Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Scientists Build Computer Chips From DNA

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the some-chips-are-longer-than-others dept.

snydeq writes "Scientists at IBM are experimenting with using DNA molecules as a way to create tiny circuits that could form the basis of smaller, more powerful computer chips. The technique builds on work done by Cal Tech's Paul Rothemund, who found that DNA molecules can be made to 'self-assemble' into tiny forms [PDF] such as triangles, squares and stars. 'To make a chip, the scientists first create lithographic templates using traditional chip making techniques. After, they pour a DNA solution over the surface of the silicon and the tiny triangles and squares — what the scientists call DNA origami — line themselves up to the patterns etched out using lithography.' DNA-based chips may sound like crackpot tech, but those involved believe the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today."

75 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Nanofabrication by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The degree of difficulty of nanofabrication is going up rapidly," Wallraff said.

    Tell me about it! I can hardly keep up.

  2. And when will it become self-aware? by sxltrex · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time. We're screwed. Nice going, IBM.

    1. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      I, for one, look forward to welcoming our bio-nano-tech overlords

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by aphelion_rock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More to the point, when will it become self reproducing? Add to this the ability to reproduce and mankind becomes god. Do we then put it on another planet and see if it survives and evolves...

    3. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I, for one, look forward to welcoming our bio-nano-tech overlords

      I doubt it will happen in my lifetime but I'd like to see when either nanotechnology or Neurogenesis can repair damaged brains. I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, and I'd be in line as a test subject.

      Either that, or be in line to transplant one of Marvin's brains.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    4. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DNA is just information. How well does a hard drive compute? Not very well. It has some computing capability, but to really make it do something interesting you have to hook it up to the rest of the computer. Same with DNA in relation to cells.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    5. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      DNA seems to have been in use for 4 billion years. Humans arose 200k years ago, some humans can be described as "self-aware."

      So we have at most 3.8 billion years to decide if we are going to fight or welcome our self-aware DNA computer overlords.

    6. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      that is a slippery slope, next thing you know they will be wanting equal rights and vote...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      that's a false analogy. it presumes that design that is intelligent (by the virtue of being done by humans) is as inefficient as the design based on (often random) restrictions posed by natural conditions and natural adaptation to those conditions renewed by an occasional random mutation.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    8. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The chips aren't self-aware now, or even really thinking on their own presumably, and they aren't designed to do so. To go from unthinking chips to self awareness on the level of humans would likely be more inefficient and unlikely as our evolution has been. Also given restrictions on the system, it's more unlikely that the computer would continue to function as the thing started changing, not to mention it would have to evolve with much fewer resources in a much more closed space. So yeah, I think it's a false analogy: the computer evolving intelligence is far less likely and would take a lot longer probably.

      Also I was being facetious.

    9. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      It's a false analogy because this is a mechanism for designing intelligent being from scratch. My point was that just as in everything else, man-made things will be better than natural things and they will get designed much, much faster. The technology allows for arranging DNA in a pre-designed sequence. Which is the first step to treating creation of new organisms as a programming task. No, that's not what the chips are designed to do, but it is the side-effect of having this technology available now.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      But, you will have to worry about whether these nano-bots will simply stop after restoring the brain to it's previous state (so I guess you would forget what happened to you since before the 'incident', or will the bot's become self-aware (possibly as a group), then rewire your brain so your body is totally controlled by the bot's...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:And when will it become self-aware? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      But, you will have to worry about whether these nano-bots will simply stop after restoring the brain to it's previous state (so I guess you would forget what happened to you since before the 'incident', or will the bot's become self-aware (possibly as a group), then rewire your brain so your body is totally controlled by the bot's...

      No, I don't worry about that. I think if anything it'd be a relief for me.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
  3. DNA is smaller? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do they intend to make circuits smaller than current lithography methods allow when the DNA solution is aligning itself to lithograph etchings? Further work required, methinks.

    1. Re:DNA is smaller? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      DNA molecules are put inside the lithographic channels, therein form structures which are smaller than the lithography itself. Seems straightforward to me... It's just a way to guide their self-organization. Think of it this way -- the tiniest lithographic mark you can make can be used to make one transistor gate. Or, in the same space, you can get the full complexity of one or more DNA molecules.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:DNA is smaller? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      How do they intend to make circuits smaller than current lithography methods allow when the DNA solution is aligning itself to lithograph etchings? Further work required, methinks.

      No, they have finished. It is ready. You can get it on at your local best buy right now. Just go and ask for your DNA laptop, they will now what you mean.

  4. Japanese Words by JKWSN · · Score: 4, Funny

    pour a DNA solution over the surface of the silicon and the tiny triangles and squares â" what the scientists call DNA origami

    I think I saw something like this on the internet once but a different Japanese word was used...

  5. I know first "hand" this doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After, they pour a DNA solution over the surface of the silicon and the tiny triangles and squares line themselves up to the patterns etched out using lithography"

    I've been pouring a DNA solution over the surface of my computer for years. Doesn't do anything but break the keyboard. This story is bunk.

  6. Lithography-based sounds like a good idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember over a decade ago hearing about research where they had demonstrated DNA-based computation. They'd used the molecules to perform some reasonably complex algorithm and got the correct answer. It was extremely fast, in part due to using a lot of parallelism. The only problem -- the 'answer' was somewhere in the beaker full of DNA goop and had to be chemically sorted out to actually see what happened. So, uh, not terribly practical.

    Using lithography to put molecules where you want them to be sounds a lot better than a beaker of goop. :)

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Lithography-based sounds like a good idea by CannonballHead · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hm... but just imagine what a beowulf cluster of cloud-based goop computing systems could do?

      it sounds like a +5 Funny Mod Comment at any rate. ;)

    2. Re:Lithography-based sounds like a good idea by Entropic+Alchemist · · Score: 2, Informative

      In 1994 Leonard M. Adleman solved the travelling salesman problem in 7 days with a DNA computer. I think that is probably what you are thinking of. (Article about it here)

      --
      Remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Let the Lord of Chaos Rule
    3. Re:Lithography-based sounds like a good idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was it! I remember it was the traveling salesman problem. Pretty impressive for a brand new method of computation.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  7. Port the process to RNA... by swanzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

    I foresee a bunch of very angry and utterly confused "life starts at DNA" people.

    --
    0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
    1. Re:Port the process to RNA... by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      Especially if stem cells get added into the mix.

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    2. Re:Port the process to RNA... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Why?

    3. Re:Port the process to RNA... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I foresee a bunch of very angry and utterly confused "life starts at DNA" people.

      If "life" means being able to reproduce then because RNA can self replicate the quote needs to be "life starts at DNA or RNA".

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
  8. Good for the environment? by LuxMaker · · Score: 1

    Feed it beans and watch it output vapor....ware.

    --
    I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
  9. why DNA? by panthroman · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to figure out why the researchers are using DNA. Is it...

    A - some unique and intrinsic property of DNA that makes it suited for the job.
    (If so, then is it just coincidence that our genetic information is stored in a molecule that has these unique properties?)

    B - just that DNA has been so well-studied in the last half century that we can manipulate it better (and cheaper) than most other complex micro-structures?
    (If so, then that's just one more example of basic research leading to unforeseen breakthroughs.)

    Anyone know which it is?

    1. Re:why DNA? by confused+one · · Score: 2, Informative

      self assembly and the ability to modify the structure of the molecule using simple methods to serve a specific purpose.

    2. Re:why DNA? by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, it's a little from column A, and a little from column B - DNA has an intrinsic ability to self-assemble (A), and it's been studied to the point where the resultant forms of that self-assembly are pretty well known (B).

      From reading TFA, it sounds like they're using a traditional lithographic technique to produce the substrate that is filled in by DNA. This DNA in turn self-assembles into structures that are more complex than can be reliably produced by lithography alone. Those structures are then coated in nanoparticles to form the actual IC interconnects.

    3. Re:why DNA? by Peter+Steil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More than likely because in the present age anything with even a hint at DNA or genetics tends to bring up stock value. Think of it like a buzz word.

    4. Re:why DNA? by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      It's a well-studied and well-understood, large molecule, which is used for carrying information in nature and therefore well-suited for the task.

    5. Re:why DNA? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm trying to figure out why the researchers are using DNA. Is it...

      A - some unique and intrinsic property of DNA that makes it suited for the job.
      (If so, then is it just coincidence that our genetic information is stored in a molecule that has these unique properties?)

      That's part of it; I wouldn't describe it as coincidence that a molecule that forms one of the basic information storage mechanisms which allows life to exist has properties that are useful in information technology, though.

      B - just that DNA has been so well-studied in the last half century that we can manipulate it better (and cheaper) than most other complex micro-structures?

      Well, yeah, there is some of that, too.

  10. Its not Digital DNA...its DNA Digital! by bezenek · · Score: 1

    Todd

    --
    Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
  11. Nano-fabrication by Thuktun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this is a practical step towards the ubiquitous "matter compilers" featured in Stephenson's The Diamond Age.

    1. Re:Nano-fabrication by cfa22 · · Score: 1

      Doubt it. But since the pieces of DNA used here are like stiff little rods with unique registry it's a bit closer to the wetware computation featured in Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Also because the DNA only does exactly what the designers tell it to do, it's a bit closer to the live-narrated children's storybook featured in Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Then again, such self-assembly might be useful in manufacturing those kick-ass skateboard wheels featured in Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Damn it, someday something in that book is going to come true.

  12. Macro processors? by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

    Instead of going small, why don't we go giant? My x86 processor is about an inch across, why not make it a foot? Do we really need *smaller,* why can't *bigger* be faster? Imagine our sleek Quantum Computing chip, and then blow it up macro size to a foot version. Why do we take a speed hit for not being microscopic? Why does being a "big processor" make it slower than a "small processor." Why can't we make jumbo versions of Quantum Computers? (I'm not familiar with logic gate circuitry, enlighten me please.)

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:Macro processors? by Peter+Steil · · Score: 1

      Several factors here: Cost longer distance = thicker interconnect required -> (see 1) Greater size = greater distance = longer travel time = slower Power consumption increases as component size increases whereas power consumption decreases as things get smaller.

    2. Re:Macro processors? by Peter+Steil · · Score: 1

      Several factors here:
      Cost
      longer distance = thicker interconnect required -> (see 1)
      Greater size = greater distance = longer travel time = slower
      Power consumption increases as component size increases whereas power consumption decreases as things get smaller.

    3. Re:Macro processors? by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not familiar with it either but I imagine that it becomes harder to maintain a synchronous clock signal (moot for designs that don't use one, natch) when you increase the size. It would also increase the amount of time that any signal takes to travel from one end to the other. As far as quantum goes, you're using individual or small groupings of atoms - that's just what size they are. The bulk of the machines I expect is made up of vacuum and cryogeny gear.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    4. Re:Macro processors? by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other responses... there's also the reason of fabrication defects. The probability of a defect is constant for a 1cm x 1cm area so when the CPU area goes up the number of defects goes up. You only need 1 defect to trash the entire chip, so there's an financial need to achieve a defect rate per CPU as close to 0 as possible.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    5. Re:Macro processors? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      besides the reasons posted down there, there is the yield factor too.

      if i'm not mistaken is quite hard to make a chip that large that actually works, as you would need to do multiple precise "etchings" and they need to be EXACTLY lined up.

      and also i heard that each silicon wafer costs around 2000 bucks,so if you get 4 chips working out of it, you will need to charge more than 500 dollars per chip.

    6. Re:Macro processors? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      above a certain size, it becomes harder to form defects significant enough to cause failure. I think around 200um you don't even need a clean room.

    7. Re:Macro processors? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I know, and why don't they make it a million meters wide, that would be great, so much more power. And they should make it red, that would be faster. And they should make it absorb heat, rather than produce heat, then we could sit it in the desert. And they should make self replicate, so every hour it reproduced itself, from the sand int the desert. Gee, if they just did that, we would have loads of cheap computing power...

    8. Re:Macro processors? by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      Imagine a miniature watch. Complete with miniature gears, and belts... and hands. But we can't build it, because it's too small. Oh well, we'll never ever have a watch, because it absolutely must be tiny tiny tiny to keep the time good.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  13. International Borg Machines by wa2flq · · Score: 1

    Where's a Borg Queen when you need one?

  14. It's not "Cal Tech" by Anal+Surprise · · Score: 4, Funny

    Every time I read "Cal Tech", I cringe. "Caltech", please.

    1. Re:It's not "Cal Tech" by cfa22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And we prefer "Cal" to "Berkeley." Also, in America, commas and periods go inside quotes.

    2. Re:It's not "Cal Tech" by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Also, in America, commas and periods go inside quotes.

      It's a completely unintuitive convention. The end of (or pause in) my sentence was not part of what the person I'm quoting said. Disregarding that rule is a conscious choice for some of us.

    3. Re:It's not "Cal Tech" by MindspanConsultants · · Score: 1

      Style depends on where you live and what conventions you follow. In Canada, we seem to be adopting American spellings and punctuation rules I think more as a result of the auto-correction features and misspelling underlines in Firefox et al than a desire to conform to your standard. Laziness (failing to employ Canadian English dictionaries etc.) results in homogeneity favouring (yes there's a 'u' in there) the culture that designed the tool. Here's the breakdown on punctuation -- I happen to follow the British style myself.

  15. diden't we just see this on the last ep of eureka? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    diden't we just see this on the last ep of eureka?

  16. Re:Does it self-replicate Linux? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    To be "DNA" doesn't it need to be able to self-replicate or something like that?

    No, to be "life" it needs to do that (among other things.) To be DNA, all it has to do is, well, be DNA.

  17. self replication of DNA by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To be "DNA" doesn't it need to be able to self-replicate or something like that? Given the appropriate raw materials, will the DNA chips self-replicate and expand themselves?

    DNA can and does both self assemble and self replicate. I'm reading an article in "Tech review" on this subject, "First Life and Next Life". In experiments the author showed that the, artificial, DNA could also evolve.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?
  18. Identify a crackpot by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    DNA-based chips may sound like crackpot tech, but those involved believe the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today.

    You can tell if they're crackpots by weather they can complete the sentence "the methodology could lead to a new way of fabricating features on the surface of chips that allows semiconductors to be made even smaller, faster and more power-efficient than they are today BY DOING xxxxxxx yyyyyyy zzzzzzzz".

    If they don't have a proposed method for reaching the goal, they're just blowing hot air. We see this all the time with people looking for publicity or money.

  19. Who's DNA ? by Kulfaangaren! · · Score: 2, Funny

    My only question is...Who's DNA ? If it's Linus's I have no problem, but if it is Bill's or Steve's DNA I think we should burn the lab to the ground! Get your torches and pitchforks!?!?

    1. Re:Who's DNA ? by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

      Richard Daystrom's, of course.

      And you call yourself a nerd....

  20. hook, line and sinker by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    The PR people who have been pushing this research around the internet today did a truly amazing job. They took a pretty good surface science paper and made it look like the breakthrough of the year.

    This research had nothing to do with computer chips. DNA origami has been around for a few years now, and this is the application of it to surfaces. When they have a *single* electrical measurement, you can start to get excited about electronics. When they have a functioning transistor, I could even live with a Slashdot headline about computer chips. This is jumping way ahead for a bunch of insulating organic molecules patterned on a surface.

  21. It's alive, Jim by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    This will give a new argument against those who object to the possibility of building truly intelligent computers on the basis that they are not living organisms.

  22. Caltech by drerwk · · Score: 1

    Not Cal.

  23. Re:Cool! by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

    -1 Apocalyptic

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  24. When the technology gets perfected... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Maybe they could call it the "Cell" processor. :P

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. Re:No semen joke yet? by speedingant · · Score: 1

    lol

  26. DNA used to build machines by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    sounds like the Battlestar Galactica remake on SciFi ir SyFy network. Human looking Cylons.

    That's the worst that can happen, right?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  27. Guess by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

    How many countries have "America" in its name? Mexico is formally known as the "United Mexican States", and as far as I can tell Canada is just "Canada".

  28. Re:What OS does it run by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

    I doubt it can even run "Hello World!" at this point.

  29. Not Borg or Skynet... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    This is Cylon ver. 0.1

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  30. when will it become self reproducing by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    DNA is already self replicable.

    Do we then put it on another planet and see if it survives and evolves...

    Meteorites, such as the Murchison meteorite have been found with organic matter. It contains amino acids as well as inorganic precursors that the Miller-Urey experiment proved could produce organic compounds.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?
    1. Re:when will it become self reproducing by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links, very informative reads :)

  31. Instead of going small, why don't we go giant? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I want to be able to carry it with me. It's a plus if I can have one that I control implanted.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?
  32. My only question is...Who's DNA ? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    f it is Bill's or Steve's DNA I think we should burn the lab to the ground! Get your torches and pitchforks!?!?

    Which Steve? Ballmer? Jobs? Or the Woz?

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?
  33. Not tonight darling, I've got headache... by viraltus · · Score: 1

    Never thought I might fix my computer with an aspirin.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  34. Thanks for the links, very informative reads :) by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    If you found those interesting the article "First Life and Next Life" in the June issue of Tech Review should be more interesting. I just happened to be reading it when this thread started.

    Falcon

    --
    Should there be a Law?
  35. Important nitpick by hansraj · · Score: 1

    Actually a particular instance of the traveling salesman problem, involving just seven cities, was solved. The importance was not solving that particular instance in itself but doing it differently; that particular instance would be pretty easy to solve on a computer as you have just 7! possibilities to check.

    1. Re:Important nitpick by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Actually a particular instance of the traveling salesman problem, involving just seven cities, was solved.

      Yes, but that's extremely impressive for a brand new method of computation. Most of the time, it's like "we've demonstrated a NAND operation so we're Turing complete!" or rarely "We have a full adder!" This was actual problem solving for a not-completely-trivial algorithm, which was pretty cool.

      Of course it didn't "solve the traveling salesman problem" in a general sense -- that would be a feat well, well beyond demonstrating a new method of computation, it would revolutionize mathematics and algorithms. So yeah, I think it was obvious that "solved the traveling salesman problem for seven cities" meant "an instance of..." :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  36. Computer virusses becoming trans-species by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I understand virusses are not a living organism, but essentially just a chunk of DNA that happens to contain some element of self-replicating code, and that they effectively came into existence and propagate more or less by a mix of random mutation, natural selection and accident. The fact that this would work at all sounds unlikely but after millenia has in fact been successful enough that virusses are now everywhere in millions of differnet variants.

    Consequently with the above research and others creating new and complex DNA structures that may become as ubiquitous as included in products in every home, aren't there serious risks around uncontrolled human exposure to this stuff?
    I mean would it be possible for someone to become infected with some new man-made virus-like structure that actually originated/escaped from (say) their PC hardware? If so, is there anything that necessarily limits the potential for how bad the infection could be? I mean could this man-made DNA get accidentally integrated into humans own DNA and so modify the DNA of future generations? Could this technology ever potentially lead to a pandemic disease or even extinction scenario?