Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanobatteries Power Artificial Eyes

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the looking-into-the-future dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "A new U.S. research center, the National Center for Design of Biomimetic Nanoconductors, has been opened to promote new ideas in the field of nanomedicine. For example, a team of researchers at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is developing a nano-size battery to be implanted in the eye to power artificial retina. But this center will also design and build 'nanomedical devices based on natural and synthetic ion transporters -- proteins that control ion motion across the membranes of every living cell.'"

8 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Macular Degeneration fix? by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this kind of technology will make it possible for people who have working nerves and brain center for sight, but whose eyes have been destroyed by illness or damage to the retina? Would macular degeneration, which according to http://www.macular.org/disease.html affects over 10 million Americans alone, be one of the blindnesses treatable by nanobatteries?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  2. I want the silver eyes... by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... with Picture-in-Picture.

  3. best I can figure... by tempest69 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It looks like they arent making a batery in the traditional sense. Theyre using/building an ion channel, (the picture is blurry but it looks about right). So there isnt battery acid to deal with, and it isnt really a battery. That being said, the body can treat it like a battery because it makes ion gradients that can be tapped anyway.

    short and simple answer is that the battery should be nearly harmless. If it breaks down it might be a bit of a drag on the local metabolism. And assuming that the protien isnt some sort of prion precursor (unlikely for a membrane protien) it should be safe.

    Storm

  4. Acceptance or Rejection by the Body by reporter · · Score: 4, Insightful
    These advances in artifical retina and the batteries to power them are amazing, but scientists rarely talk about how the human body would react to these foreign objects. Will the body accept these objects or attempt to fight them by forming clots or by summoning a white-cell army to attack them?

    In the case of breast enhancements, the body forms scar tissue around the silicone implants.

    In the case of artifical hearts, the patients faces the serious risk of blood clotting. The blood clots can flow into the brain and cause a stroke.

    Advances in science are great, but we've "just gotta know its limitations".

    1. Re:Acceptance or Rejection by the Body by posterlogo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The general press and general public really do not bother to focus on concerns such as the ones you bring up. I'm glad you have the ability to think critically, but do not judge everything about this research from this press release. There are thousands of primary articles from scientists dedicated to understanding how to better implant medical devices. Look for articles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under pubmed -- search for terms like "implant", "rejection", "immune response", and other such keywords if you want to actually know what more about how science is dealing with this very issue. Such research has already made possible the ability to implant pacemakers, stints, artifical joints, steel plates. It is only a matter of time -- in my professional opinion, about 3-6 years until phase I clinical tests on fabricated retinas begins. Phase I/II are specifically designed to test the safety of medical drugs and devices to address the concerns you bring up about rejection. I think it could be up to 10 years until phase III -- the actual efficacy trial. Then we'll know how people whose vision has degenerated can benefit from this treatment. But we will certainly know before then whether or not animal models will respond to this treatment.

  5. This isn't a story. This is PR for a new lab by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Informative


    1. They haven't developed the eyes any further than otherwise reported some time ago.
    2. The batteries don't exist yet, really.
    3. The batteries that don't yet exist are being designed for artificial eyes that don't yet exist.

    I'm all for this technology to mature -- I have two blind relatives and it seems likely that others in my family will also have problems as they age. The kinds of work they're doing should help them if it matures. This article, however, doesn't actually show much advancement other than a new lab is working on a new thing, that could power a new device -- when they all get it figured out.

    I wish /. wasn't so open to posts like that.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  6. Ahem... by imgumbydamnit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we could ignore for a moment the trolls and knuckle draggers who must comment on Susan Rempe's appearance, this advance will be important to those of us who are losing eyesight to RP or AMD.

    Most of the current clinical trials for artificial retinas (http://www.optobionics.com/ excluded) rely on some sort of external component partially due to the lack of a sufficiently small, dense, permanent, biocompatible power source. This then requires some sort of link to the retinal surface, either via micro-lasers or implanted ultra-thin wires. As much as enjoy watching ST:TNG, I for one would happily trade the Geordi LaForge look for a strictly internal prosthetic.

    --
    To err is human. To arr is pirate.
  7. New Steam Powered Eyes! by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, so my first thought, upon reading this...

    The human body has been doing remarkably well at powering itself, without batteries, for millenia (with the one exception on Monday mornings).

    Why do we need "nano" batteries? If we're down to the point of building things at an atomic level, shouldn't we be at the point where we a) build things with the same (or at least similar) efficiency as the body had in the first place and b) thus use the same power supply the part we're replacing used?

    Whilst it's really cool we're building nano-batteries, it sounds more like a lab cashing in on the exciting buzz technology of the moment to solve a problem rather than looking at the problem that actually needs solving and finding the right solution for it.

    It makes me wonder, did people 150 years ago try getting seed captial for equally ridiculous concepts involving the new buzz tech of steam? Actually, thinking about it, I know they did - and we laugh at the craziness of the inventors who anounced they were going to invent steam powered underpants or whatever back then. Makes me wonder how much the people of 150 years in the future will smack their heads and laugh at the ridiculous concepts for exploiting nano-tech we're coming up with now, when far more obvious solutions were staring us in the face.