Slashdot Mirror


Viruses Enlisted as Nano-builders

Parsa writes "Nanotechnology is getting closer with genetically engineered viruses grabbing zinc sulfide and arranging themselves into highly organized structures. The story is here at MSNBC.com."

27 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Frightening... by andyh1978 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Look up the 'Gray Goo problem' on Google, there's plenty of discussion on this.

  2. Hmm...viruses by NaCh0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    According to reports, Microsoft is already leading the field.

  3. Just great. by jackal! · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here I am unemployed, and they're giving high-tech jobs to viruses. Talk about a hit to the self-esteem.

    --

    Who moderates the meta-moderators?

  4. links by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Angela Belch, Lead researcher (personal page)

    Main Research Page

    And yes, they have Movies, along with pretty pictures

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  5. NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by pharphetch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All technology has the potential for abuse and many have been abused for nefarious ends. The reality for us all is the same now as it was for Prometheus. Nothing ventured nothing gained. If you prefer Henry T. Ford..."No One Can Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come!"

    We must be vigilant but we must grow. Our world is dynamic not static and we need the long view to ensure the survivability of human kind. Sure we could destroy ourselves if we take the fire....but....we will most certainly perish if we play ostrich.

    Fortune Favours The Bold!

    --
    pharphetch
    1. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      Orangedog_on_crack wrote:

      > Good points made on the call for calm regarding the destructive
      > potential of nanotech.

      Calm is good as opposed to mindless panic. Calm is also good as opposed to carelessly ignoring such destructive potential, and forging on recklessly, for the sake of change, without regard to proper safeguards.

      > A hammer can classified as a very useful tool to drive nails, pound
      > things into place, etc. It can also be considered as a dangerous weapon
      > when employed to bash in a human skull.

      A hammer is more frequently dangerous because of unsafe working practices. If you hammer on something, and a piece of what you are working on flies into your eye, you could loose that eye. It is better to wear safety googles, keep your fingers well away from where your hammer is hitting, and keep your mind on what you are doing. A hammer is a simple, obvious tool. It is easy to figure out how to use it safely.

      It is far less obvious what to do about tiny nanocritters you can't even see, created by a relatively new field of science, with little accumulated history of what kinds of accidents are even possible to have. Furthermore, this technology will be subject to the control of corrupt and/or clueless governments, and big corporations, many of which care only for market position and/or the almighty dollar (yen, euro, etc.). Accidents can and do happen in the real world, and these two groups, with ignorance and greed resulting in safety precautions being ignored and costs being cut, are great breeding grounds for such accidents.

      > It will happen fast, too fast by the standards of the chicken littles of
      > the world.

      Rapidly followed by massive class action lawsuits over the town of 5,000 people whose spleens got turned into microchips by some escaped (and highly imaginative) nanocritters. Soon after, Equal Rights for Nanocritters formed to protest their slavery. (IANAL)

      > Suddenly things like fusion reactors (ones that actually produce more
      > power than they consume) will seem within reach.

      I thought we already had one of those. You know, that shiny thing in the sky? ;)

      > There will be a lot of changes resulting from this technology. It's best
      > to make "change" your friend, otherwise, someone else will.

      Last I heard, we couldn't have a cure to the common cold because those pesky virus bugs were so damn mysterious and hard to kill. Now we are genetically engineering them to do cute tricks for us, and poor humans still suffer from colds and flus. "Change" isn't a very compassionate "friend" when it is in the service of the big corporations.

      We "stole" fire from heaven millenia ago, and accidents (and arson) still result in the destruction of homes and businesses. We "stole" the godly flame of the atom nearly 60 years ago, and the last of the three major nuclear plant accidents occured in 1999 (Tokaimura, Japan -- caused by gross stupidity: fill open vat with nitric acid, add powdered nuclear fuel, invite Toho over to film a Godzilla attack on your plant, and mix with a really big spoon). If we still can't control those two without accident, what makes you think nanotechnology will be any different, particularly if we proceed with it rapidly?

      I'm not saying it's evil. I'm just urging caution and wise use.

      "What do you think Mothra would do?" - Moll, "Mosura" 1996

    2. Re:NANO(NONSESE) PANIC by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      An AC wrote (that I wrote):

      > > Calm is good as opposed to mindless panic. Calm is also good as
      > > opposed to carelessly ignoring such destructive potential, and
      > > forging on recklessly, for the sake of change, without regard to
      > > proper safeguards.
      >
      > Which, translated from Greenpeace-speak, means an eleven year
      > moratorium. To be renewed every ten years.

      You know, I'm not (and have never been) a member of Greenpeace. I wouldn't even know how to write "Greenpeace-speak". I was just expressing my common-sense (to me anyway) desire for approaching new technologies with wisdom and proper safeguards so we can enjoy them safely.

      I found it very amusing that you took that to be some kind of fanatical desire for a return to a hunter/gatherer society. ;)

      > Everyone has a reason for his or her beliefs, but not all of these are
      > worthy of merit.

      Perhaps. But everyone has a right to their beliefs, and a right to express them. Thankfully someone had the wisdom to put that in the American Bill of Rights. Not that there is that much wisdom in Washington DC these days. :(

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      "Mosura", 1961

  6. Bad Nano PR by geoffsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With Bill Joy's alarmist speil about nanobots replicating out of control, this is hardly good PR for nanotech. I mean, viruses? We're talking about the most evil self-replicating things we can find, throw them in with nanotech and it doesn't exactly make a good association.

    Now I'm not particularly worried about these custom virii infecting humans, particularly if they're using virii that don't infect multicellular organisms (like the very cool bacteriophage virus). I think the laymen will, however, and the last thing I want to see if governments restricting nanotech the way they are clamping down on biotech.

    Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon

  7. Re:Frightening... by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

    Like missiles can shoot down other missiles and Jedis can duel other Jedis, Nanobots can destroy other nanobots.

    In The Future people might have their natural immune system and a Nanobot immune system to go with it.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  8. Viral Viruses by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can they GPL their technique, so they have a viral viral product?

  9. Please come up with a snappy name by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you continue to refer to them as "viruses", people will never support this sort of thing.

    Its like the people who follow Bush on "cloning". Oh sure, some of them have legit religious opposition, but most blindly think that a "clone" is some sort of sci-fi copy of yourself, when in reality, a full grown human clone would be an identical twin, and a totally different person, except for genetic traits.

    People are going to see virus and thing "little organism that kills" and we will never even get started.

    I hate stupid people.

    1. Re:Please come up with a snappy name by Saeger · · Score: 2
      If you continue to refer to them as "viruses", people will never support this sort of thing.

      Using bioengineered organisms is currently the best known bet for bootstrapping nanotechnology (out of the realm of bio). Viruses just happen to be smallest of these organisms, and there's no good reason for a name change.

      Rather than Euphemizing (which I hate), would it be so hard for people to understand that there's a difference between good viruses and bad viruses? Just like there's a difference between good radiation and bad radiation? And just like there's a diff between high seas piracy and copyright infringment? ... (Oh, wait...maybe you're right :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  10. Thanks by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks for the link to msnbc.com in the writeup, I knew that site existed, but I had forgotten where it was over the last couple days. Much appreciated.

  11. People? by Quixote · · Score: 2

    Checkout their people page, and scroll to the bottom for pictures of some hectic research activity. These biochemists....

  12. Immoral and extremely uncorrect by wackybrit · · Score: 3, Funny

    This story disgusts me. It's wrong for Nike and Adidas to enslave living organisms in countries such as Africa and Bangkok but it's okay for American scientists to do it? Hell, Nike and Adidas even pay their living organisms 50 cents an hour.

    I say that we should negotiate labor rights with these creatures, let them have a 15 minutes 'osmosis break' every 4 hours, give them a good pay, and treat them with the respect they deserve!

  13. Re:Frightening... by aswang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While many science fiction writers have already painted in detail various doomsday scenarios with regards to nanotech gone out of control, and while it's possible that once they perfect this specific technology, it may very well go out of control, I think the fear of direct infection from these viruses is alarmist. These viruses are specifically bacteriophages, and so far, no bacteriophage has been known to also infect eukaryotic cells. Admittedly, it's probably not impossible, but it's probably the least of our worries.

  14. Cool! Will the make nanotubes? Oh wait... by MBCook · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the make nanotubes, what happens when they get loose?

    Doc: "Billy, you've got nanitis, you need to stay away from pregnant women and flash photography."
    Billy: "Flash photography? You're kidding right?"
    Doc: "You don't have to, but don't blame me if you explode."

    Maybe that idea some indian tribes used to have about it bad to get your picture taken was right. Hey! There's a reporter here at my house to put me in the paper for this insight. You need a photograph for the front page? OK, what harm could it do? Wait... Noooooooo.........

    *KABOOM*

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  15. Some suggestions for new names by MBCook · · Score: 3, Funny
    And just what do you want to call them? Here are some suggestions:

    • Happy Kill-Machines
    • Silly-Willy-Buildy-Killies
    • Homocidal Huggies
    • Fun Uberbuilders, Can Kill (or as I prefer, the acronym FUC...)
    • Maybe a better acronym, like LOVE (Little Organisms of Villianous Emotion)

    Yeah, that will change the image of viruses ;)

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  16. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by texchanchan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they limited their attacks to bacteria, we could still be in serious trouble. The entire ecosystem depends on bacteria. Without bacteria there is no "dust to dust." On a more personal level, the "good" bacteria in your innards don't provide nutrients (that I know of, being an ignorant techie, not a scientist), but they do other things for you like keep their nasty cousins from eating you alive. We'd also be in trouble without the cyanobacteria ("blue-green algae").

  17. Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

    Recently, a friend that works at a prestigious laboratory noted that they saw a very strange pattern of xenon atoms on top of a palladium plate. Assuming that it was a joke perpetrated by a coworker, it was never reported. While mostly illegible, he was able to make out several words.

    "We not slaves, ugly bags of mostly water."

    Both of us were perplexed, if it was a joke, we didn't get it.

    1. Re:Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure if your serious or not, however, I remember where this comes from.
      "ugly bags of mostly water" was a description of humans by a microscopic yet intelligent lifeform found in one of the ST: TNG episodes. It seems someone is showing some objection to using whatever you're using for your own purposes, "enslaving" it.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    2. Re:Strange pattern observed under ST Microscope... by yardgnome · · Score: 2

      Actually, while the reference within the post is towards a ST:tNG episode, ST Microscope refers to a Scanning Tunneling Microscope.

      --
      4-star general in a one-man army.
  18. Old-school nanomachines by AndyChrist · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't really see how this is fundamentally a novel concept...I mean viruses and bacteria have been operating on these scales forever, they've been manipulated for decades... It is interesting to hear that they're being used in a manner not dissimilar to earlier self-assembly techniques.

    The line about disassembly is interesting, though. If this is self-dissasembly and reassembly, wow, that makes for some interesting possibilities. Kind of like a ship-in-a-bottle, you could get devices into places with no route for the whole object...does your bladder need repair? Stick a catheter in, pump in whatever solution the nanotech-viruses need to operate, pump in the viruses, and let them build the surgical tools, then take them apart when they're done. Better than laproscopy (sp?), we could be talking about surgery through a syringe.

    I'm sure this could also be used for evil, as well...

  19. Nanos ARE imperial measure.. by k98sven · · Score: 2

    For instance:
    Distance: nanofurlongs (10^-9 furlongs, or 10^-8 chains)
    Liquid measure: nanohogshead (2*10^-9 liquid barrels)
    Quantity: nanogross (1.44*10^-7)
    Weight: nanostone (1.4*10^-8 U.K. pounds)
    also used:

    1 nanoscruple = 2*10^-10 grains (or 2 Ånggrains)
    1 nanodram = 3.2*10^-10 grains
    1 nanogill = 2.5*10^-10 nanopints
    1 nanoacre = 1.6*10^-7 nanosquare rods

  20. Re:Frightening...Yes, but if they attack bacteria? by texchanchan · · Score: 2

    "Actually, the comensual bacteria in our guts do produce most of the vitamin-K..."

    Thanks for this piece of knowledge. Now I am a slightly less ignorant techie.

    As for the other comment by the Anonymous Coward, I wasn't implying some virus or nano would kill ALL bacteria. If it hit even one strain, depending on which species, it's conceivable that the result might be ecologically troublesome.

  21. Incredible.. but.. by deathcow · · Score: 2

    Lets hope we dont end up having to feed our CCD sensors in the future, you know, "Pick up some Purina CCD Chow...!"

  22. Re:Frightening... by kesuki · · Score: 2

    It would be interesting if Mars once held life that invented Nanotech virus that went rampantly out of control and devoured the world. Leaving the planet exhausted of resources, and covered with nanobots that over the millions of years decayed into red dust.
    The martians could have also had a war with the planet that is currently the asteroid belt and the decisive victory was a planet destroying weapon.