Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Future of Nanobiotech Predicted

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the molecular-deconstruction-deconstructed dept.

Quadraginta writes "Aharon Hauptman and Yair Sharan of the Interdisciplinary Center for Technology Analysis and Forecasting (ICTAF) at Tel Aviv University recently presented the results of a survey of 139 researchers on the future of nanobiotech. The presentation itself is only available as a PDF file, but there is a brief news announcement from the ICTAF. Interestingly, Hauptman and Sharan asked for -- and got -- specific predictions from the experts of the year in which various nanotech marvels will appear. For example, the experts say we can look forward to biosensors capable of detecting a single molecule by 2015, the direct construction of artificial human organs by 2020, and the use of nanomachines inside the body for diagnosis and therapy by 2025."

3 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. I predict... by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I predict that this prediction will not happen.
    Take that, biotech! Hahahaha!

    On a serious note, I remember that episode of Ray Bradbury's Theater where a guy lied to have travelled in the future and saw all ecological issues solved, no wars, and no poverty.

    And it indeed happened like this, because people believed themselves they could do it. And his time machine turned out to be just a mirror trick for the press.

    We all need a shot of sci-fi in our blood to keep us motivated.

  2. I think I disagree by Ogemaniac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The speed of innovation is increasing all the time

    As a "nano" researcher myself, I have started to almost think the tide is turning the other way. We have lots of momentum, but I no longer think we are accelerating.

    Of course, it all depends on your measure. If you just count number of journal pages printed, or number of scientists researching, things seem hunky-dory. However, if you multiply that by the value of that information, it shrinks substantially. Science has become exceptionally incremental, and we are advancing via zerg-style attack rather than leaps and bounds.

    At least from my position here on the inside, I feel that these estimates are quite optimistic.

    1. Re:I think I disagree by Frisson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure that's a very good analogy to be honest. Cell phones are based on technologies which are decades old, well understood and have been incrementally advanced. It could be argued that it has taken half a century to realise the telecommunications systems which we have today.

      In the field of nanotechnology there are many barriers to progress. One of the main ones as mentioned above is accurate measurement (metrology) of the substances and products which are being manufactured. The recent advances (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 04/0344203&tid=126) in superlenses to beat the diffraction limit may help advance optical techniques and advances are being made all the time in complimentary methods such as AFM and electron based methods, but these are all incremental too.

      One of the most exciting aspects of nanotechnology is also one of the current barriers, which is the fact that everyday, well understood materials can behave COMPLETELY differently at the nano-scale. For instance, clusters of 20-80 gold atoms have experimentally been shown to posess totally alien chemical and electrical behaviours when compared with the properties of the material that we are familiar with on the macroscale. This means that it becomes difficult to predict how materials are going to behave working on these length scales and extensive experimentation is required.

      For this reason too, I strongly hope that nanotech does progress at a slower pace, as that will give us time to develop strategies for health and safety concerns in tandem with the 'cool' technology. Radical changes in material behaviour may well realise some fantastic new devices which will revolutionise modern life, but toxological and bioactive properties must also be well understood, particularly in the nanobiotech areas.

      Working in the area, it is also vitally important to educate the general public about this branch of science and help to reassure them that the nanorobot invasion/grey goo armageddon predictions from some branches of the media aren't likely to happen. Otherwise the science will follow Genetically Modified foods into the dustbin of history.

      Of course, if this does occur, each nanotech area will simply revert back to their respective disciplines of materials science, molecular biology, etc etc. It would just be a shame to lose such a lucrative funding source ;)