Training Workshop on Bionanotechnology

IdJit writes, "The University of Virginia Center for Advanced Computational Technology at NASA Langley will be hosting a training workshop on BioNanoTechnology June 14 & 15 here on the NASA campus. The attendees will be NASA and other gov't and university researchers planning to work on nano-biotechnology. Presentations, panel discussions, and software demonstrations are planned. Here is the info if you're interested. " Must train. Must build future.

Comments

Ethnical guidelines

[Taco Cowboy]

Nanotech is still in its infancy, but the potential power of nanotechnology should not be overlooked.

Please allow me to suggest that an ethical clause or guideline should be introduced for nanotech, for we do not want to repeat the same mistakes we have for all other technological innovation - that instead of using the tools for the betterment of the world, we human employ what we know to do BAD THINGS more than we do good things.

There are too many kinds of examples out there, from the Nuclear Science that produces nuclear bombs, to dynamite [TNT, plastique} that are _still_ used to blow up people in wartime, to electric chain-saw that has accelerated the pace of tree cutting (and the disappearing of so many forest area all around the world) and so on and so forth.

I know what I am suggesting may not sounds right, it may even sounds kinda restrictive, but there comes a time we ought to inculcate the sense of RESPONSIBILITY into the minds of our bright young ones, the future scientists that may employ or discover future technologies such as nanotechnology / bio-engineering and so on.

I am not asking much, I am merely suggesting an ethnical guideline to minimize the chance of ABUSE and MISUSE of techno-knowledge.

Re:Ethnical guidelines

[tesserae]

It's not clear why a formalized guideline is necessary: after all, most people pretty much do what they think is right, and the ones who aren't bothered by their own conscience won't pay much attention to a guideline (i.e., the conscience of others). A good example is commercial programs with GPLed code -- they do it anyway.

And most people (in a given culture) have a fairly similar notion of what's right and what isn't -- and in those areas where there's significant scatter of belief, attempts to form a consensus often succeed in merely polarizing the population (think about the ethics of abortion, or about genetically engineered foods, if you need examples). So guidelines tend to be either fairly trivial, or they amount to forcing views down the dissenters' throats...

The answer has been suggested elsewhere: the technology usually generates its own fixes for the problems it introduces. What I think we need is a free hand to operate at both ends of the spectrum -- because controls in the form of an effective (read, "enforceable") guideline will only keep the ethical from developing the fixes, while leaving the unethical free to do what they're going to do anyway.

---

Re:Scary

[ErikZ]

Consequenses of the therotical use of something that doesn't exist?

You're frightened of this new field because there's nothing in it. No reality to brush aside your imagination. Go to the conference, find out what's going on, then start thinking.

Later
Erik Z

Nanobiotechnology conferences

[smoondog]

Training conferences in the biotech (and the rest of the tech/scientific community as well, I suspect) are a great way to meet people in the field. As a grad student in biotech, I've been to a number of these training conferences and found them very useful to network and figure out what's going on.

Attendees, though, I suspect should have some training in a technical field to actually get something out of the conference.


-- Moondog

Correction / Question

[mr. roboto]

Though Feynman did go to school at Princeton, he never taught there. He taught briefly at Cornell early on, but spent the bulk of his career at Caltech.

As for his being the "only modern physicist to make the top 10 physicists of all time" . . .
In my experience "modern physics" means post-Newtonian type stuff: quantum, special/general relativity, etc. I would hope, therefore, that Feynman was not the only modern physicist to make the list (I'd hope they'd include Einstein, at least). If they defined "modern" differently, I guess we're simply engaged in a semantic argument.

Re:Hard to remedy

[yuriwho]

You have identified a better story than the one we are all replying to since this one actually gives some info (not much tho) as to what they consider bionanotechnology to be:

From the NIH web site

General topics to be covered during the symposium include: * synthesis of biomimetically-derived and bioactive nanostructures for applications in therapeutics and diagnostics; * devices for early detection of disease and for single cell and molecule measurements; * electronic/biology interfaces; * biological nanostructures; and * nanotechnology in tissue repair.

Seems to me they are just renaming areas within biology as bionanotech. I guess it helps to keep the federal monies flowing.

What would make a really good story is a link to a conference proceedings to people could actually get a glimpse of the science being presented and find out what really is bionanotech.

Re:Nano-Bots

[yuriwho]

Can you tell us more or give us a link to the labs website?

Are they jumping the gun?

[belgin]

Maybe I am behind the times a bit, but isn't nanotechnology still in its infancy? I thought that we didn't have working nanotechnology of any sort yet. Do we need to start classifying bionanotechnology vs. regular nanotechnology yet?

If I understand what they are doing correctly, they are attacking the subset of nanotech that is designed for (hopefully) medical purposes. (OK, so the chances of a big chunk of nanites going into the "We promise not to use it!" vault of weapons is pretty high.) Why don't they just use seperate words?

I feel bad for the people who will have to say: "I work on nuclearfissonheattransferalnanotechnology." Head it off before it begins!

Seriously, is there anything to discuss about this workshop other than the fact that it being held and the name smacks of silliness?

B. Elgin

SNL

[belgin]

Quoth Mike Meyers:

"Bionanotechnology is neither Bio-, nor Nano-, nor technology. Discuss."

B. Elgin

Re:It's the techs that differ, not the application

[belgin]

Thanks. It is good to know that this is something useful. Once again, however there is a lack of excessively easily accessible data beyond the fact that this is happening, and since when does more than 1% of /.ers bother to do some sort of research to discuss something?

Seriously, though, I hope that the approval of viral vectors in vaccinations comes up at some point. We look rather silly knowing about potiential vaccinations for diseases like AIDS using malarial and rabies vectors combined with partial HIV proteins, yet being unable to ever devlop the vaccines. Heck, we can't even test them on willing subjects if I am properly informed.

B. Elgin

link to Feynman's famous talk

[Uberminky]

Here's a link to Feynman's famous talk, "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom." A very interesting read. Especially considering it was given in 1959!!

To cure the most vile disease in the world.

[DShor]

When most people hear the words nanotechnology (or in this case bionanotechnology) their minds almost automatically go to cool little computer gadgets and the bionic woman (well, we all go there sometimes). But in all seriousness, bionanotechnology is already planned for use in alot of phase I and pre phase I cures for cancer and similar disease. No technogadgets are involved, only goold ol genetic engineering of viruses and such that are 'fixed' to go after the cancerous, or otherwise evil cells. Then there are also some freaks like the guy who would be Borg (forgot his name, but he's put some neat gadgets into his body) who push the limits of bionanotechnology and turn everyone into skeptics. So let's keep it real so that more respected scientists flock to this field and one day cures the ever evil common cold.

It's the techs that differ, not the applications.

[Brand X]

Bionanotechnology is generally the use of biological products to operate on the nanometer scale. This means engineered activators and gene snippers and diagnostic tools, most of which are based on viruses and cells-with-stuff-on-them.

Nanotechnology is generally the use of inorganic chemicals with measurable quantum and electromechanical interactions. It refers to a technology far more in its infancy, more closely related to condensed matter and surface physics than to biotech.

Hard to remedy

[Brand X]

Five years ago, the NIH (www,nih.gov) funded an investigation into the viability of these methods of vaccination which found that retrovirus research had a good chance of applicability in combating AIDS. I'm still wondering what happened with a lot of the recommendations of the report, but it remains an extremely good read. Also on the NIH page is a much more detailed announcement of another bionanotech conference.

Interesting Fact

[Grant Elliott]

One of the more interesting tidbits about nanotechnology is who first presented the idea as a possibility. In fact, he was none other than the great Richard Feynman.

In case you don't know, Feynman was a leading physicists of the 20th century. He went to school at MIT and Princeton, worked at Los Alamos, investigated Challenger, and taught at Princeton. He was a very interesting guy. If you ever get a chance, read one of his books, such as "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" or "What do you care what other people think." Quite a character. Feynman was in the news recently as the only modern physicist to make the top 10 physicists of all time (He was number 7).