Slashdot Mirror


NASA + NCI = Nano-Explorers For Humans

SEWilco writes: "NASA and the National Cancer Institute will collaborate in developing microscopic explorers -- devices in a pill-sized capsule to detect, diagnose, and treat disease inside the human body. Following the links you find interesting NASA devices, such as pill-shaped biotelemetry transmitters and a biotelemeter 'Trisponder' to read the data."

33 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4
    Yes, but the difference is that until AIDS is cured, people can't have care free rampant sex. Cancer is random mostly, whereas sex can be dangerous. Whoever dishes out the funding is obviously thinking with their libido.

    My father in law died of cancer last year. I've had friends die of cancer. I don't know anyone who has HIV. Yeah, great budgetting. The previous poster in this thread is right. It's disgusting that AIDS gets more funding than cancer. About the only way you can get HIV without having yourself to blame is through a blood transfusion. The rest, well you play the lottery and take your chances. Yet cancer can strike anyone.

    This kinda crap makes me VERY angry.:(

  2. I don't know... by pb · · Score: 3

    I wouldn't want to see this technology in use if someone wrote a "virus"...

    Who owns the NASA technology, anyhow? I know, we always hear about the benefits of "space-age" technology, but... do they license their patents, or does the gov't reap the benefits? And couldn't that money go towards NASA funding? Please?
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    1. Re:I don't know... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 4

      Who owns NASA tech? We (US Citizens) do! If you want to license some NASA Tech, check out: http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/technology/index.html.

      CSG_SurferDude

  3. Um, actually... by Millennium · · Score: 3

    Infected blood from an outside source. Same shit different pile.

    Actually, that isn't too likely to be the problem; the mother's and baby's blood only mix as the child is being born, and even then it isn't enough to pose too much of a threat (indeed, many AIDS babies are actually born without the virus and later get it from their mother's breastmilk).

    I don't know if amnion carries the virus or not; not all fluids do. Saliva, for example, doesn't carry the virus, at least not in large enough quantities to pose any risk whatsoever unless you were to drink a gallon of the stuff (I think I'll pass). Last I checked only four bodily fluids actually carried the virus in significant quantities: blood, mucus, semen, and vaginal secretions. Other fluids don't seem to carry the virus, or carry it in such minute amounts that there's little to no real risk.

    There are also reported cases of babies born with HIV whose bodies actually fight and kill the virus, but Doctors aren't quite sure why yet. Read about that years ago.

    There was one case, and that one was later found to be just a mistake; the test was a false-negative.

    Also, you talk about the only way to get AIDS without having yourself to blame being through a blood transfusion. That's not strictly true. Some AIDS-infected people actually use their disease as a weapon, infecting many people without them even knowing it. One famous example was a Florida dentist who secretly infected 25 people. There are also HIV-infected rapists; surely such a case is one where it's not the victim's fault that they were infected. And while I know of no cases of this next one, there's also the possibility of infecting someone unwillingly with a needle (we're not talking needle-sharing here; we're talking forced injection).

    As for blood transfusions, the screening is so good now that it basically takes a freak accident for HIV-infected blood to get into the supply. So under normal circumstances, AIDS is quite preventable. But it isn't always; don't forget that.

    This said, I do think it's a shame that AIDS research gets 20 times the money that cancer research gets. Not so much because of the preventability of AIDS as the fact that cancer still kills many more people every year than AIDS does, and it's been killing for a far longer time There's evidence of known cancer cases in ancient Egypt, whereas the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the late 70's/early 80's, and even the oldest hypothetical case is from the 50's. Don't get me wrong; both diseases are terrible things and need research. But someone in Washington needs to get their priorities straight, or at least recognize that cancer is still a massive threat.

    But I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. One last tidbit to leave you with. For a long time, the CIA had a certain bit of spy technology with an interesting side-effect: it could be used to detect breast cancer far earlier than any technology of the time could. But before they released it to the public (which was only recent; sometime in the last five years), they had to be convinced that women's health was "an issue of national security." Guess it goes to show you where Washington's priorities lie.

  4. I'd like a 2nd opinion by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

    Well, in general it sounds neat-o, but on second though - how can you take a 'pill' of nanites and, 1st, have them survive the digestive system - it can get really acidic in there, and they'd have to pass thru the stomach or intestinal wall and - geez, I find it a little difficult to beleive that anyhing is able to do both THAT and do anything useful from a micromechanical perspective - like a sensor/transmitter nanite. I question the feasibility of this idea in terms of the bodily particulate-mobility and functionality, ie., a complex monitor/sensor is feasible as an fixed implant, but I find it hard to beleive one could just 'drift around' in the body - I guess there's a fine line between new highly complex molecular 'drugs' and 'micromechanical nanites'.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  5. Smaller, Cheaper, Faster... by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Ok, so it's definitely smaller. Could also be faster with sufficient amounts of dietary fiber.

    Don't know if it's cheaper -- but it better be, considering each mission ends with the probe going down the swirly black hole...

  6. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by Surt · · Score: 2

    As long as none of the widespread and numerous strains of AIDS becomes airborn. If you don't believe this is a real possibility, you don't know enough AIDS researchers.

    Cancer strikes smokers, radiation victims, and otherwise randomly. No one with knowledge of the field feels that cancer is likely to become airborn.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  7. Re:wasted article spot by Rombuu · · Score: 2

    . when is the last time either of these two made an impact on anything.

    Well most of NASA's spacecraft have made pretty big impacts on Mars lately...

    Rim shot

    Thank you! I'm at the Funny Bone in Cleveland next week... please tip your waitresses and drive safely.

    --

    DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
  8. Nanotechnology Networking by FozzMan · · Score: 3

    Imagine if these things were networked. I wonder how much a sysadmin of this kind of network would get paid. Maybe they could even have a connection to the Internet. Your doctor could monitor your vital signs and then send back a message saying release this hormone or send this electrical pulse.
    Problems might arise though. What if some scrpit kiddie pinged you to death. If you think about it these little things would whae to have wireless connections to the net which would be very slow. It'd be interesting to see what kind of attacks would be made on these devices to cause problems. Maybe a DHR(Distributed Hormone Release) that causes you to suddenly start getting really horny. But you could also use a DHR to make someone grow more.
    I'd set up my old 486 as a firewall to prevent "malicious hackers" from breaking into me and causing some kind of meltdown. Maybe have the 486 notify a special Nano device that "pages" my brain with the person's IP and what they are doing.

  9. Blood Music by Greg Bear by GoNINzo · · Score: 2
    Just wanted to comment that Greg Bear's Blood Music is much closer to happening than we think. While I'm not an alarmist, it would not be difficult to get these types of things progressing to a intelligent level once you make the first steps into tiny machines.

    In the book, (originally a short story) a scientist manages to create an intelligent Lymphocite, which is the white blood cells, the 'Cops' of the Cardiovascular system. They end up in his own blood stream, and convert his body to a super healthy state, including restructuring his bones for more optimal movement and to prevent damage. Anyway, some more stuff happens, I won't ruin it. It's really good.

    I had read the short story years ago, but the book picks up where the short story just got interesting. Highly recommend it.

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
    "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
  10. Here we go again by / · · Score: 2

    First it was people thinking Jesus was talking to them.

    Then along came science fiction, and the same people now were worried about little green men and their ray guns, so they built themselves tinfoil hats and even tinfoil bodysuits.

    Now here comes nanotech. Who knows how much more sophisticated these wackos are going to get? Let's all repeat after me: "Get them away from me!"

    --
    "If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
  11. I think you're referring to "Plasmania" by cje · · Score: 2

    IIRC, the Commodore 64 version shrieked "Welcome to PLASMAAAANIA!" when you loaded it up.

    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  12. I was part of a study by cyberguyd · · Score: 2

    A few years ago, a sports physiologist was doing a study using a temperature pill that NASA developed that measured core body temperature. He was comparing the pills results to the standard
    methods which required me to put a thermistor on a wire in two places, one of which was up my nose and down my throat. The other we won't mention. TMI!! I had to wear an antenna array harness that picked up the signals from this pill. Pretty cool being a part of the developement of this stuff. Anyway, it was I guess a precursor to these devices plus I got paid, had my body fat measured, got to watch a couple of Arnold movies and get some exercise!

  13. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by Cuthalion · · Score: 4

    I find HIV scarier than cancer because cancer is not contagious. There is NO WAY cancer could concievably wipe out the human race. There are regions of the Earth where upwards of 50% of the population is infected with HIV. I suspect that it its infection rate is increasing much faster than cancer rates are.

    --
    Trees can't go dancing
    So do them a big favor
    Pretend dancing stinks!
  14. I saw that movie ..... by taniwha · · Score: 2

    Who will get the Raquel Welch part? :-)

  15. star trek tech by gonar · · Score: 2

    ...and a biotelemeter "Trisponder" to read the data...

    I suppose you need a Tricorder to record the data from the Trisponder.

    --
    The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
  16. reminds me of an old apple game... by kootch · · Score: 2

    there used to be this game for the Apple IIe or IIgs where the story line was along the lines of a doctor being shrunk with some gadget and given this little nano-type-ship to pilot, and then being injected into various parts of the human body.

    the missions where to clean up a certain health problem or fix certain problems, battle germs and bacteria and such, navigate the heart, etc... was really lame, but every time I hear about nanotech and healthcare, that game always pops into my head. Damn wasted braincells... atleast I can't remember the name of the game.

  17. Sweet by Eruantalon · · Score: 2

    I've always wanted nanites to be available to normal people. It'd be a whole hell of a lot easier to have somewhat intelligent nanites inside your bloodstream and to have dumbassed chemicals just doing their thing. It'd be pretty damn cool, too. Now, all they need to do is figure out how to get nanites to scrape tar off lungs. Now that would be a great invention.....cough....hack.

    Eruantalon

  18. _Really_ smart drugs by laborit · · Score: 2

    dumbassed chemicals just doing their thing.

    What a great description of psychopharmacology! Can I use it when I teach undergrads?

    For all the chemicals it pumps out, the body is surprisingly parsimonious sometimes. You can take Prozac(TM) or ecstasy to raise your mood, and end up with high blood pressure, confusion, tremor, possibly death (admittedly more likely if you take both at once). Serotonin syndrome occurs because lots of receptors throughout the brain and body have the same chemical as a signal to do different things. But if we had a substance that could stimulate receptors with the serotonin-seeking shape and tell the difference between a mood-affecting receptor and a blood-pressure raising receptor, we could get the benefits without the side effects.
    This is only crudely possible with dumb chemicals. But nanomachines could communicate with a transmitter at a known location on the subject's body, using it to position themselves and either stimulate receptors or release chemicals at a single, tightly controlled locus. Such micromanagement is already used in neuroscience experiments, but at this time they require inserting a catheter directly into the desired part of the brain (yeah, we can treat your depression if you don't feel like getting out of bed anytime soon...). If the drug could place itself...

    - laborit
    do you know more now, or not?

    The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.

    --

    -----
    Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
  19. Cancer vs. AIDS research by MicroBerto · · Score: 3
    Did you know that for every dollar of govenment funding that Cancer Reasearch gets from the US Govenment, AIDS gets $20?

    That's quite a disgrace, seeing that AIDS is so much more preventable.

    Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) - AOL IM: MicroBerto

    --
    Berto
    1. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by TheReverand · · Score: 2

      Obviously you have never heard of Liver, skin or the other types of cancer that exist. One of the worst being Leukemia which strikes randomly. Or how about esophagle(sp) cancer that my friend is dying of? Yeah he really lived it up not smoking or drinking his whole life.

    2. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by Rantage · · Score: 2
      This is a dangerous sub-thread to jump into, but I felt compelled to add my two cents.

      I agree with MicroBerto that AIDS is more preventable than Cancer. Sex, however, is not the sole method of AIDS (rather, HIV) transmission....needle-sharing is also a major vector, and it's on the rise in developed countries.

      Cancer can also be prevented: don't smoke, don't chew, avoid tanning, etc. Unfortunately cancer's causes are legion whereas HIV/AIDS may be contracted in a limited number of fashions such as unprotected sex, IV drug use and unscreened blood transfusions.

      Both maladies have claimed victims who avoided dangerous and/or hedonistic lifestyles which might have put them at higher risk.

      I take the side of cancer research: pancreatic, lung and breast cancer have claimed the lives of three members of my immediate family. HIV/AIDS has not.

      While I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones to AIDS and neither desire to trivialize their losses nor lobby for reduced AIDS research donations, I cannot ignore that which has struck closer to home.


      Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.

      --
      Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
    3. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by gargle · · Score: 3

      Did you know that for every dollar of govenment funding that Cancer Reasearch gets from the US Govenment, AIDS gets $20?

      I don't buy it. What's the source of your information.


      ====

    4. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by Harri · · Score: 2
      About the only way you can get HIV without having yourself to blame is through a blood transfusion

      Except:
      1. Being born of an infected mother.
      2. Being a nurse, and having an accident while treating a HIV+ patient.
      3. Using a condom that breaks
      4. Sleeping with someone who is HIV+ in some third world country (or even first world...) where nobody bothered to explain to you that there was anything wrong with that.
      5. Being raped.
      6. Falling on or playing with an infected needle left lying around.
      7. Sleeping with someone in a long-term trusting relationship/marriage who becomes HIV+ because they are cheating on you.
      8. Being in an arranged marriage. I doubt that all men in arranged marriages take AIDS tests. Culturally a lot of these people have absolutely no choice in their sexual relations

      One could further argue that in situations where one partner plays on the youth, naivety and trust of the other (consenting) partner in order to have sex without protection, that other partner is not truly at fault. In part, situations like that are caused by the fact that parents and teachers are so up tight and embarrassed about discussing the issues that the issues don't really get discussed.

      Many kids in my class at school lost their virginity at about 13. If the school had given sex education (of the "if you have sex, use protection" sort, not "This is how ovaries work") to 13 year olds, their parents would be up in arms shouting that the school was trying to encourage sex among minors.

      Even more importantly, given the demographic of AIDS sufferers, is that few schools will ever tell you... "If you have gay sex, use protection". In England I think it is illegal for teachers to say anything which could be construed as encouraging (read "condoning") being gay, so the subject is just avoided.

      AIDS sufferers have quite enough of being shunned, since by having the disease they must clearly be a depraved Godless homosexual and a heroin addict as well. You don't have to add to that. And saying that less money should be put into their treatment because their disease is their own fault is at best a debatable position

    5. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by yuriwho · · Score: 2

      Whoever marked this as flaimbait needs to think a little. HIV is much scarier than cancer as it is contagious. It is quite concievable that a new lethal virus could emerge that is transmitted (like the common cold) by hand contact. In fact this virus thrives in computer keyboards. Nerds all over the world are the group that is spreading the virus. They soon are treated with all the respect that gay men currently get.

      Bottom line...infectious lethal virus currently spread by exchange of body fluids could be the source of the next spanish flu. By funding this area of research we are investing generally in viral research and laying the groundwork to be able to prevent future epidemics of nastier versions of these viruses.

      Cancer is a very serious problem and needs big time funding too, but the threat to national (international) well being of lethal viruses is much greater than cancer.

      --
      no sig.
    6. Re:Cancer vs. AIDS research by kruhftwerk · · Score: 2
      Actually, I would think that the funding that AIDS recieves as far more beneficial than just a cure for AIDS.

      A cure for AIDS is not really a cure for AIDS but a cure for viral infections. Such a process would inevitably lead to a number of cures for other diseases (common cold, hepatitis, etc) that would be far more beneficial than just the single cure. If you look at the sum of the parts of the research, it might explain the amount of funding that is applied to such an "easily preventable" disease.

  20. Of course there's a flip side to this all... by Rantage · · Score: 2
    ...and that's the development and release of nanites designed to kill people.

    Not quickly, of course...unless the hapless victim(s) ingested scores at once without noticing a grainy consistancy to their food.

    Maybe these killer nanites could be designed to block arteries with cholesterol, or dissolve platelets to prevent the stop of bleeding on the battlefield, or change the chemical structure of certain food items to slowly poison a victim. How about severing optic nerves to cause blindness, or causing spinal cord injuries to cause paralysis?


    Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.

    --
    Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
  21. NASA + My body = YIKES! by cprincipe · · Score: 2

    Are we forgetting that this is the agency who recently lost one probe because they confused metric and imperial measurements, and lost another due to rushing and cutting corners.

    I'm not a NASA basher, but do we really want these folks putting things inside our bodies?

    --

    bun-fhuinneog agam!

  22. NIH spends more on Cancer than AIDS by cmaley · · Score: 2
    The 1999 NIH budget for the National Cancer Institute was $2.9G, $235M of which was spent on AIDS (because AIDS patients are more susceptible to cancer due to the fact that the immune system often attacks tumors). The total amount spent on AIDS, across all the NIH institudes was $1.8G. So I think it is fair to say that the NIH spends more on cancer than AIDS.

    These numbers come from http://www4.od.nih.gov/ofm/budget/00conference.stm - Carlo

    --
    - living sig-free and proud
  23. NASA discovers micro sized things! by Andy_R · · Score: 5

    Ok, who's going to tell them they are looking down the wrong end of the telescope?

    - Andy R.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  24. They already have this... by MorboNixon · · Score: 2

    ...it's called Mentos! Secretly developed by German Scientists in dubya dubya 2, the innocent-looking "candy-mints" are actually packed with mind-controlling microscopic robots. Upon ingestion, the robots travel straight to the brain and force the unwitting victim to behave like a dippy European, smiling vacantly and showing everyone their pack of Mentos (subliminal advertising). The scientists called their diabolical invention "Mentos" as a contraction of the words Mental and Nano. The Freshmaker indeed!!!

  25. Uh-oh by spoonboy42 · · Score: 2

    I would keep typing, but my liver just crashed. Darn wince!

    --
    Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
    Andy Grove: "Not Much."
  26. I can see it now..... by mfinke · · Score: 5

    Ok, lets say you're sick. You swallow a pill to combat whatever is making you ill.

    However that one pill isn't powerfull enough to fight off the illness by itself. You have to swallow its four friends, and then they all combine inside your body to form a super robot to fight together.
    Sheesh this is starting to sound like Voltron. I hope they don't have some mega-sword which they start swinging wildly around inside of you.

    Let's hope the virii don't start teaming up like this. Soon eveyone will have things popping out of them, al a Alien.

    Ok, this post sounded like a good idea when I started

    --
    The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false.