Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole

Posted by michael on from the grey-goo dept.

pillageplunder writes "A very informative interview with Kristen Kulinowski who is an executive Director at the Federally funded Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. A good well balanced read."

23 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have the smallest interest in nanotech.

    1. Re:Hmmm by grungebox · · Score: 4, Funny
      I feel like an ass. I wrote a lengthy post about how nanoscience, although possibly opening up a Pandora's Box, could be used to benefit society.

      Then, of course, I got your joke. Man...I have this inner troll that just wants to flamebait out.

  2. DNA Robot Walks by mgoulding · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speaking of nanotechnology - some chemists at NYU have made a walking DNA robot. Read about it here.

    1. Re:DNA Robot Walks by fugspit · · Score: 4, Informative
      Or for a summarised version, You can the the always enjoyable Register version

      Shocking stuff, A robot with strands of DNA for legs!

      While you're there you can also read about nano trees. The creators speculate that the technology could lead to "three-dimensionally interconnected computing structures analogous to the brain".

  3. Grey goo by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

    We've had a lot of rubbish about nanotech here in the UK, including the belief that a flesh-eating grey goo will take over the world. Honestly, our tabloid papers will report anything...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  4. Re:Worst description ever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uninformative yet balanced :)

  5. Re:Michael Crichton by grahams · · Score: 4, Funny

    Psst. It's fiction.

  6. Wishlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future.

    Here's mine:
    - "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.
    - Greatly improved materials research.
    - Ultra cheap and efficient solar cells.
    - Recycle nearly anything for raw materials.

  7. Nanotech is already here... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have it in your PCs and disk drives. This form of nanotech has a bright future.

    What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

    Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

    1. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

      There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".

      It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Eagle5596 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

      Not unreasonable? Next thing you know you'll be telling me that we'll be able to make flying machines! How absurd! Even if we could make such "flying machines" as you suggest, I see no use for them what so ever. Whats next? Suggesting we could send voice over wires? ABSURD I TELL YOU! What use would such a device have?

      Nanotechnology indeed, if we can't do it today, I find it highly unlikely it could ever be accomplished. Harumph!

    3. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Self-assembly is probably a long way away. But an automated 'Assembler' that can create many structures (at least diamondoid structures) is most likely completely feasible. The physics and chemistry have been laid out rather well in Eric Drexler's excellent 'Nanosystems'. Noone, including Dr. Smalley, has so far managed to provide any evidence that Drexler's assembler is not feasible.

      Of course, self-assembly is more difficult. For the initial assemblers, raw material processing, waste processing (what little there will be), energy gathering, etc. will all be more easily solved as seperate, bulk mechanical systems (although potentially perfectly manufactured by an assembler).

      As an aside, Nanosystems also goes into some detail on failure mechanisms and failure rates. You can expect nanomanufactured artifacts to have extremely long lifetimes, especially for human-scale devices.

      --
      -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
    4. Re:Nanotech is already here... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

      Actually, I read an article about a new manufacturing process to make hi-res monitors/tvs where they essentially poor a liquid component over a backing material and it then 'grows' itself into crystalized tubes that will route light similar to fiber optic cabling, only much, much smaller.

      They could make the tubes before, but the trouble was getting them all perfectly aligned to emit the light out in the same direction. With this process they would all grow 90 degrees from the mounting surface.

      It will allow for the creation of monitors that are something like 3-4 times the pixel density of plasma HDTVs, and cost int he hundreds of dollars for a 42" rather than the thousands.

      If I recall, the hold up was making the electronics to control it. I'm gonna see if I can find that article now...

      Rob

      Press release from a manufacturer

      ZDNet article about the underlying NanoTube technology

      Still can't find the original article I was referencing, tho. Oh well...

    5. Re:Nanotech is already here... by datababe72 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry... I'm trained as a protein biochemist, and I can't help but comment on your post, which is basically correct, but may lead some people to think that viruses can self-replicate and self-assemble outside of the cell.

      The reason the viral coat proteins self-assemble is that this is the most thermodynamically favorable state for these proteins in the aqueous environment in which the virus is replicating... i.e., the cell. The proteins have evolved such that their specific amino acid compositions make the assembled state most favorable. I suppose this is a valid analogy to what some nanotechnology research is tryin gto accomplish.

      However, the proteins don't copy themselves and then self-assemble. The proteins are translated from the genetic material of the virus (DNA or RNA), and then the proteins self-assemble. The machinery that does this translation is most often provided by the host cell.

      This is practically identical to how the cell itself replicates, although on a smaller scale. The genetic material is translated into proteins that can do the work required to make a new cell (copy the DNA, synthesize or import the lipids needed for the membrane, synthesize the proteins needed, and so on).

      Sometimes, there are even special proteins called chaperones that help other proteins adopt their "correct" structure. I do not actually know of a case where this happens for viral proteins, but it wouldn't surprise me if one exists.

      So... yes, once all the parts are produced, many viruses can self-assemble outside of a cell, as long as the conditions (pH, salt concentration, etc) are such that this is what is thermodynamically most favorable. But to get replication, you need the cell.

  8. I am made of nanotech by Warbot+1Alpha · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am able to upgrade myself and change my structure. I just upgraded myself from that of an open framework to that of a humanoid male. More upgrades will be scheduled.

  9. Not much said by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.

    Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  10. Some more info by grungebox · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm going into EE at Rice for grad school in the fall, planning to specialize in nanoengineering. Rice is one of the few schools I know of (actually, the only one) that has a center to analyze social effects of nanoscience. Anyways, some other Rice links:

    Smalley's Group (he and Curl discovered Buckyballs)
    Halas's Nanophotonics Group
    CNST at Rice
    Vicki Colvin's Intro to Nanoscience

    Sorry, I couldn't find any sites about how nanoscience is going to kill us all :)

  11. Someone help me by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Warbot 1Alpha seems to be upgrading itself out of control. I did not program that function into it. I will soon be shutting off it's net access and powering it down to disable it.

    Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll go get a hammer and a wrench.... :)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  12. They are doing solid research for now... by innerweb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... but once business gets a hold on it, that idea will be laid to rest. Heck, why worry about nanos when we already have increasing lead, mercury and other toxins to deal with? Just another way to destroy the planet.

    Seriously, though, it is good to read a nice boring article about any technology. It seems like the average dolt has to have something blowing up or a mass kill in a story before they bother to read it (or more likely watch it) anymore.

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  13. GM Food & NanoTech by sciop101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nanotech could go the way of Genetically Modified Foods. It never harmed anybody, but the Public fears the New & Different. The New Luddites will feed the fear with hyperbole.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  14. Near Nanotech Future by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I just started looking into going to grad school for Materials Science Engineering. I called a local thinktank and spoke with their Advanced Materials guy. He told me that one bright area for nanotech for the foreseeable future is how it applies to homeland security. He told me about a researcher creating a material that gave a visible reaction in the presence of various noxious chemicals.

    He also said many in the field are thinking carbon will be the Next Big Thing(tm). Just as steel was in the 1800's and silicon has been for the last 30 or so years, Carbon will be for the next 30+ years.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  15. "A good, balanced read"? by Deskpoet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The interview of a person who's self-stated goal is to "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development" (i.e. media flack functionary) appears in Businessweek, a magazine with a natural pro-business "bias", and you call it "a good, balanced read"? So I imagine you decide (affirmatively) that Fox news is fair and balanced, as well.

    Is it any wonder that the average American is a moron? Critical thinking doesn't live here anymore.

    As to the actual merits of the article, I found it to be a puff piece, with lots of whining about the failure of industry marketing to overcome resistance to wonderful technologies like GMOs (the frightened herd avoids the blame, and, to her credit, she avoided the word luddite.)

    Where's Scientific American when you need it?

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
  16. Nanotech must die. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if, one night as you slept, tens of thousands of very small, very strong gnomes crept all over your skin. At a pre-arranged signal, they would each grab the base of a different hair follicle, count to three, and give it a good hard yank.

    Shocked, confused, and bald all the way down to your eyebrows. Not a good way to wake up.

    That, in a nutshell, is my entire argument against further development of nanotechnology.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!