Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin Researchers Create Nano-Bio-Circuits
opencity writes "A team of scientists at UW-Madison has successfully used single bacterial cells to make tiny bio-electronic circuits. Slipping between the electrodes, the microbes, in effect, become electrical "junctions," giving researchers the ability to capture, interrogate and release bacterial cells one by one. Built into a sensor, such a capability would enable real-time detection of dangerous biological agents, including anthrax and other microbial pathogens. Two mpegs -- 11MB and 35MB -- available here. Related by scale and buzzwords: physorg.com reports scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have developed a way to sneak nano-sized probes inside cell nuclei, where they can track life's fundamental processes, such as DNA repair, for hours on end. Related cool pictures and strange font choices on Nano-Bio Interface Center."
google for http. microsoft.com is first on the list. That's why you go there. Firefox uses google to search for non-domains.
How Star-Trek creates some fiction about a type of technology/species, then a few years later it's a scientific-discovery/engineering-acheivement.
Yes.
It's almost as if the scientific research precedes Star Trek... or as if a million-bajillion other science fiction stories had similar ideas that Star Trek could copy...
Don't give Star Trek too much credit. About all they've ever invented is terminology, much of which is surprisingly crappy if you actually learn about the fields they are raping for ideas. (Metals given ceramic names, elements given chemical names and vice versa, "compounds", "alloys", and other such terms mixed freely with no regard for what they mean; if such things were isolated occurances one could argue about term drift, but the fact is you have to search for terminology used correctly in later Trek.) It's been a long time since Star Trek was on the cutting edge of anything.
Don't learn your science from Star Trek, either. It leaves you an ignorant, easily-mislead scientific fool. I wouldn't say this except that it is clear too many people have. It's been a long time since Star Trek was a positive force for the sciences, too.
I found it interesting that the Nano/Bio Interface Center places what seems to be an equal emphasis on the development of an ethical structure applicable for these new technologies as on the research itself. Arthur Caplan, who is the director of the Center for Bioethics, used to chair the UN advisory committee on human cloning. His associate, Paul Wolpe, former Chief of Bioethics for NASA and bioethics advisor to Planned Parenthood, is another big gun in the medical ethics arena. With the heavy talent on the project and its relationship to the other projects at the center, the NBICs ethics project looks like a good bet to be a leader in shaping society's guidelines for dealing with the new developments in these emerging technologies.
Since these technologies address the basic functionality of all life in a way that will inevitably eventually become transferable, we are dealing with the real possibility of corrupting the blueprints that define biological identity. Bio engineered corn has already slipped the leash, it's only a matter of time until we start to see contamination in higher organisms. It's vital that powerful new technologies have legal and ethical guidelines in place before they are initiated. Too bad the IT community didn't see the same need 25 years ago.
billy - who uses Norton Synaptic Antivirus in the nasal inhalant form
Obviously someone who hasn't read the book "The science of Star Trek".
That's about as useful as "The science of the Bible". It's easy to go in after the fact and justify whether or not something can be made to fit science. It's harder to examine the evidence at hand and decide whether or not the bible/Star Trek came to the right conclusion.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.