Viruses into batteries

Popular Mechanics gave a “Breakthrough Award” to MIT researchers who reprogrammed a virus to instead form a tiny, tiny battery anode. The researchers, lead by Dr. Angela Belcher, used the bacteriophage M13, which is a workhorse of molecular biology to incorporate cobalt oxide and gold, forming a nanowire. M13 grows in a tight cylindrical spiral, and I suspect that the scientists exploited this property in convincing the virus to grow a nanowire. As Popular Mechanics recognized with their award, this is a very interesting development.

Read the rest of this entry »

Scientists Prep Microrobot

Wired News is reporting on an international team of scientists that is developing a microrobot small enough to swim through arteries and the heart. They hope that the robot, as small as two human hairs, will be able to perform microsurgeries on cranial arteries and other areas that are beyond the reach of catheters. This both refutes and supports my notion that nanotechnology will have to draw inspiration from biology rather than our everyday macroscale world.

One the one hand, this contradicts what I said last night about micromechanical approaches not being viable, because, if they can get this robot to work, it obviously will be viable. On the other hand, it very much agrees with my assertions:

“People have tried various techniques, including electromagnetic motors,” [team leader] James Friend said. “But at this scale, electromagnetic motors become impractical because the magnetic fields become so weak.”

Instead of trying to scale down common mechanical systems, like an electromagnetic motor, Friend and his team are building piezoelectric motors, which operate on different principles.

Moreover, the new design doesn’t use propellers:

The microrobot’s design is based on the E. coli bacterium, complete with flagella that will propel it through the body.

As nanotechnology moves from hype to actual products, we will see that most successful designs use new techniques developed for the nanoscale and draw on knowledge from biology.

Nanotech material stops bleeding

Researchers at MIT and the University of Hong Kong describe how peptides can self-assemble to control bleeding from surgical wounds. From Nature Nanotechnology:

The key to the success of this particular peptide is that it is water soluble and can be easily delivered by a syringe. Furthermore, self-assembly of the peptides is triggered by the ionic environment of the blood, and when broken down, the amino acid building blocks of the hydrogel can be used by the body to repair the injury.

This a great advance, thanks to nanotechnology. It can save lives on the battlefield or in accidents by stopping bleeding before the wounded are transported to the hospital. I think the other important thing here is that this is a clever application of biology rather than some sort of micromechanical approach. I think I’ve said this before—I think a lot of the important nanotech innovations are going to come from adapting biology, which already operates on the nanoscale, rather than trying to scale down macroscale machines. This is one example of that.

The Grey Goo Problem

Modern nanotechnology, such as it is, is concerned with producing materials on an atomic scale, such as fiber made from so-called “bucky balls.” Star trek fans and other afficionados of science fiction think of nanotechnology as it may some day exist — millions of microscopic machines (referred to as “nanites” or more accurately “assemblers”) pushing around individual atoms and molecules. Part of this scenario is that the assemblers are self-replicating, meaning they copy themselves using any available materials. This leads to the grey goo problem, wherein an out-of-control replication process reduces the Earth and everything on it to a mass of replicators (which look like nothing so much as grey goo).

K. Eric Drexler, the father of nanotechnology, recently published a paper refuting the grey goo danger. Basically, he says that even if we are someday able to make assemblers, it will be very difficult to make them self-replicating and there won’t be much need to do so. In fact, he says, the danger from military applications (i.e. nanotech weapons) is much greater. The problem with Drexler’s thesis is that he’s an engineer.

I mean no disrespect. In my experience, there are two camps of nano people, each with very different ideas of how the whole “assembler” idea will play out. On the one hand, you have the engineers, who are used to working with machines, so they expect that assemblers will be some sort of machine (a bioMEM in the jargon, which stands for biological micro-electromechanical machine, or something like that). On the other hand, there are the biologists, who work with cells all day and think that assemblers will be some sort of heavily engineered cell. After all, cells are just biological machines that have been programmed by nature to carry out specific tasks. Why couldn’t we just reprogram them?

It’s this biological notion of the assembler that Drexler ignores in his paper. It’s pretty much impossible that a bacteria, no matter how much you engineered it, could rearrange individual atoms in a molecule, so the massive, planet-wide grey goo problem isn’t a concern. However, I can easily envision a scenario where a biological assembler intended to clean your arteries of cholesterol grows out of control and quickly kills the patient. The crux of the problem is that while mechanical assemblers are manufactured, biological ones are necessarily self-replicating.

To control this problem of uncontrolled growth, we need multiple ways to permanently turn off the cell’s ability to replicate itself before it is administered to the patient. One solution is to knock out the replication genes in the genome and put them on a plasmid, then we would need a way to destroy the plasmid before setting the bugs loose on someone’s arteries. The cells should also have multiple metabolic dependencies (similar to the way the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park needed lysine in their diet) as well as susceptibility to multiple antibiotics.

The scientists in Michael Crichton’s novel thought they had their creations under control by making them dependent on a dietary amino acid. This was a single point of control and a single point of failure, which nature is often very good at overcoming. That’s why our biological assemblers need multiple points of control. The Jurassic Park scientists should have realized this, but I guess they weren’t very good scientists. Fortunately, they were also fictional.