You may recall these immortal words, or maybe not, depending on your age: “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilisations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!”

The dated language is evidence of the 1960s sci-fi show, Star Trek, spoken by Captain James T Kirk of the USS Enterprise, played by William Shatner.

It is the same Shatner, now aged 90, who, on October 13, went to the edge of space aboard Blue Origin’s – or should it be Jeff Bezos’ – New Shepard spacecraft. His trip reignited a decades-long feud with George Takei, aka Hikaru Sulu, the helmsman of the USS Enterprise, who posted: “He’s boldly going where other people have gone before.”

Disappointingly, this piece is not about Star Trek or sci-fi – rather, it’s about science fact. This begs the question: When does science fiction become science fact? The Engineering & Technology of February 19, 2020, ran an article addressing this question. But neither did it, nor any other article, provide the answer – all it did was to cite examples from the movies.

Which hastens our return to Star Trek and its Replicator, a machine that is capable of producing virtually any item, be it food or nonfood items. Reminds you of anything?

This leads us to three-dimensional (3D)printing, or additive manufacturing, which, according to Wikipedia, is the construction of a 3D object from a computer-aided design model, or digital 3D model. It refers to a variety of processes in which material is deposited, joined or solidified under computer control to create a 3D object, with the material typically added together layer by layer.

Now think of international trade. Do you see an application? On November 9, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation released an article titled ‘3D Printing: The Final Frontier for International Trade in Goods?’

The article argues that the modern 3D printer is, arguably, the early beta version of the Star Trek Replicator, as it allows for the production of various goods, usually using plastic or metal, based on instructions coded in a digital design file.

See the international trade connection? 3D printing can potentially replace the international trade in goods. The argument is: Why would companies choose the traditional trade route – with its high transport costs and tariffs, and other challenges – when they could simply use a keyboard and send design files across borders for domestic production?

The concerns of importing governments are obvious, not least of which is the loss of customs duty income, which is dependent on a country’s level of development. So, 3D printing could have a fiscal impact.

As for the capability of 3D printers, they currently take time to print and require careful calibration and post-production steps, including sanding, priming, painting and gluing. Further, they cannot ‘print’ all types of products, being limited by both material inputs and size. However, the range of goods that 3D printers can create is ever expanding, and the technology has a clear cost advantage when it comes to the small-scale production of materially simple and geometrically complex items.

The article also explores what goods have been affected by 3D printing production, such as orthopaedic appliances like dental implants, hearing aids, aircraft parts, medications and machine parts. It states that trade in orthopaedic appliances – which are among the most affected products – has grown almost twice as fast as total trade since 2007.

The article contends that 3D printing will not necessarily replace trade in goods, with the evidence suggesting that it will complement it.

Why now? During the week of November 29, the twelfth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference will include ongoing discussions on its moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.