Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Crack Silk's Secret
AEton writes "Researchers at Tufts University have reportedly discovered the mechanism by which spidersilk is produced. Besides the obvious use as a Kevlar substitute in bulletproof vests, silk has applications in microprocessor production, nanoscale optical fiber, a and any other application requiring strength and flexbility. Scientists have long grappled with the issue of creating silk; artificial silk is inferior to the real stuff, and the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other). The method these Tufts researchers have found makes "strong silk" production feasible; if they can make it economical, the impact on safety equipment alone makes this material a worthwhile investment."
Scientists develop $5 artificial diamonds and scientists develop economically produced artificial silk; I'd say its been a pretty good time for those who had kept their hopes up for alchemy after the 18th century turned out unfruitful... How long until workers in industries "ruined" by scientific development (though only ever valued for the rareness of their product) develop a cult-like anti-scientific religion and take over the world?
the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other)
:-(
Why can't everybody be nice to each other ??
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Well, I've read the article. I've read Scientific American's version. I've read a few other ones google referenced. And I still haven't a fucking clue why silk is so strong.
Am I getting dumber, or are these science article getting more opaque?
"becuase of proteins with various properties" me arse.
So does this mean we're going to start arming the cops with spidersilk so they can assist Spiderman in his pursuit of justice? Cool!
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Let's just hope the spiders don't use the DMCA against the scientists.
fuck! not again dude, its totally time to dump those shares in First Mandarin Silk Co.
Do you honestly think anyone EVER seriously considered farming spiders for their silk? The idea of unimaginable numbers of spiders all together is chilling even to the bravest of us. And of course they'd discover that black widows or brown recluses or giant bird spiders produced the strongest silk, and then they would escape....
*shudder*
...
This brings up an interesting question. Does anyone know what the difference is in properties between the silkworm's silk and the spider's silk?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Next up, Seth Industries & Automobiles! Silksteel cars with diamond windshields and pistons and of course a dimensional warp generator!
Hate me!
However, you can't have too many silk researchers working on the project - when you put them too close together, they eat each other.
Yes, finally! We can start producing super-strong silk boxers to protect all us sexy geeks from the swarms of girls outside our rooms. Personally, I'm all for reducing user latency in the kernel and reading the latest rant by RMS, but *indestructable silk boxers* get me really excited. I'm blowing through several pairs a week when I leave the dark, secluded safety of my room to get more gin and tonic at the store. I certainly can't make the swarm go away, but this takes care of a symptom!
I don't suppose it occured to any of these rocket scientists to put the spiders in seperate cages.
...or better yet, genetically modify the spiders to be nice! Perfect plot for a B-grade movie with LL Cool J; the spiders are only PRETENDING to be nice! Mwuahahahaha...
Please help metamoderate.
As advanced as we think we are, it takes the discovery of how to do what seems like the mundane of how to make diamonds and silk to realize that we have such a long way to go.
We still can't store electricity efficiently.
This is my sig.
I imagine a bizarre cult of disgruntled former Kevlar workers sacrificing one of the spider-silk goats.
What ever happened with the spider-silk goat and cow experiments anyway? Or is that how they got enough material for the current breakthrough?
Hey! HEY! Stop that! No goatse links!
You don't suppose this stuff could be strong enough to make a space elevator, could it?
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
"the spiders can't be farmed (when you put them too close together, they eat each other)."
:)
hey, not so fast.
check out this cbc article and click through to the photo gallery to get really creeped out.
that's one whole lotta silk. i'd still like to know who/what they ate to do that. and i'd really, really like to know what biochem outfit owns land nearby.
SiLK which is used for microprocessor applications is not connected in any way to spider silk. The former is an acronymn for a resin
(aromatic hydrocarbon) made by Dow Chemicals and used by IBM and other chip companies as an insulator between the multiple layers of wires on a chip. Silicon Low-K = SiLK
"It's obvious that they couldn't have discovered the secret to making silk that quickly without access to SCO's intellectual property," said Darl McBride, SCO's president. He continued, "In 1999, they were making some silk, but it was low quality. Then, suddenly, over the course of a year or so, their silk became enterprise quality. Stuff that took other people 30 years took them months."
In a move considered to be brilliant in the business world, SCO bought the patents on silk production from God in 2000 for an undisclosed sum. "We've been looking to leverage those patents ever since" said McBride.
Right now, SCO isn't planning on suing individual spiders, although they won't rule out the possibility. "We've considering going after some of the nuisance species, such as brown recluses and black widows, first," said Chris Sontag. "We've been warned by our attorneys that doing such would expose us to the possibilities of bites and nasty wounds, so it's really something we don't want to do right now."
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Silk Initiative, says that God lost protection on His silk production techniques by creating so many different species that use the intellectual property and not entering into any official licensing agreement with them. "It's a little late to be worrying about that now", said Raymond. A 1993 lawsuit regarding silk production methods also cast doubt on the validity of the patents.
Meanwhile, some spiders have openly questioned Raymonds repeated assertions that he represents them or their opinions in these matters.
Do you have ESP?
I want run-proof stockings and sexy lingerie out of this stuff.
I understand from the article that they've figured out how strong silk is actually produced, which should give them a heads-up on making a mechanical/chemical process to do all this artificially. It should be pointed out, though, that there are already means for production of non-artificial spider silk currently, which the article seems to have missed.
~ Leilah
There isn't currently a spider-silk industry. There's a silk industry, but from what I understand the whole point of spider silk as opposed to silkworm silk (which is at least relatively easily harvested), is that spiders have stronger silk with many more applications. So realistically, what we have here is not one industry "ruining" another, it's an entirely new industry that's being added. It's not like the spiders are going to get upset about us taking over their industry.
On the topic of displaced workers though - there's always going to be a demand for "the real thing". While artificially produced diamonds may be exactly the same as naturally formed ones, for many people they are two entirely different things. It's all a question of perception. As long as people view the two things differently, there will always be a market for the rarer and consequently more expensive natural diamonds.
~ Leilah
I have this piece of wood in the back yard covered with spiders. Guess they should have called me...
This is my sig.
And, given the time that life has had to develop, it is far from amazing that "natural" materials can be strong. Life is a bit like an arms race that has been going on for over a billion years. The development of advanced materials by human beings using brainpower and technology is just an extension of the normal mechanisms of evolution.
Wood (for instance) is chemically and structurally similar to many advanced composite plastics, and the strongest woods are as strong as structural plastics. It just shows that there is a clever way of making strong, resilient materials and that you can do this by natural selection of biochemistry or you can do it by technology. It's interesting, but not amazing.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I can't remember what the name of the Heinlein novel but the novel or short story talked extensively about construction on an asteroid and how some of the work wouldn't be possible without synthetic spider webbing. Looks like Heinlein was ahead of his times again.
This guy is way out there
>The modern atheistic regimes have killed more
>people than all of the "religious" wars in
>history.
Since there were far more people on the earth during "modern" history than there were in the past, this is hardly a relevant point. As a percentage of population killed, they've certainly done no better (or worse) than their religious predecessors. And of course, many of the victims of religion were killed not in wars, but by the zealots in their own nations. From the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials, religion has been effective at persecuting or slaughtering the innocent within a society, quite apart from any wars between religions or sects.
One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.
What really strikes me as odd (or maybe as typical) in your mode of discussion is the total lack of space for any hint of morality in those that choose not to believe in God. Your consistent grouping of morality on the side of theism, and the subsequent imposibility of a morality outside the context of a God is simplistic, to say the least.
I do not believe in a God that leads my day to day life, or even cares about it. I do not believe in a God that loves us as individuals. I do not believe in a God that sat down one day and created heaven and earth for our benefit.
And when I stop looking at spirituality, I look around me and see organised religion outdoing organised crime in profit margins, ruthlessnes and control. I look at organised religion and see nothing but nepotism, and little evidence of this assumed morality. I see massive coverup of child abuse. I see lives destroyed in the name of the pope. I see people going hungry, without help from the churches, that can seriously afford it. I see a pope, buying a million dollar Bentley, so he can drive around in safety, while his followers slaughter each other for ridiculous reasons. I see an organised fostering of hate, a repressive regime, that actively discourages discovery of the world around us, an inward-looking philosophy, that frowns on exploration. I see a cult. A cult more concerned with control then with anything else.
Irrespective of my lack of beliefs in a traditional sense, I live my life, and teach my son to live his, along a moral code that requires no deity to enforce: Be nice to others. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, "For example, atheists can be moral people, but they are usually this way in spite of the first principle that God does not exist. Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism"
Your moral code is "be nice to others". How is that derived from atheism? Another athiest seems to advocate "selfish pragmatism." Whose code is right? Suppose you come across a person whose moral code is "survival of the fittest". On what basis will you say that he is wrong? Furthermore, how would you live in a society based upon this?
As for your assessment of religion, I see something quite different. I see liberal giving, of time, self, and money to help the poor and needy. I see people loving those who hate them. I see kindness and compassion and a striving for freedom of the individual. As just one example, I had the privilege of working with a man in whose son, having converted to Christianity, was killed by the local Muslims. Instead of reacting with hatred, he forgave them and is working among them to relieve their oppressive poverty (with help from Christians in the West). And when I see the abuses that do happen, I agree with you that they are wrong. They are contrary to Christianity, not in accordance with it.
But the predator who lives by "survival of the fittest", or "might makes right", or "pragmatic selfishness" is quite in accordance with atheistic morality.
Redfield Gunsight used to have a whole area in their factory of black-widown spiders. They farmed them and valued them very much. If a spider was missing, they would issue an alert to locate the spider and return it to its home.
The web from the black-widow spider was used to make the cross-hairs in their scopes. During the prime of their business, Redfield scopes were some of the very best ever made. All thanks to the silk from the black-widow spider farm.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Nope, you had it right the first time. Some strands of a spider's web are sticky, some are not. It's not for "extra support for the web" as it is "it's nice to be able to walk around without sticking to my own house." The spiders know which strands are which. And if they have to step on a sticky strand, they just pull themselves loose.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)