make products for my everyday use, and seen my dreams literally being built in front of my eyes. Unfortunately this technology is under threat, and there are those who would like to limit the public’s access to it! What is 3D Printing? It has become a buzzword pervasive in recent culture and permeating our media. Many people have heard the term, but few have any working understanding of it. To many it’s the mysterious technology of the future, likened to something out of an episode of Startrek. But 3D and printing is very real and very present. Additive manufacturing, or more commonly referred to as 3D printing, is a process used to create a physical object from a digital file by heating and then depositing layers of materials.

While 3D printing processes have been around for over 30 years, recent technology developments have caused prices are dropping to the point that it is feasible for consumers to have it in their homes. 3D printers are getting cheaper to the point that they are even available at retail outlets like Radioshack (Radioshack). This means the average citizen has more power and ease in creating objects themselves. There has already been advancements in engineering, design, fashion, and medicine with 3D printing. However, 3D printing has potentially enabled individuals to print objects that could be illegal, difficult to obtain, or protected by intellectual property rights. The fear of printed objects in these areas have made some consider regulating 3D printing.  This technology is just starting to develop, and yet the rush to regulate it has begun. Already the US government is proposing regulation, tracking, and limits to ownership of 3D printing. Efforts to regulate 3D printing an unwarranted, baseless, and could potentially do more harm than the technology itself. The regulation of 3D printing should not be attempted due to the overwhelming lack of documented threat, the inability of a government to regulate it, and the developing benefits of its availability.

                The most central issue of regulation concerning 3D printing is currently around the topic of gun control. Cody Wilson, the man responsible for the 3D printed gun previously mentioned, runs a nonprofit organization called Defense Distributed. This organization is dedicated to producing and distributing the technical blueprints needed to enable 3D printing of firearms and accessories. Only days after posting their first design for a 3D printed gun, Defense Distributed was ordered by the U.S. Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to take down these files. They claimed that the reason for the order was that distributing the files online was a violation of the international traffic in Arms Regulation, a law that limits the sale and distribution of physical weapons across national boundaries.

Politicians nationally were quick to take notice of this singular event. The U.S. Senate proposed a ban on the sale or possession of 3-D printed guns. Steve Israel, a US senator from New York, began championing legislation against making a 3D printed gun or even owning a 3D printer as an individual. The city of Philadelphia quickly banned the manufacture and possession of printable firearms. The author of the bill, Kenyatta Johnson, isn’t aware of any local gun-printing 3-D printers. ”It’s all pre-emptive,” says Johnson. “It’s just based upon internet stuff out there,” even though there has not been a 3D printed gun in city. For that matter, there has not been a single case where a 3D printed gun has been used for violence anywhere. In the face of an overwhelming lack of any cases, the regulating of 3D printing seems to be driven from political posturing and fear mongering by bureaucratic demagogues. These regulation prey upon the public’s emotions and fears of the new, garnering support for regulations that are not in the general public’s interest. This technology has yet to see a documented threat rise out of its three dimensional capabilities.

3D printers create their objects based on computer aided design (CAD) models. This is similar to how a traditional inkjet printer operates from a digital file sent to it. The nature of these digital files allows them to be copied and easily shared across the internet. As previously mentioned Defense Distributed made their files available over the internet for download. While the US government sought to remove these files, they continue to be downloaded, copied, and shared online.  Currently the Defense Distributed designs can be found on variety of file sharing sites.(piratebay , thingiverse)  Digital files have seen their fair share of clashes before, and the government has been unable to effectively regulate them. A famous clash between government controls and digital files occurred with the advent of MP3 compression formats. These were popularly used for music files and shared online among peer-to-peer sharing sites to avoid the cost of paying for music. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) deemed this “Piracy” and tried perusing legal action against individuals sharing and downloading the artistically copyrighted materials. This strategy proved to be ineffective to the amount of individuals participating, the failure of enforcement, and public outrage. The government also introduced all sorts of legislation in attempts to curb file sharing. Napster, an online service that centralized the wide and rapid distribution of illegally copied music file, was central in this issue. While Napster was eventually shutdown form litigation and legislation, other sites sprung up to take its place. To this day file sharing still goes and is unable to be effectively regulated.  Thingiverse, a site similar to Napster, is meant for peer file sharing of 3D printing digital files. Thingiverse has been so successful that now a flood of similar sites have started. Many experts are speculating that if the government was to pursue a regulation of 3D printing it would be by limiting the content of these file sharing sites. Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School says, "If history is any guide, there would be a much stronger effort to try to target all the sites that make available the 3D plans.” But Wu also said that Thingiverse and other similar sites are not in violation of intellectual and artistic copyright laws like Napster and are currently operating well within their rights.

Not only is impractical to control digital file sharing, but any attempt to regulate 3D printers themselves would be equally difficult to enforce. Senator Steve Israel has suggested having a running registry of every organization and individual who has purchased a 3D printer with a registration number to each machine. This idea glosses over the fact that the parts necessary to make 3D printer can be bought off the shelf. 3D printers are also able to print another 3D printer. Thus any registered or unregistered 3D printer could be used to create unregistered machines. Such regulation is fraught with gaping holes that would not limit malicious intent but only the development we could achieve with the technology.

The benefits and applications of 3D printing are rapidly expanding. “3D printing is the third industrial revolution,” states the American Society of Manufacturing Engineers. As the technology is becoming more accessible, more industries are turning to it for solutions. The technology is changing lives daily. Individuals like Kaiba, the infant whose life was saved by 3D printed splint, are becoming frequent stories from doctors with access to this technology.  A doctor is now able to create unique medical device to a patients problems. In engineering 3D printing is being used to create complex forms and geometries that would previously have been impossibilities. Individuals are buying them for their homes to create gifts, develop an idea, or create replacement parts to products. Previously, manufacturing a part or product would require expensive tooling, multiple machines, and a large amount of technical knowledge. Now 3D printers are giving power to the individual to easily create their own products.

Additionally a growing befit of 3D printing is how environmentally friendly it can be. In the past, three dimensional parts were largely produced with subtractive processes. A subtractive process cuts away material leading to waste. 3D printing on the other hand is an additive process which creates no wasted scrap or wasted material. 3D printing can also reuse material from other processes. A 3D printer using a material like plastic can make use of recycled bottles to build the desired part. In addition a part that has printed be melted down again in the machine and then used create another new part. The technology is so powerful because reduces waste and create a circular material supply system.

3D printing is just beginning to rise in industry and personal use. We are already experiencing a great deal of benefits and there is great potential in how much further it could take in innovation. There is objective evidence of 3D printing saving lives, but no evidence of it taking a life. Almost all technologies have the potential to be used for malicious purposes but that doesn’t mean we should avoid progress. For example, metal has allowed us to build infrastructure, skyscraper, and inventions. Yet metal can also be used to make bombs, bullets, and the machinery of war. But this does not mean that regulate the use metal and return back to the Stone Age.  While there are concerns about this technology should be carefully monitored, the United States should strive to welcome 3D printing and not stifle it in its infancy. The united States could be the leader in the use of innovative technologies such as 3D printing and that is possible only if these technologies are widely available and allowed to evolve and improve. Most technologies can be used for negative purposes—steel can be used to make knives that can then be used as weapons, but that does not mean the government should take us back to the Stone Age. Similarly, even though it may have some concerns, government should not impede the development of a general-purpose technology like 3D printingIf governments want to control the use of 3D printing technology, at what points should they enforce control? We need to see where the technology goes.