Slashdot Mirror


DNA Assembled Nano-Transistors

Bob Vila's Hammer writes "In an article at New Scientist, researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have harnessed DNA to mold a nano-transister constructed of graphite nanotubes coated in silver and gold. The carbon nanotube assembly when completed is a fully working transistor when voltage is applied. The process is ingenious, using proteins from E. Coli bacterium to bind carbon nanotubes to certain sites on strands of DNA. Then graphite nanotubes coated with antibodies connect to the proteins. Finally, silver ions are added to the solution which chemically bond with the DNA site where the protein is attached. Further refinement of the technique is required before full scale production would be efficient, but this could allow the creation of elaborate self-assembling DNA sculptures and circuitry."

124 comments

  1. Pretty good. by bl1st3r · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I, for one, welcome our new nano-sized overlords.

    --
    hrrm.
  2. Re:first post! by l337programmer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    since i didnt get first post ::shakes fist::, i have decided to comment. So, where do these "scientists" get this "dna" stuff they speak of?

  3. Nothing New Here, Move Along by thelizman · · Score: 4, Informative

    This process was first performed at MIT by Angela Belcher. She was using engineered viruses that coated themselves with semiconductor materiel to produce nanoscale FET trasnsitors a billionth of a meter in size. You can read more in the November issue of IEEE Spectrum.

    1. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Hogwash. (IEEE Spectrum isn't even a real publication, check google). It was Michael Faraday, and it was *way* before Angela Belcher even knew what a transistor was. Sadly, he was eaten by one of his creations: a bio-thermo electrolytic legume of his own creation.

      Let's just hope these guys are more careful.

    2. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by aborchers · · Score: 2

      Not sure why I'm responding to this troll, but citing it as a billionth of a metre is appropriate since the metre, not the millimetre, is the accepted standard in physics. Hint: it doesn't have a prefix...

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    3. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sadly, he was eaten by one of his creations: a bio-thermo electrolytic legume
      Oh, if only he'd learnt the first rule of safety for scientists meddling with vegetables Man was not meant to understand: always keep your pickles plugged into mains electricity; that way they glow green and you can see them trying to sneak up on you in the dark.
    4. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by popeyethesailor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought IEEE spectrum mentioned Dr.Belcher was close to building it. It didnt say there was actually a device built. The Newscientist article says they have actually realized this goal.

      I presume the article you are referring to is this

    5. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah I sense some jealousy from "the Institute".

    6. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by MxTxL · · Score: 1

      Hint: it doesn't have a prefix...

      I know it's truly nitpicky, but the SI unit for mass is the kilogram... which DOES have a prefix.

    7. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Yes, the SI system is based on the MKS system: Meter, Kilogram, Second.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    8. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by aborchers · · Score: 1

      Good point, and not a bit more nitpicky than mine. I was also thinking that they frequently use cm/g/s in chemistry.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    9. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by essreenim · · Score: 1

      I think you may be wrong thelizman, This process is far more efficient - just 2 steps. It has commercial validity. Sounds a bit icky though ~(

    10. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when will we be able to get a job drinking this solution and pooping transistors?!?

    11. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Issac Asimov's hiers claim prior art to the process of creating the positronic brain.

    12. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along by thelizman · · Score: 0
      IEEE Spectrum isn't even a real publication,


      That's a fascinating assertion, since the hard-copy of the November edition of IEEE Spectrum is sitting on the corner of my desk all dog-eared and mangled like a sex crime victim.
  4. Michael Crichton's Prey by Ropati · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Great reading. Now, fiction becomes reality.

    We're all going to die.

    --
    machinator omnis sine licentia
    1. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great reading. Now, fiction becomes reality.


      pffft. Get with the program. The last time Crichton had an original idea, he borrowed it from a better story, written by a better author.

      / me walks away mumbling about McAuthors and sheeple

    2. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1

      How can you have an original idea that you've borrowed?

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    3. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by kaos.geo · · Score: 1

      At least Crichton worked the tech part OK this time. Because the rest of the book is as dead as Cyndi Lauper's recording carreer. Prose on prozac.

    4. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 2, Funny

      Michael Crichton's books are both good and original. Unfortunately, the original parts are not good, and the good parts are not original.

    5. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you have an original idea that you've borrowed?

      / me speaks slowly, as if to a 'special' person

      I didn't say that it was his original idea.

      How can you have an original Picasso if you didn't paint it?

    6. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Having an idea' is different to possessing an item that someone else created. Surely that is the point of copyright law. 'Having an idea' generally refers to the process of original thought, not just copying someone else's work and making money from it.

    7. Re:Michael Crichton's Prey by maysonl · · Score: 1
      Michael Crichton's books are both good and original. Unfortunately, the original parts are not good, and the good parts are not original.

      Ditto re your post...

      Good writers borrow. Great writers steal.

      The opposite of a truth is a falsehood. The opposite of a proound truth is another profound truth.

      Just remember - the unlived life is not worth examining (or blogging).

  5. Re:first post! by Beardydog · · Score: 0, Funny

    [heston] Microchips are made of people! They're peeeooople!!! [/heston]

  6. Interesting... by TypoNAM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So what's next DNA assembled WiFi device inside of our brain effectively using it as a "mobile" storage medium? Probably not only that, but also for doing true multi-task administration in the real world scope.

    Just think how quickly one could hack wireless access points around them or a beowolf cluster of brain activity via peer-to-peer. That should rack up some SETI@Home work units completed in no time! :)

    --
    This space is not for rent.
    1. Re:Interesting... by cgranade · · Score: 1

      Go watch Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It'll help chill some of the glee with which you seem to look forward to networked brains. I know, I know, you were being sarcastic... sorry.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:Interesting... by cybergrue · · Score: 1

      The Ghost in the Shell 2 manga goes into this in more detail. One of plot points is that a xenotransplant facility where pigs are grown as replacemnet organs (for humans), is hacked into, and the pigs brains are modified (to almost human inteligence) and then clustered together to make a new supercomputer.

    3. Re:Interesting... by BlankStare · · Score: 1

      Sounds alot like Borg technology to me. All you're lacking at that point is the code to add to our DNA sequences that will produce the "tubules" injectors so we can infect and assimilate our friends and family. I know I can't wait.

    4. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, try never in our lifetimes?

  7. E. Coli Safety by dollar70 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The process is ingenious, using proteins from E. Coli bacterium...

    Great... Now when the compter blows up, I'll get dysentery.

    1. Re:E. Coli Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hooray, now this post is going to get modded funny, even though it isn't even remotely funny. hey dumbfuck, how many times has a computer "blown up"?

      FUCK, you are an idiot.

    2. Re:E. Coli Safety by cloudship_tacitus · · Score: 3, Funny

      will overclocking cause explosive diarrhea?

    3. Re:E. Coli Safety by swordboy · · Score: 1

      Like so many other things in life, this situation can be summarized by a Simpson's sound byte.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    4. Re:E. coli Safety by ARWK · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be a bit pedantic but this could only if the developers are stupid enough to have used one of the rarer virulent strains. Moreover the bacteria would need to be still viable after the explosion (Escherichia coli are not well adapted to surviving extreme temperature and pressures).

      Factiod of the day: there are millions (billions?) of E.coli bacteria living in the intestines of each and every one of us right now and doing no harm whatsoever. It is just a few of their bretheren are giving the rest a bad name. In that sense they are a bit like SCO.

    5. Re:E. coli Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In that sense they are a bit like SCO.

      Talk about your pump-and-dump!

    6. Re:E. Coli Safety by cybergrue · · Score: 1

      I can see the tabloid headlines now.
      I caught stomach flu from my computer, and I puked up this neat mini TV!

    7. Re:E. coli Safety by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

      I think it was an attempt at humour, but thanks for setting the record straight. Now I, the author, and all affected slashdotters can get a good night's sleep.

      You are truly a king among men.

      -m

  8. The real worry here is... by keoghp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will the new computers built of this material be more suceptable to virus attack!

    --
    For problems, seek only the simplest solution, complexity brings with it more problems.
  9. Nothing New - Faraday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Michael Faraday did this years ago (use google). The only thing these guys brought to the table is the capacitance reactivity factor is about 43% of the original magnitude of Faraday's experiments.

    As a scientist in this field, I can say that this technology is still pretty wild and untested. You won't see anything come out of this for at least a decade, and even then, it probably won't get any further than Faraday's original result (he was eaten by a bio-thermo-electrolitic legume, aka a synthetic bean).

    1. Re:Nothing New - Faraday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your parent gets +2 Informative for claiming that Faraday invented nanotube transistors (in the early/mid 1800s nonetheless) only to be eaten by a bean, but your reference to a longstanding /. joker gets modded to sub-zero status. Un-fucking-believable.

  10. Whole new meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... for my computer runs Linux.

  11. Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they'll make DDR RAM that's got Mad Cow Disease now.

  12. cool by s0m3body · · Score: 2, Funny

    this will put phrase 'my computer has died' into a completely new light ;-)

  13. Future Virus's by Linus+Sixpack · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can just the future.

    "Humanity wiped out by terrible strain of life threatenning virus -- but it makes great video cards."

    Finally a use for the moon. A clean room.

    Could you imagine getting sick and having to sign an NDA and non contagion agreement?

    1. Re:Future Virus's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse yet, you go to the crapper and get sued for violating sombody's patent.

      Keep those AT&T guys away from the bathroom!

    2. Re:Future Virus's by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Finally a use for the moon.

      Apart from stopping all life on earth to fuck up their daily rythyms and die?

    3. Re:Future Virus's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that floater looks like SCO's code!

    4. Re:Future Virus's by jcp797 · · Score: 1

      it's a bacteria.

    5. Re:Future Virus's by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The threat of biological contamination might be the factor that finally ends overclocking. I'm picturing the pods in aliens here, which isn't much of a stretch with some of the recent (very slick) pc cases.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Just a couple of things ... by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is the life expectancy of the components? From the article it seems to me (disclaimer: IANAMolecularBiologistOrNanoEngineer) that the organic component is not required after the "wires" are in place but will the DNA auto-repair any damage to the wire?

    Couldn't a virus (biological, not computer) be used to re-write the DNA strand that is used to construct the devices, to make different components for sinister purposes?

    Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

    --
    Music is everybody's possession.
    It's only publishers who think that people own it.
    Fuck Beta
    ~John Lenno
    1. Re:Just a couple of things ... by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · · Score: 1

      The DNA is used to structure the assembly until the silver and gold coat the protein/antibody matrix. It would not repair any damage to the wire - in this technology.

      A virus could be used to control the DNA, or structure of the assembly for use later in the development of this technique, but at this point they have only just created a transistor. That is why they used E. Coli. In end of the article it discusses the need for the refinement of the ability to control structures at this level to make nano-circuitry and nano-sculptures. Different forms of DNA, along with viruses and their RNA will undoubtedly be required.

      --


      --"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
    2. Re:Just a couple of things ... by renoX · · Score: 1

      I don't know how this got to be modded interesting but, here I go:
      >will the DNA auto-repair any damage to the wire?

      Uh, DNA in itself is just a big molecule which isn't capable to do anything at all!
      A cell is capable to repair its own DNA, but obviously the DNA they use is not inside a cell, where they put the wire in place..

      >Couldn't a virus (biological, not computer) be used to re-write the DNA strand that is used to construct the devices, to make different components for sinister purposes?

      If a virus modified the DNA, the most probable outcome (by very far) is that you would get a malfunctionning device ie the transistor won't work correctly..

    3. Re:Just a couple of things ... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      hehe... you could infect the DNA vith a virus before the metals get added to add circuitry to monitor your every movement.

    4. Re:Just a couple of things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a classic "correct" given answer but the entire premise for that answer is freakin wrong:

      "Uh, DNA in itself is just a big molecule which isn't capable to do anything at all!"

      Bullshit. If this were true, you'd be dead. The very nature of semi-conservative replication, as well as dual strands, should tell you this. There are amany classic experiments regarding DNA activity, esp. pair matching, which deal with only DNA in the solution. This includes Adler's walking salesman solution, as well as classic development biology experiments regarding loose strands and hairpins (DNA folding back on itself as a regulating or error causing function).

      "A cell is capable to repair its own DNA, but obviously the DNA they use is not inside a cell, where they put the wire in place.."

      What does DNA within a cell have to do with anything here? We have been quite capable of repairing and utilizing DNA outside of a cell, as evidenced even by this very article. A polymerase or other doesn't give a rat's ass if it's in a cell or not; it cares if the conditions are proper for its activity.

      DNA is still principally a biological storage medium. And that's something. Because it's what you can do WITH the DNA that's important. To answer the previous poster's question, it's unlikely they will utilize any correcting properties of the DNA, since the DNA is being used similar to scaffolding at a construction site. Once the chip is made, you remove or disregard it's presence; it serves little to no value after the metals are deposited.

      However, if as the complexity level increases, and they use longer (and more prone to breakage) complementary strands, efficiency may be increased by running it through a repair cycle. However, a lot of times, extra steps introduce further problems, so we'll have to wait and see.

  15. Re:first post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One poster above mentions grafting computer chips onto your brain. But these guys may be grafting brains onto computer chips.

  16. And people wonder... by confused+one · · Score: 1, Funny

    how the Borg got there start...

  17. I'd just like to point out.. by Rostin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Further refinement of the technique is required before full scale production would be efficient

    It seems like a lot of the "science with potentially awesome applications" posts that get made to /. include some sentence like this. I'm sortof patting myself on the back here when I say this, but hats off to the chemical engineers who actually do the work here. Chemical engineers are an important stepping stone between "oh, cool" and full-scale production, but hardly ever get a mention. In fact, most people have no idea what chemical engineers do, even though you probably scarcely have an item around you that doesn't owe its existence in part to chemical engineering.

  18. Behold the birth of nanolathing. by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    The idea: you creat a structure, throw a bunch of nanites onto it, they then lathe the structure with nanites which will, on command, chemically bond with eachother creating your scructure.

    If you've played total annihilation, you know what I'm talking about. Nanolathing was the primary process of building an army. Within an hour a commander could easily take over a planet and begin converting it into a metal world.

    1. Re:Behold the birth of nanolathing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like TotalA, check http://palito.9hells.org/

    2. Re:Behold the birth of nanolathing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet, thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

  19. Adapt the proteosynthesis process by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Informative

    A better process would be to adapt the proteosynthesis process for creating micro-polypeptide clusters that are circuit elements with highly specific binding sites for self assembly. A DNA sequence would encode an mRNA sequence that is passed to a ribsome-like micro-factory. An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide. Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc.

    Part of the DNA sequence would encode binding sites that are highly specific. Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binging patterns, you the potential for self-assembly. To make a complex circuit, you make separate batches of each component, then mix the batches together and they self-assemble into the circuits. Thus, a soup of appropriately labeled transistors and wires would self-assemble into a soup of full-adder circuits.

    The use of larger-scale binding sites would enable hierarchical self-assembly of self-assembled micro-components (e.g., a soup of 1-bit full-adder circuits might self-assemble into a 8-bit full-adders, or 8-bit full-adders might bind to a gated accumulator registers, etc.)

    I doubt this technology would let you create a 64-bit processor - the binding-site combinatorics get too ugly. But it might let you create RAM, RFID circuits, or small CPUs (e.g., the Intel 8080 only needs 6000 transistors)

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Adapt the proteosynthesis process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not informative, this is wishfull thinking:

      "To make a complex circuit, you make separate batches of each component, then mix the batches together and they self-assemble into the circuits."

      Gee and how do you intend to accomplish this? This statement is easily 50 years of research away

    2. Re:Adapt the proteosynthesis process by jcp797 · · Score: 1

      > Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc. The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*. > An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide. This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!) > Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly. Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site.

    3. Re:Adapt the proteosynthesis process by jcp797 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc.

      The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*.

      > An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide.

      This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!)

      > Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly.

      Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site and ruin the whole process.

    4. Re:Adapt the proteosynthesis process by G4from128k · · Score: 1

      The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*.

      Good point. Many proteins (such as those in the human body) are very sensitive to temperature, pH, salinity, etc. Yet I suspect that many organisms have thermally robust proteins -- most bacteria, plants, and cold-blooded animals have proteins that must hold their shape over a wide range of temperatures. I agree with your point about electronic-biologic compatibility. The interface between a biocomputer and any electronics would need to respect the temperature range of the proteins involved. More advanced versions of this technology might leverage research of themophilic bacteria or even replace the polypeptide system with a polyimide system or a polysilane system (silicon based artifical life!) for higher temperature tolerance.

      The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids.

      Yes, but we can design new tRNA binding sites to accomodate new amino acids. I know of at least one successful attempt to add an artificial amino acid to the proteosynthesis system in E coli. In theory we could have as many as 64 amino acids. Moreover, Japanese researchers are working on extending the genetic code to have DNA with 6 base pairs, providing the potential for 216 different "amino acids" with a 3-codon encoding scheme. Thus it is feasible to modify the tRNA system to bind other artificial amino acids and synthesize proteins that have these unusual components.

      You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site and ruin the whole process.

      Binding site specificity is an issue. It will take some clever lock-and-key protein folds to create high specificity -- perhaps single-stranded DNA might provide a suitable high-specifificy binding site. Limitations on specificity and the intricacy of docking sites is why I suspect the technology will be limited to fairly simple electronic circuits. I agree that temperature will need to be controlled during synthesis, but operating temperatures might be at least as variable as those found in temperate climates.

      --
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    5. Re:Adapt the proteosynthesis process by RichardX · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, this is no criticism of your post, but I just realised it's 3:52 AM and I'm reading a website with discussion in which the following words can legitimately occur: ...adapt the proteosynthesis process for creating micro-polypeptide clusters that are circuit elements with highly specific binding sites for self assembly. A DNA sequence would encode an mRNA sequence that is passed to a ribsome-like micro-factory. An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide...

      I think I need to take a very long hard look at my life.

      If anyone needs me, I'll probably be in a remote temple in the north of france, wearing a simple brown habit, and chanting.
      --

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  20. you idealist... by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    don't you know that half of science is presentation? it does not matter so much how good you are (there are many smart scientists), it matters how well you are perceived by others.

    of course, in the process, many promises are made. and they are not neccesarily lies: of course many techniques have large potential. this doesn't mean that they will fulfill this potential -> that is not decided merely on technical grounds, but more on financial/political grounds.

    just my 2c

  21. So that's why they made the Matrix by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Forget batteries. The machines need humans as bacteria fabrication facilities! Poop out IC like chickens laying eggs.

    And right after AMD makes that new chip fab too...

  22. Re:mod parent down : -12000 asshat by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0

    I'm not looking at the pic, but if it's the goatse.cx guy, yes, it looks very much like a wedding ring. Ick.

  23. Rats... by PSaltyDS · · Score: 1

    ...all that time, money, and effort to protect against viruses... and I get infected by bacteria. Funny thing though, boiling my CPU didn't fix it...hmmm.

    Any technology distinguishable from magic is not suficiently advanced.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
  24. The Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will it be before someone injects a bit of this stuff into humans and suddenly someone is transformed into a Borg using their own DNA?

    1. Re:The Borg by mrtroy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its not how long or when that should scare you, its the fact that resistance is futile.

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
  25. Large-scale structure will be a formidable problem by Dunark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm impressed by the ability to make components, but I think that creating structures of many components may prove to be the more difficult problem.

    As an example, it might not be difficult to design a 1-bit memory cell that can be assembled this way, but how do you make an array of them that is exactly some number of cells on a side, and then attach the interface circuitry to the edges? This would seem to require giving the little buggers the ability to count (or measure), and then change their beheviour when a desired state had been attained.

    The last time I checked, we know a fair amount about how living cells build proteins, but the problem of how the cells know when to build them and how to stick them together has barely been scratched.

  26. Edible Computers by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Are you thinking what I'm thinking ...?

    Self-replicating transistors ... protein-based processors ... edible computers!

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Edible Computers by ultrasound · · Score: 1

      Don't bite that Apple!

  27. Sounds far fetched but, would be cool by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

    Imagine what the possibilities are here. I have heard but no one really knows when AI can be completed but if the process of self building nano-circuits is available when AI is around, then you could make a computer that could not only fix it self it could do self upgrades, and then eventually take over the world. Which is why as technology progresses further and further scientists need to ask themselves not only can it be done, but should it be done.

  28. Artificial life? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Does that count as life if the DNA is doing that?

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  29. If you got sick by CausticPuppy · · Score: 0

    If you got sick, you could be sued for patent infringement.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
  30. Brain Mounted OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was ok with this train of thought until I thought about running a copy of Windows inside my head (BSOD).

    1. Re:Brain Mounted OS by Sayan · · Score: 1
      Ok... that is why when you are feeling sad and your head doesn't seem to work - you have the 'BLUES'

      So what is the solution? Head Reboot?

      --
      resurrect my .sig
  31. Re:Large-scale structure will be a formidable prob by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

    If computers were to be built using this technique, there would need to be a complete re-working of all the components, as there would probably be new and more efficient methods of hooking all the hardware together, than the current methods. One thing that it might be able to create, is a dynamic self growing array of memory, knowing when a bigger array is needed, it could create more. Just another thought on my part

  32. eek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this post makes me think of the virus in revalation space by Alastair Reynolds

  33. Nest-step, Artificial Neurons by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine what the possibilities are here.

    Were I in control of this style of circuit manufacture, I would look into creating artifical neurons -- a small CPU core would provide the basic multiply-accumulate-threshold logic on the neuron. Other multiply-accumulate circuits at the synapses or dendrites would provide long-term adaptation functionality needed for learning.

    The advantage of a neural net appraoch is that it can work with an inexact network. Standard digital electronics are logically fragile for the most part (i.e., they break if you replace an OR gate with an AND or swap two data lines). Digital electronics depends on highly repeatable manufacturing processes that create exact interconnect topologies. In contrast, neural nets are robust to any-to-any connection topologies and use various long-term adaptation schemes to reinforce or attenuate the connections that are needed.

    Thus, you could create a soup of neural node cores, dendrite fragments, axon fragments and synapse units that would self-assemble into a gelatinous brain-mass. Plop the mass on top of a set of electrical interconnects and then train the blob to do what ever you want it to do. Moreover, these nano-fragment brains would be about roughly 10-100 times smaller in each dimension (about a thousand to a million times smaller in volume) than their cellular equivalents.

    It could get interesting if we can create human-brain level neural net blobs that fit in a 1 cubic centimeter volume. Neural gel-packs, here we come.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  34. Re:Large-scale structure will be a formidable prob by Dunark · · Score: 1

    I agree that a new method would be needed, but the new method doesn't have to be more efficient at the individual circuit level. It just has to be more efficient at the top level. IE, it might be prefectly OK if a "bio-cpu" was only one thousandth as fast as a typical silicon microprocessor if you could build a billion-cpu system just by throwing a "supercompter seed" into a nutrient broth.

    I think the area where real advancement is needed is in reducing our dependacy on making components that are all exactly alike. I have a big oak tree in my yard that makes a lot of leaves, no two of which are identical. Despite the low-level variation between individual leaves, the tree has been "running" quite nicely for over 100 years. I think we need to invent computer architectures having the same property is we want to use bio-assembly to build computers.

  35. Re:Large-scale structure will be a formidable prob by tobe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They already have joined component built with this method.. but not on the megascale we're used to in modern procesors.

    I think circuitry built using this approach would have to be thought about in a fundementally different way.

    Fairly obviously (I think) large scale structures like the processors we know and love today would be very dificult to create using this organic approach. A better approach might be to just go for creating very dense, very connected but essentially amorphous 'mats' of computing resource (neuron like units perhaps ??) and treating the whole thing as more like an FPGA than a traditional structured computing device. So the problem becomes not how to grow these things in a particular shape.. but how to persuade the shapeless mass to do something useful.

    Would it possible to have these things assembled by protein structures that deliberately mutate at each assembly to provide binding sites that uniquely identify each processing element. That might be a start.

  36. Michael Crichtons 'Prey' by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    I thought It was a little far-fetched, but the Nanomachine Swarms in Michael Crichtons "Prey" were manufactured in a similar process. Its a good read, and now it just got a little closer to reality for comfort.

    nick ...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  37. Re:Large-scale structure will be a formidable prob by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

    I agree with you completely the processor would not have to be faster at all, unfortunately I posted first thing in the morning as I was getting ready for school, and hadn't finished my pot of coffee yet. Having a bunch of smaller slower processors, that possibly generated a lot less heat, and then connecting them together in some sort of cluster would be much more efficient than having one processor.

  38. Oh great . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silver Goo.

    http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

  39. Nanotubes by Tteddo · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new nanotube overlords.

  40. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Chemical engineers, in my experience, are the worst of a bad lot of pocket-protector clad high-caste geeks.

  41. Re:Large-scale structure will be a formidable prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some sort of cluster... perhaps the romantic notion of a loosely couple cluster? Just like the loosely coupled network of Linux hackers that make Linux possible, by slaying dragons, laying princesses, and displaying their superior coding skill? Don't tell me you weren't thinking of exactly that.

  42. A Compiler that can catch ALL infinite loops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the sort of obvious BS you guys mod up when it comes to molecular biology. I'm a bit discouraged by how misinformed the slashdot crowd seems to be.

    your local molecular biologist.

  43. Re:First Obligatory... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    No, no. You for one welcome our new Nanocyborg Overlords.

  44. There's 2 mol. electronics papers in Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mind, researchers are hardly likely to report their results _in_ New Scientist. They wouldn't get very much credit it if they did! The paper describing the results is in this week's Science. See below.

    from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/564 9/1310

    News Story:
    -----------
    MOLECULAR ELECTRONICS:
    Nanodevices Make Fresh Strides Toward Reality
    Robert F. Service

    Nanoscientists have proven adept at turning tiny specks of semiconductors and metals into devices such as diodes and transistors and have even wired them into working circuits. But researchers must still vault several other daunting hurdles to compete with today's highly complex computer chips. Among them: finding ways to construct complex circuits without the aid of photolithography, the standard chip-patterning technology that doesn't work at the scale of individual molecules, and steering electronic impulses from large-scale wires down to particular nanoscale devices. Now teams report progress on both fronts.

    On page 1380, biophysicist Erez Braun and colleagues at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa report using a combination of proteins and DNA to direct the synthesis of a carbon nanotube-based transistor, a success that could pave the way for complex circuitry to essentially build itself. Meanwhile, in another paper on page 1377, a team led by Harvard University chemist Charles Lieber reports creating a scheme for feeding electrical impulses to specific locations in a nanocircuit, an essential step for carrying out complex computation.

    Although critics have questioned the field's near-term potential to turn out products (Science, 24 October, p. 556), Cees Dekker, a biophysicist and molecular electronics expert at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, says the new studies underscore that basic research in molecular electronics remains vibrant. "Both papers together show the field is progressing. There are strategies to move towards connected networks [of devices]. That's the direction the field should take."

    Braun, together with physics colleague Uri Sivan, students Kinneret Keren and Rotem Berman, and technician Evgeny Buchstab, wanted to employ biomolecules to assemble a working transistor. Their goal was to use a straw-shaped molecule called a carbon nanotube to carry an electric current between two metal electrodes. They coated nanotubes with streptavidin, a protein that forms a lock-and-key bond with another molecule called biotin. They then used an intricate series of reactions to create a chain of other proteins--capped with biotins--and a short piece of DNA to lasso and lash the nanotubes along the central region of a long DNA strand glued atop a silicon surface. Then, through another pair of reactions, the Technion researchers capped the ends of the long DNA molecules with tiny gold metal pads, which served as electrodes to carry electrical current into and out of the carbon nanotube. Finally, the team used electron beam lithography to pattern wires atop the silicon to connect to the metal pads.

    The result was more than a dozen working nanotransistors, each just a few hundred nanometers in length and a fraction of the size of conventional transistors. "It's a fantastic demonstration," Dekker says. Braun says the devices are still works in progress: The connections need improvement, and the e-beam technique used to pattern the wires is too slow to be a viable manufacturing technology. But he says his team is already tackling the problems and is trying to scale up the self-assembly technique to make more-complex circuits.

    Lieber's team, meanwhile, set out to address a very different issue: ensuring that information in the form of electrical impulses can be fed into specific transistors in a nanocircuit, an essential step for carrying out computation. The experiment builds on years of work at Lieber's lab to construct circuits from an array of nanowires patterned in a "crossbar" array resembling the lines of a ticktackt

    1. Re:There's 2 mol. electronics papers in Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, am I the only one who saw the number "1377" on that post and misread it as "l337"? What has Slashdot done to my brain?

  45. doing stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    f ableh d ardrd h bhd aj jajaj boo!!!

  46. second obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine a beowolf cluster of these,

    now all we need is a simpsons quote

  47. E.Coli bacterium? by riflemann · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like the way that nanobots are assembled in the recent novel Prey.

    Anyone interested in nano technology will find this a fascinating novel. A lot of the novel describes some of the science behind nano, and as well as a gripping story, you can actually learn a thing or two.

  48. Re:First Obligatory... by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

    The red or white chowder?

    --
    Sig it.
  49. Oh Great... by Gettin'_Fatter · · Score: 1
    Does this mean I'll have to start washing my hands after I come out of the bathroom AND after work repalce a mainboard? Guess I should'a been doing that anyway.

    Sheesh...

    ** Warning, these comments contain no pro-Linux content and so should viewed with skepticism.**

    --

    Surely, we don't need instructions on shampoo bottles, do we?.

  50. nifty by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    now we can code a human being from DNA that will have code for nanites in their DNA....superhuman beings...here we come!

    (the implications can mean no more need for those herbal pills for lowering cholestoral, acne, etc.)

    hmmmm....resistance is futile....eh?

  51. Re:Nothing New Here, Move Along (So sad.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This process was first performed at MIT by Angela Belcher. She was using engineered viruses that coated themselves with semiconductor materiel to produce nanoscale FET trasnsitors a billionth of a meter in size. You can read more in the November issue of IEEE Spectrum.

    In that case, allow my to construct and then play the world's smallest violin.

  52. xDNA by SnidBitch · · Score: 1


    Just kinda reminded me of the whole xml WSDL future vision. Discovery

    Would you or anyone pay to have a computer installed in me for the purposes of information referencing. I can't spell worth a crap unless I'm online using, ;) , Google. I can't function very long without a stable connection. When I lose access, meaning my computer breaks, I fall apart quickly. A ten pound laptop should not be attach to someone "At the Hip" unless I designed it to be, which I have...Several time over and over and over. Really, it's abuse leaving me to running all over the city with her like that, but I HAVE TOO.

    if($internet->life($me->life) && $life->internet($me->life))
    {
    $me->aughment($internet);
    }
    return 'Now, Please!?!?!?!?!?!';

    BTW, when are we getting our god damn chips??? Do
    you have any idea what it's like to lose your wallet ever month???

    Oh,then there are the keys. FORGET IT.

    -sb0

  53. You wanna "WiFi" my brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's insecure enough as it is.