Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create World's First 'Molecular Robot' Capable of Building Molecules (scienmag.com)

New submitter re385 shares a report from Science Magazine: Scientists at The University of Manchester have created the world's first "molecular robot" that is capable of performing basic tasks including building other molecules. The tiny robots, which are a millionth of a millimeter in size, can be programmed to move and build molecular cargo, using a tiny robotic arm. Each individual robot is capable of manipulating a single molecule and is made up of just 150 carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms. To put that size into context, a billion billion of these robots piled on top of each other would still only be the same size as a single grain of salt. The robots operate by carrying out chemical reactions in special solutions which can then be controlled and programmed by scientists to perform the basic tasks. In the future such robots could be used for medical purposes, advanced manufacturing processes and even building molecular factories and assembly lines. The research will be published in Nature on Thursday 21st September. "All matter is made up of atoms and these are the basic building blocks that form molecules," explains Professor David Leigh, who led the research at University's School of Chemistry. "Our robot is literally a molecular robot constructed of atoms just like you can build a very simple robot out of Lego bricks. The robot then responds to a series of simple commands that are programmed with chemical inputs by a scientist. It is similar to the way robots are used on a car assembly line. Those robots pick up a panel and position it so that it can be riveted in the correct way to build the bodywork of a car. So, just like the robot in the factory, our molecular version can be programmed to position and rivet components in different ways to build different products, just on a much smaller scale at a molecular level."

86 comments

  1. star trek by etash · · Score: 1

    watch us, we are coming.

    1. Re:star trek by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Go pick on the Borg. (please)

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:star trek by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, this reminds me more of the video game "SpaceChem". It's almost as if these researchers went "hey, here's a crazy idea, let's make one of those waldos for real".

      (If you don't know the game, it's really worth checking out, one of the best puzzle games ever invented and I don't say that lightly).

    3. Re:star trek by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Speaking of games and nanotech awesomeness, I loved Anarchy online's take on Nano bots. As nanobots were ubiquitous on the planet, a special caste of character was used to hacking other nano bot networks, and basically performing magic. Even the engineers leveraged the bots to create stuff.

      Although it sounds crazy now, there will be a day when we can throw a bunch of lawn clippings in a pile, and get a pile of synthesized meat appearing. We won't have the concept of rubbish anymore, as literally everything would be recycled.

      Shaping and redesigning our bodies as we see fit. Would we be morally imposing standards on narcotics, if the damage that was done could easily be repaired? Our bodies would become practically immortal as micro damage would constant be sorted out.

      It would be a very exciting post scarcity world.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re: star trek by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      I bet it will still have copyright and drm :(

    5. Re:star trek by LocutusOfBorg1 · · Score: 1

      Go pick on the Borg. (please)

      Resistance is futile.

    6. Re: star trek by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      . . . and as a result, the rise of the Pirate NanoBay (grin)

    7. Re: star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the rich anyway.

    8. Re:star trek by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Was that from the episode where Wesley's nanites got loose?

      And.... Holy Crap we have them now!!!

    9. Re: star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I've always dreamed of the say when we could be injected with nanobots that would repair parts of our body from the inside when things fail. Then just drink a supplemental elixer or swallow a pill with the necessary basic materials for the bots to work with.

    10. Re:star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then some robotic ants show up...

    11. Re:star trek by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... and capacitance is variable.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re: star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can it make gold?

    13. Re: star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold is an element and they are not claiming to be able to create any element , only to arrange some kinds of molecules from some elements.

    14. Re:star trek by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      And.... Holy Crap we have them now!!!

      No, we don't. What they're describing is literally nothing like nanites.

    15. Re: star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad nature beat us to the punch by like forever. Congratulations, you created an enzyme...

    16. Re: star trek by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I am founder of The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party on Facebook, and I believe that Copyright is a crime against all sentient kind as it appropriates culture.

    17. Re:star trek by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Can you clarify? I don't like being wrong, but if I am I want to know how I am.

    18. Re:star trek by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Sure, nanites (at least as popularly conceived) are molecular robots. What this article is describing is not, it's more like a catalyst.

    19. Re:star trek by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well thanks for bursting my balloon, raining on my parade, breaking my heart and ruining my day. Yeah, maybe it's the article's fault for deceptively getting my hopes up, but I'm making you mop up my tears anyhow.

    20. Re:star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but a programmable catalyst, which is indeed very nice and clever (while less sexy than the "nanorobot" description).

  2. First Gray Goo! by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 4, Funny

    World turned into "Gray Goo" in 3....2.....1

    1. Re:First Gray Goo! by null+etc. · · Score: 3, Informative

      3....2.....1

      Actually, the age of the universe is 10^18 seconds. A grain of sand contains 10^20 atoms. If a nanobot created one atom per second, it would take 100 times the age of the universe to construct a simple grain of sand.

    2. Re:First Gray Goo! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are comforting, but you know we'll be building 10^255 of those nanobots, right?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:First Gray Goo! by mikael · · Score: 1

      The fun begins when someone creates a nanobot that can replicate itself.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:First Gray Goo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they are self-replicating, then exponential growth kicks in.

    5. Re:First Gray Goo! by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Yes, I thought I recognized this topic!

    6. Re:First Gray Goo! by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The universe has always existed. What you said was from your former point of view. That was then, this is now.

    7. Re:First Gray Goo! by ewibble · · Score: 1

      yes but if nano bots could create nanobots this wouldn't be a problem

      1 nano bot is 150 atoms so it would take 150 seconds to create 1 nanobot at 1 second per atom.

      so lets say you want to construct that 10^20 atom grain of sand in 1 second you need 10^20 nanobots.

      sum of a geometric series is a(1-r^n)/(1-r) for our case r is the result is 10^20 a is 1 solve for n (will give number of 150 second blocks)

      so that is log base 2 of (2* 10^20) *150 seconds that is about 2 hours 49 minutes, controlling them is another issue though.

      the number of atoms in the earth is around 1.33*10^50 atoms that is just under 7 hours to consume the earth. Ok there will be resource limits an travel time, but isn't exponential growth fun.

    8. Re:First Gray Goo! by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      isn't exponential growth fun.

      Exponential growth is only possible if:

      1. The nanobots aren't controlled by a centralized manager that has to scale to managing exponentially large numbers of nanobots.
      2. The nanobots can manipulate any molecule that's present, not just specially prepared molecules.
      3. The nanobots can construct other nanobots from any molecule that's present, not just specially prepared molecules.
      4. The nanobots can travel quickly enough to other molecules, once the molecules it's working on are manipulated.
      5. The nanobots have a way of identifying other nanobots, so that each nanobot doesn't disassemble other nanobots.

      At least, that's what I've discovered in the lab.

    9. Re:First Gray Goo! by ewibble · · Score: 1

      I agree, that there are many problems with exponential growth, it think I mentioned
      control (points1, 5),

      controlling them is another issue though.

      travel (point 4), resource availability (point 2,3)

      there will be resource limits an travel time.

    10. Re:First Gray Goo! by erapert · · Score: 1

      "Living" organisms haven't even gray goo'd the planet much less the universe. These nanobots won't be any different.

  3. Link to Nature article (paywalled) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v549/n7672/full/nature23677.html

  4. Galaxies like grains of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "millionth of a millimeter in size" = 10^-9 m (diameter of the machine)
    " billion billion of these robots piled on top of each other" = 10^-9 x 10^9 x 10^9 = 10^9 m (size of a grain of salt according to the article).
    Or alternatively, as UK defines "billion" according to the long scale, the grain of salt is 10^-9 x 10^12 x 10^12 = 10^15 m in diameter.

    1. Re:Galaxies like grains of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or alternatively, as UK defines "billion" according to the long scale, the grain of salt is 10^-9 x 10^12 x 10^12 = 10^15 m in diameter.

      It's a long time since that definition of "billion" was in common use here in the UK.

    2. Re:Galaxies like grains of salt by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's a pile, not a stack, they don't have to be exactly on top of each other. One bot is 10^-27 m^3. A billion billion of those would be 10^-9 m^3 which is 1 mm^3. That's a big grain of salt, but not quite as far off.

    3. Re:Galaxies like grains of salt by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I've got some sea salt I use for pasta which is definitely larger than 1 cubic millimeter per grain, so it's actually not off at all.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Galaxies like grains of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, UK gave up. Pretty much the rest of the Europe use the long scale or so wikipedia says.

    5. Re:Galaxies like grains of salt by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the regular table salt I have right here is pretty much all ~1mm^3.

      (tastes)

      Oh wait, that's sugar.

      ("tastes" some more...)

      Hum... sugar.... <Homer>Aaaaarrrrglllllll...</Homer>

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  5. Bob by Romancer · · Score: 2

    We will build. We will become more, and many.

    Bobiverse begins.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  6. So, can they build themselves? by msevior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If so we will finally have self-replicating robots and all that they entail...

    1. Re:So, can they build themselves? by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      May not need to.

      Given the size of the robots in question, and the means by which they are programmed/operated, it would make sense to create artificial gene sequences to use the cellular machinery inside a living cell already to manufacture, and control these molecular robots, as they would be very useful chaperons to enzymes and other proteins. (both are "huge" by comparison, if the statement given in the article is accurate.)

      Since they are controlled via submersion in different chemical solutions, the insides of a complex (by this I mean, having real organelles) single celled organism sounds like the ideal place to use and operate these, since the organisms already create vacuoles containing various solutions for a variety of purposes.

      Adding them to a cell's toolkit in this way would be a radical advancement in what can be done in petri dishes or glassware. Arbitrary modifications of existing in-vivo protein and enzyme interactions would open a lot of doors.

    2. Re:So, can they build themselves? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Given the size of the robots in question, and the means by which they are programmed/operated, it would make sense to create artificial gene sequences to use the cellular machinery inside a living cell already to manufacture, and control these molecular robots, as they would be very useful chaperons to enzymes and other proteins.

      DNA does not permit you to specify the position of molecules. Not all ends are achievable with DNA. That's why humans can (theoretically/occasionally) out-optimize nature. No matter how many times nature "tries" to accomplish certain ends with DNA, they will always remain impossible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:So, can they build themselves? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      The idea is to use the cellular machinery to create a "soup" of precursor molecules inside some larger structure, with appropriate sized orifices, then deliver the reactants in small quantities using ion channel driven pumps, so that the microbots are manufactured through self-assembly. The cell just does some heavy lifting of taking "Large organic food molecules", turning them into more simplistic reactants, and then providing the more controlled environment for assembly.

      After that, it may drag them around with a small RNA tag or something to move them to the desired vacuoles.

      The DNA side basically just says "Hey, fill this bubble of cell membrane with this aqueous mixture" through the expression of enzymes and proteins.

    4. Re:So, can they build themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom's orifice is no longer appropriate in size.

    5. Re:So, can they build themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not robots by any definition. They are tools, simple implements to move select items.

    6. Re:So, can they build themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Push the button and run

    7. Re:So, can they build themselves? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      DNA does not permit you to specify the position of molecules

      DNA encodes the map to make enzymes, which can do much more than DNA itself

  7. Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When these become self-assured we're all screwed!

    1. Re:Skynet by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I can assure you they won't be self-aware.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  8. what is my purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you pass butter. ...
    OMG

  9. Eric Drexler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that nobody has mentioned his name yet shows how young and ignorant Slashdotters are...

    1. Re:Eric Drexler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or even The Diamond Age.

    2. Re:Eric Drexler by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      The fact that nobody has mentioned his name yet shows how young and ignorant Slashdotters are...

      By design. He was tossed down the memory hole over a decade ago.

  10. I just thought about using them as weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    medical, material sciences are nice. but this sounds like a great form of weapon.

  11. One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Millionth of a millimeter = one nanonometer. I don't think so. One micrometer would be a believable scale. Hard to take anything else in the article seriously with that gaffe.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think molecules are 1um in size? are you insane? I measure metal to 1um daily

    2. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Poingggg · · Score: 2

      One mm = 10^-3m. 10^-6 x 10^-3m = 10^-9m = 1nm = one nanometer. I have no idea what a nanonometer should be, but it's hard to take you seriously with that gaffe :-).

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    3. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think molecules are 1um in size? are you insane? I measure metal to 1um daily

      If you are using "uhs", "ums" and "ahs" in measurement, you must not be very accurate.

    4. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that's ah, three point four five units, ahs it right on the scale, I can't tell.

    5. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Megol · · Score: 1

      As the AC replied 1um is something one can do with metal work - with the semiconductor industry (with optical lithography) working on the nanometer level (tens of nm for most parts, atomic layer deposition can do better but only in one dimension).

      In fact amateurs can do work on the 1um level with some effort though not on a large scale.

    6. Re:One nanonometer... I don't think so. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Is it possible you do not understand that "um" means "micrometer"??

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. Details by Suki+I · · Score: 2

    How much molecular acid did they use?

    1. Re:Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the real question, "How much molecular acid can they make?"

  13. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been waiting 30 years for actual nanotechnology to get started. No, really fine powders is not nanotechnology, folks.

    Now can we get started on life extension or are we doomed to our fragile evolved shells?

    1. Re:Finally by Megol · · Score: 1

      Really fine powders is nanotechnology, current semiconductor processing is nanotechnology. Improving scale, control and yield is what research is about.

    2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, ribosomes and mitochondria are nanotechnology. Powders and IC manufacturing are bulk processes.

      We're still cracking antelope thighbones at this point. The mold on your shower curtain is so much more complex and advanced than any IC we've made so far, it's absurd.

    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really fine powders is nanotechnology, current semiconductor processing is nanotechnology.

      No, "nanotechnology" is a term that was coined specifically to describe building things atom-by-atom.

      What most of these articles are describing is chemistry, nanoelectronics or nanoscale materials science, not nanotechnology.

  14. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Greet our new nano robotic overlords who can control my chemical structure and affect how and what I think about and are not in any way force me to say what I say now.

  15. HOLY CRAP NANITES ARE REAL!!!! by sabbede · · Score: 2

    This is huge! Yet so incredibly small...

  16. Extinction event by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    I would be far more concerned about the implications of this technology especially if used for terrorism than climate change or overpopulation. We could do ourselves in very quickly with this sort of thing.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  17. Flexible proteins by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    So from what I can gather, they seem to be talking about something that behaves like a flexible protein that they can control from outside the solution. I would be curious to see how "general use" their devices are, I would assume they'd be relatively specific to the reaction.

  18. 2 Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Removing cholesterol from one's arteries? And those damn Stents that are NOT bio-degradable.

  19. Not a robot by swilver · · Score: 1

    I'm supposed to believe that a fully programmable robot can be created out of just 150 *basic* parts? Whatever this is, I would not call it a robot.

    1. Re:Not a robot by Kogun · · Score: 1

      I've wrestled with the term robot as well and as I've previously discovered, there's not a particularly rigid definition of 'robot' that is widely accepted.

      But worrying aboutthe term misses the point of this development. This is device is a proof of concept level device and the implications are huge. To use a gross analogy, the leap in capability this represent is as significant as the agricultural revolution.

    2. Re:Not a robot by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Yea, this sounds more like a catalyst than a robot.

  20. Pretty much on schedule... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    When nanotech was discussed back in the 80s, there was a general feeling that developments such as this one were just a few decades off.

    1. Re:Pretty much on schedule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only controlled fusion had been on schedule...

    2. Re:Pretty much on schedule... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well "a few" is 4 +/- 2 so I gues sthey were correct.

  21. Time to get off this planet. by Ebsolas · · Score: 1

    Now that we've officially entered a grey goo scenario, I think I'm going to sign up with SpaceX to help colonize Mars. Anyone with me?

    1. Re:Time to get off this planet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our molecular robotic overlords!

  22. Bender Bot. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Gentlemen this means the Extinction of all Ethanol on Earth!

  23. Not the first... by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    This is not even the first artificial enzyme.

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  24. Why are they calling this a "robot"? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    It sounds more like a catalyst.

  25. You will be assimilated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Resistance is futile.