Nano Futures: Disease Detector

Of the Nano Futures currently discussed, the possibility of a nanotechnology-based disease detection system is perhaps the most attractive from a social standpoint.

Essentially, the Center for Nanotechnology in Society describes a scenario in which molecularly engineered proteins are injected into a patient, and the relative abundances of these proteins can be monitored on a daily basis. The proteins are constructed such that they react with different chemicals within the body and, therefore, act as an indicator of certain diseases or other health issues – like a nano-scale litmus test.

The authors write, “Since the Doc in a Box is detecting markers on the molecular level, users will be informed of a cold or flu before a sore throat or cough ever occur. With the ability of Doc in the Box to detect diseases pre-symptomatically, people will be able to get treatment before they feel the illness and far before it is too late to treat the disease. For cancer patients, there will be biological implications of cancer before a tumor develops and before the cancer has time to spread.”

Overall, there are very few reasons to be apprehensive about the development of this technology. Right now, early detection is the very best defense against cancer. So this, while perhaps not being a cure for cancer, may be the next best thing. And, naturally, cancer is just one of the potentially hundreds of diseases that these proteins could be tailored to detect.

Still, when developing policies regarding such accurate and early detection technologies, it must be ensured that it is being used in a responsible manner – one that does not interfere with personal privacy.

It is not difficult to imagine different corporations or companies screening their possible employee stock for genetic or other disorders with this technology.

Not surprisingly, although such practices are spreading worldwide, many employees and legal experts object to the role that health testing may play in the way the businesses operate; most are centrally concerned with the associated actions taken by employers based upon the results of such tests.

For instance, it is not straightforwardly clear whether terminating an employee based upon the results of their genetic tests is an ethically sound measure. Additionally, it may be a form of employment discrimination to eliminate one applicant based upon a genetic predisposition to some form of disease—after all, a predisposition fails to guarantee that the disease will ever manifest itself.

If such precedents can be found to be ethically sound, then other forms of discrimination may find their way into employer hiring practices. It is possible to imagine, for example, that one workplace environment might be more hazardous to people of African descent than people of European descent based upon their genetic make-ups. Would it therefore be justifiable to eliminate all African American applicants based merely upon their race?

We might further imagine that this position grows exponentially as an industrial super-employer in the United States; employing millions of workers and sustaining a substantial portion of the economy. So, could it ever be found to be ethical to categorically deny the African American’s entrance into this industry based purely upon genetic predisposition?

Some might contend that such circumstances are unlikely to ever arise, and they may be right. Yet, the notion that we should find one form of discrimination objectionable because it happens to be associated with race and another acceptable because it is more invisible in nature is a highly troubling position to take.

In order for the early disease detector to be utilized in a responsible manner, policies must be put in place that prohibit uses deemed by the public at large as unethical.

Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog.html

NanoFutures: Living with a Brain Chip

The Center for Nanotechnology and Society has detailed a scenario in which brain chips using nanotechnologies, such as carbon nanotubes, can be implanted in a human’s anatomy to significantly increase their mental capacity and ability to absorb and process in formation.

According to the scenario, “The next generation of cranial chip implants enables data transmission directly to the brain during rest without interfering with sleep. This data feed feature dramatically decreases the amount of time needed to assimilate new data each day, in fact the chipped person will just wake up knowing what was streamed into their head the previous night,” (Center for Nanotechnology and Society at ASU).

There are, of course, associated side effects with this procedure. Namely, individuals with embedded brain chips have their sleep disrupted by the functioning of the chip. Accordingly, the chip’s activity needs to be disrupted with another mechanism, allowing for a higher quality of sleep.

To begin with, I am impressed with the Center’s presentation of the scenario, in that the mere functional nature of these possible technologies is presented to the audience; and not, as might otherwise be the case, the possible misuses of such technologies.

Although, possibly, a large percentage of the American public would not be opposed to receiving information in this manner, or increasing one’s mental capacity, the natural progression of this technology might lead in directions to which people have moral objections.

Essentially, this technology begins to break the plane between what is human and what is mechanical. Should we be gradually building ourselves into cyborgs? My inclination is that most people would object to the full integration of human machinery and technological machinery; however, it remains unclear at precisely what point altering human functions becomes morally unacceptable.

Additionally, there is the concern that those constructing and designing these chips could tailor-make them to implant specific thoughts or opinions into individual’s minds. This, of course, would be one of the first tepid steps toward mind control. And, it goes without saying that most individuals would oppose any such direct incursion into their sense of free will.

Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/barlessprison.html

NanoFuture's Barless Prison

The basic premise behind this future technology is that prison inmates will be injected with specific nano-drugs that can be triggered via radio control.

According to the scenario, prisons would not need bars or walls; instead, a simple series of perimeters could be set up around the facility that, in combination with the radio-activated drugs, would effectively prevent any escapes. The first perimeter, once crossed, would trigger nausea in the inmate; ultimately, if the prisoner managed to somehow go far enough away from the prison, a radio signal would be sent to trigger a fatal response from the nano-drugs.

The prison guards would also be capable of triggering one or all of the nano-drugs on specific inmates or groups of inmates to ensure order within the facility.

This is a fascinating scenario since there are numerous reasons individuals might be for or against this type of prison.

First, it may seem appealing that finally a virtually escape-proof prison could be built, and that prison officials would be able to exert a very high level of control, without needing to resort to direct violence.

Second, we could also imagine that, in time, these prisons might be cheaper than existing prisons today, since physical barriers would not be necessary.

However, there are many reasons why we should be apprehensive about such an application of nanotechnology.

The Center for Nanotechnology and Society mentions some of the possible side-effects of injecting such potentially lethal drugs into a human system. Of foremost concern is the idea that an inmate would be required to take certain treatments the remainder of his or her life to counteract the degradation of these nano-drugs. This suggests that there is a high probability that there may be long-term complications of this approach to prison enforcement.

There is also the concern that if, somehow, a prisoner managed to disable the radio controls, then suddenly all of the inmates would be able to escape. This is different than the situation in most prisons today, since escapes can only very rarely happen on a large scale – usually only one or a handful of people can escape at once.

Another concern is that, if these drugs are triggered by radio control, that there might be instances of misfiring or malfunctioning. After all, radio signals travel through our bodies, dozens of frequencies at a time, every second. Just as individuals sometimes have their radios triggered by their cellular phones, or inadvertently hear other people’s telephone calls, it is feasible that nausea or even death could be inadvertently triggered.

Finally, there is also the question of whether or not people – namely, prison guards – should possess this level of control over other people – inmates. After all, people escape from prison on a fairly regular basis in today’s society. However, if these people are later apprehended, their punishment is rarely – almost never, unless they committed additional crimes – death. But in this scenario, authorities would be setting-up a situation in which death was assured for such an offense. Should modern society accept the premise that death is warranted for people who desire freedom? Many of whom – if we assume the judicial system in our NanoFuture is equally as fallible as ours today – may actually be innocent and by all rights deserving of freedom?

These are difficult issues. Let them know what you think: NanoFutures

Nanofuture's Bionic Eyes

[Image: John Pezaris, adapted with permission from D.H. Hubel]

One of the scenarios envisioned by the Center for Nanotechnology and Society is the creation of highly advanced bionic eyes, utilizing fully developed thin-film technology.

The Center describes a situation in which a company offers a visual enhancement system to help the blind to see again – at least at first it is intended just for the visually impaired. The system, called Opti-scan, has its capabilities described as follows: “Opti-scan is capable not only of restoring sight to the blind but also of providing them with additional capabilities beyond those of the normally sighted.”

Opti-scan, essentially, would be able to route visual information directly to the genicuate nucleus – where the optic nerve connects to the visual cortex in the brain. So, one can imagine, it would be very easy to alter the types of information Opti-scan would be capable of sending to the visual cortex.

Night vision, thermal vision, virtual reality and a number of other enhancements to ordinary visual light information could be added to the system. The Center also imagines that this information could be downloaded onto personal computers, the Internet or Bluetooth.

Some possible side effects of the system are also discussed in the scenario.

Overall, there are two major philosophical issues that this particular scenario deals with, in relation to the impact of nanotechnology on society. First, there is the debate over the encroachment of technology on the human beings mental and physical functions.

Basically, there is a question as to how bionic human beings should be allowed to get, from a moral standpoint. Of course, in theory, there is nothing suggesting that it is impossible to alter every single human motor and mental function with technology. But is there a point at which we believe enough is enough? Is there a point at which human beings cease to be human beings? And, if so, do we have moral objections to this?

Second, this scenario begins to introduce the issue of personal privacy in the age of nanotechnology. It is not difficult to imagine individuals possessing thermal vision capabilities using this to spy on other people – or for other potentially devious means. In short, if everyone was granted such superhuman abilities, it is easy to imagine that an individual’s “right to privacy” would be largely surrendered.

This is why the Nanofutures experiment is so important toward developing a coherent and publicly-driven nanotechnology policy of the future: It is not altogether apparent how the public would react, on a moral level, to these advancements. And yet, they may be just a few decades away.

Take a look, and let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-bioniceyes.php.

The Center describes a situation in which a company offers a visual enhancement system to help the blind to see again – at least at first it is intended just for the visually impaired. The system, called Opti-scan, has its capabilities described as follows: “Opti-scan is capable not only of restoring sight to the blind but also of providing them with additional capabilities beyond those of the normally sighted.”

Opti-scan, essentially, would be able to route visual information directly to the genicuate nucleus – where the optic nerve connects to the visual cortex in the brain. So, one can imagine, it would be very easy to alter the types of information Opti-scan would be capable of sending to the visual cortex.

Night vision, thermal vision, virtual reality and a number of other enhancements to ordinary visual light information could be added to the system. The Center also imagines that this information could be downloaded onto personal computers, the Internet or Bluetooth.

Some possible side effects of the system are also discussed in the scenario.

Overall, there are two major philosophical issues that this particular scenario deals with, in relation to the impact of nanotechnology on society. First, there is the debate over the encroachment of technology on the human beings mental and physical functions.

Basically, there is a question as to how bionic human beings should be allowed to get, from a moral standpoint. Of course, in theory, there is nothing suggesting that it is impossible to alter every single human motor and mental function with technology. But is there a point at which we believe enough is enough? Is there a point at which human beings cease to be human beings? And, if so, do we have moral objections to this?

Second, this scenario begins to introduce the issue of personal privacy in the age of nanotechnology. It is not difficult to imagine individuals possessing thermal vision capabilities using this to spy on other people – or for other potentially devious means. In short, if everyone was granted such superhuman abilities, it is easy to imagine that an individual’s “right to privacy” would be largely surrendered.

This is why the Nanofutures experiment is so important toward developing a coherent and publicly-driven nanotechnology policy of the future: It is not altogether apparent how the public would react, on a moral level, to these advancements. And yet, they may be just a few decades away.

Take a look, and let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-bioniceyes.php

NanoFutures

Many of the people who are genuinely concerned about the directions in which nanotechnology can take us happen to be the scientists who are currently working in the varied field of nanotech. At least, this is what an ongoing experiment put together by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University suggests.

The experiment, titled NanoFutures, is part of the federal government’s approach to aid in surveying public opinion regarding nanotechnology. The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU functions as an arm of President Bush’s National Nanotechnology Initiative, which was supported by subsequent legislation – the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.

Essentially, the idea is to construct a handful of possible future scenarios in which nanotechnology may play a major role in the future. These scenarios are evaluated by researchers in nanotech for their plausibility – both in technical terms and in social terms.

In the words of the site, “Once the scenes were developed, the process of vetting followed three main lines: (1) focus groups with scientists with relevant expertise, (2) bibliometric analysis of key words produced in the focus groups, (3) research mapping,” (ASU 2008).

The experiment takes a look at six possible scenarios, which anyone can look at, revise and comment on. The six scenarios are: Bionic Eyes, Living with a Brain Chip, Disease Detector, Engineered Tissues, Barless Prisons, Automated Sewer Surveillance.

Each of the following blog posts will take a detailed look at each of these potential nanotechnology scenarios.

Nanofiltration

[Image Credit: Song et al. 1996. Science 274, 1859.]

One clear application of engineering on the scale of individual atoms and molecules is simply filtration -- or materials selection. Currently, a number of researchers across the world have already developed the hardware for filtering certain minute particles out of a slurry of other, perhaps unwanted, particles. Various methods and tools have been created in the past three years by which pores the size of only a nanometer or two can be effectively and efficiently produced. In short, the ability to filter effectively on the scale of nanometers already exists; however, the potentially thousands of applications of this technology are only beginning to be discovered.

In 2006, a team of researchers at the University of California, San Diego found that using a form of nanofilter could be a fast and easy way to sequence DNA.

According to the researchers, although the ability to sequence the human gnome exists -- in fact, the entire human gnome has already been mapped -- it is far too slow to make it technically feasible to synthesize taylor-made treatments to particular human diseases, or to particular humans.

When it comes to nanofabricated pores, the advantage is not simply that they are so small; it is that they can be constructed in such a way as to take advantage of the electromagnetic and even quantum properties of the filtering materials. DNA, according to the researchers, can have its natural electromagnetic vibrations minimized by forcing it into close proximity with certain nanoporous materials. This means that DNA can be pushed through the pours with less noise and greater efficiency.

Still, this is just one of many applications of nano-constructed filtration mechanisms.

Doug Gin, professor in Chemistry and Biochemistry, as well as Chemical and Biological Engineering, has recently developed a new process for constructing what he calls designer polymer liquid crystals.

These particular liquid crystals can be shaped into tools for filtering virtually anything out of water, he said – including salt molecules.

“We design special soap molecules so that they form a table size that is basically three-quarters of a nanometer deep,” Gin said.

Soaps, which are a type of fatty-acid, can form many types of crystalline structures.

The soap molecules Gin uses, which come in the shape of a vast series of hexagons, fit together like puzzle pieces upon a flat surface substrate. At the center of each minute molecule is an even smaller hole or pour, causing each individual molecule to resemble a nano-scale donut.

"This is the only technology we know of that can get uniform pour sizes of less than a nanometer,” he said.

Gin has found that his single-molecule-think nanostuctures manage to filter-out 95-99.9 percent of all dissolved salt ions, neutral molecules and other large molecules, as well as most molecular ions between the sizes of 0.64 and 1.2 nanometers in just one pass.

Ultimately, with cheap fabrication techniques and the exceptionally high efficiencies Gin is getting, filtering salt water, brackish water, or polluted water could be a significantly more surmountable endeavor, for regions of the world lacking in clean fresh water reserves.

Carbon Nanotubes

Of course, carbon, in the form of a crystal, is what makes-up diamonds – often called the strongest material know to man. In a diamond, every carbon atom is bonded to four other carbon atoms. This, essentially, creates a large, three-dimensional block of carbon, held entirely together by covalent bonds, making it exceptionally strong.

Carbon nanotubes, on the other hand, can perhaps best be visualized as a hexagonal, honeycomb-shaped array of carbon atoms. Each of these atoms is bonded to just three other carbon atoms, but only in two dimensions. However, if this two-dimensional structure could be wrapped into a hallow tube, like a flat piece of paper rolled into a cylinder, this would be the basic three-dimensional structure of a carbon nanotube.

Interestingly, the chemical bonds linking these carbon atoms together are different than those in diamonds – they occupy a different orbital. In fact, the bonds holding nanotubes together are actually stronger than those in diamond, effectively making the nanotube a stronger material than diamond.

Still, exceptional strength is only one of the many unique properties that carbon nanotubes offer.

The physical shape of nanotubes significantly influences their theoretical ability to carry an electric current. If the carbon atoms were simply kept in their two-dimensional array, electrons would be able to move in all directions. But once this array is wrapped into a tubular shape, quantum confinement will only allow electrons to move down the length of the tube and not around it.

Because of this, some types of nanotubes – depending on their diameter – can theoretically carry charges some 1,000 times greater than common conductive materials, such as copper or silver.

So, if a number of technical hurdles can be overcome, carbon nanotubes could end up being the foundation for the integrated electric circuits of the future. They would make-up vastly smaller microchips than those in production today and, potentially, they would function several times more efficiently.

Yet, much about nanotubes remains unknown; researchers around the world are scrambling to quantify their properties and to find practical uses for them before anyone else.



The microscopic image of carbon nanotubes was provided courtesy of Professor of Mechanical Engineering Paul Rice at the University of Colorado-Boulder. ncf.colorado.edu


For more news about nanotubes visit:

Nanowerk

Video about nanotubes

Religion Spins Americans' Perception of Nanotechnology

To many people in the U.S. and Europe, "Nanotechnology" is understood in rather abstract or loosely defined terms -- if the word is known at all. 

About 30-percent of people in the developed world have at least a passing familiarity with the term, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, in collaboration with Pennsylvania State University and Cornell University. To about two-thirds of these people, however, nanotechnology is only recognized as a vague symbol for looming technological innovations, possessing new -- and perhaps even bizarre -- consequences. 

Although the relatively low awareness of nanotechnology is fairly consistent across the U.S. and Europe, there is one striking difference between these two regions, said Dietram Scheufele, principle investigator of the study and University of Wisconsin professor of life sciences communication. 

"More Americans fear the consequences of nanotechnology," he said. 

The survey, which is currently under peer review, shows that only 29-percent of Americans believe nanotechnology is morally acceptable In the United Kingdom, this number is 54 percent; while in Germany and France, 62 and 72-percent of the survey's respondents either already considered themselves informed regarding nanotechnology or were educated through a series of 10 telephone calls. 

"We found that people in the U.S. have attitudes about nanotechnology similar to other countries with high levels of religiosity," Scheufele said. 

Scheufele's survey charted people's relative levels of religious faith and their moral beliefs regarding nanotechnology. It revealed an inverse relationship between a self-assessed importance of God in the respondent's lives and their belief in the moral acceptability of nanotechnology. 

Here's a link to the UW press release.

Here's Scheufele's blog. 

Nano-Ology is Born

Nanotechnology: The term itself is confusing. 

Why is nanotechnology special? Why should the types of technologies and sciences that it refers to be grouped-together at all? Why might they require their own public policies, funding or philosophies? 

These are difficult questions to answer because, after all, nanotechnology and nano-scale science offer a whole new set of potential benefits for modern civilization, but this is at the same time as they offer a whole new -- and never-before seen -- set of problems. 

In short, there is no direct analog from the past to aid us in wrapping our minds around what nanotechnology can do for us, let alone what it actually is.

This page represents one meager effort to bring some level of coherence to the massive issues of small technology. 

Inform yourself, inform others, and enjoy.