Medical Forum / General / General / January 2005
Nano Tech Poised to Cure Disease and More, No kidding!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bunn E. Rabbit - 05 Dec 2004 08:24 GMT Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember something about a Mole, a cell, a toga, Reagan, a girl named Mary and a fancy carbon atom. And the fact I may be more optimistic than most with respect to the following theoretical possibilities. Thanks :)
Anyway, although this is still theory per se, one can reasonably IMHO extrapolate that Nanotechnology could be that elusive elixir, if you will to most if not all aliments including aging. Briefly, Nanotech is the engineering of small self-replicating machines or Molecular assemblers called Nanobots which are measured in nanometers or even atoms/molecules of length. They have to ability to manufacture at the molecular and in theory the atomic level. They may also go beyond self-replication and be able to replicate specific tissues either directly or along with stem cells and genetic manipulation.
Therefore, with such technology one could for example send into your body some Nanobots via injection programmed to destroy the AIDS virus. The Nanobots would by chemical means recognize the virus and destroy or render it to a benign state.
Okay, now let's imagine all of the other diseases that could be cured. Suppose your heart is damaged. You could get a stent, a balloon, a bypass, medication or a transplant besides dietary/exercise/lifestyle changes and nutritional supplements. The invasive procedures have a number of risks including rejection. Perhaps your Cardiologist instead after an extensive new imaging helped by Nanotech enables him/her to locate exactly the specific damage of the infraction. The Doctor then prescribes a course of Nanobots, vitamins, exercise and stress reduction. Or even little by little grow a completely new heart.
Finally, we could use such tech in the reduction or 'cure' of the aging process. The Nanotech could in theory tweak that 'death gene', extend the telomeres of all your cells of which shorten as we age, enable positive genetic manipulations or inject a version of stem cell type growth to all tissues including the brain or....... Yes, I know what your thinking; something about Mary Shelly's novel or even a Michael Crichton, Steven King nightmare. Sadly, the first time mohammad gets his hands on this technology and threatens or commits bio or otherwise terrorism, the whole thing may come to a grinding halt. And the fact that Nanotech will have multiple applications far beyond Medicine.
http://bionano.rutgers.edu/mru.html
http://www.nanoaging.com
-- Keith
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor _____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC), Agamemnon _____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature ---------- To send mail: remove hutch
DrPostman - 05 Dec 2004 12:09 GMT On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 08:24:05 GMT, Bunn E. Rabbit <BunnERabbit@verizon.hutch.net> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Finally, we could use such tech in the reduction or 'cure' of the >aging process. The Nanotech could in theory tweak that 'death gene', [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >halt. And the fact that Nanotech will have multiple applications far >beyond Medicine. Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than wealthy.
-- Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253. AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004 You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance." -Kurt Vonnegut
lad - 05 Dec 2004 21:39 GMT > Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My > guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than > wealthy. "Self-replicating technology" would be the operative word here. Volume = affordability. Once they figure this stuff out, maybe they could be "grown" like bacteria, or "stamped out' like computer chips, or "etched out" like stereolithography. We'd also still have to make "counter nanobots" because of all terrorists and hackers out there.
Darkwing Duck - 05 Dec 2004 23:56 GMT >> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My >> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We'd also still have to make "counter nanobots" because of all > terrorists and hackers out there. OH NO!!!!! The Gray GOOO!!!!! Run away!!!!
It does seem that science and medicine are on the edge of some great break throughs. I heard on the radio tonight that a new leukemia drug has been found to put 86%!! of leukemia cancer patients in the study into remission. Even with all this great new breakthroughs it does seem there is still a tremendous amount that we don't know.
---------------------------------------------------- The Duck
DrPostman - 06 Dec 2004 03:22 GMT >>> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My >>> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Even with all this great new breakthroughs it does seem there is still a >tremendous amount that we don't know. The things that they are doing at St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital are simply amazing. When that place opened only 10% of the kids survived. Now they are up in the 80s and 90%s.
-- Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253. AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004 You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance." -Kurt Vonnegut
Darkwing Duck - 05 Dec 2004 23:56 GMT >> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My >> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We'd also still have to make "counter nanobots" because of all > terrorists and hackers out there. OH NO!!!!! The Gray GOOO!!!!! Run away!!!!
It does seem that science and medicine are on the edge of some great break throughs. I heard on the radio tonight that a new leukemia drug has been found to put 86%!! of leukemia cancer patients in the study into remission. Even with all this great new breakthroughs it does seem there is still a tremendous amount that we don't know.
---------------------------------------------------- The Duck
DrPostman - 06 Dec 2004 03:22 GMT >> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My >> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We'd also still have to make "counter nanobots" because of all >terrorists and hackers out there. I realize the potential for the self-replication to make it cheaper, but I still see it as being a commodity that will be well beyond the expenses of most of us. Now, 50 or 60 years from now it might be cheaper, but when they perfect it the cost will be almost prohibitive.
-- Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed" Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253. AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004 You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance." -Kurt Vonnegut
Moderate Mammal - 06 Dec 2004 11:18 GMT >>> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My >>> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >be cheaper, but when they perfect it the cost will be almost >prohibitive. You may want to browse through both these links including the message board from the second link. The answer to your question is complex IMO. My guess is the cost won't be prohibitive but rather a more political problem of who's allowed access to the therapies. One way would be of course is the inflate the cost so only the wealthy or well connected would be able to afford it.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=news_single.html?id%3D3968
www.kurzweilai.com
-- Keith _____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor _____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC), Agamemnon _____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature ---------- To send mail: remove hutch
duxcexmf@search26.com - 07 Dec 2004 10:57 GMT http://www.zared.com/Arts/Literature/Drama/Ancient_Greek/Aeschylus/
default@uri.edu - 06 Dec 2004 19:11 GMT > I realize the potential for the self-replication to make it cheaper, > but I still see it as being a commodity that will be well beyond the > expenses of most of us. Now, 50 or 60 years from now it might > be cheaper, but when they perfect it the cost will be almost > prohibitive. Self-replication is a really REALLY dangerous technique, and not really all that useful. All machines should come with an OFF switch that you can depend on. Better to have your billions of nanites created by a bigger machine, and limit the complexity of the nanites to whatever job they're supposed to do.
Joann Evans - 07 Dec 2004 00:55 GMT > >> Great stuff. The biggest problem I see is how much it will cost. My > >> guess is that it will be well out of the range of the less than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be cheaper, but when they perfect it the cost will be almost > prohibitive. One might have said that about computers at one time, too...
Remember, other applications, *espically* computing, will also be drivers and consumers of nanotechnological development, not just the biological applications. The R&D costs will be spread across a *very* large consumer base. The software will be difficult to generate for applications as complex as tissue repair...but you basically only have to write it once, no matter how many times/places it's used.
And there will always be competitors....
 Signature You know what to remove, to reply....
listener - 05 Dec 2004 14:37 GMT > Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way > through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > -- > Keith If one considers that we are in the middle stone age of medicine, nanotechnology sounds like a deus ex machina. There *is* major potential and I think bio-nanotech will have a major impact, but unfortunately it will be many decades away. Most of us writting on this board won't be here to see it.
L.
Darkwing Duck - 06 Dec 2004 00:01 GMT > Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way > through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > -- > Keith This is also a good site for the latest news on all areas of science, I assume Hoaxy NEVER visits sites like this. http://www.sciencedaily.com
------------------------------------------------ The Duck
Moderate Mammal - 06 Dec 2004 11:34 GMT >> Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way >> through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >------------------------------------------------ >The Duck Yes, lots of good articles including Nanotech.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/topix/index.php?feed=tech&topic=Nanotechnology
There's also if you haven't already,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1
Lots of neato stuff with an interesting message board.
-- Keith _____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor _____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC), Agamemnon _____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature ---------- To send mail: remove hutch
Greg_Balaze@hotmail.com - 06 Dec 2004 21:04 GMT > Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way > through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > -- > Keith Keith,
As yet, all of this is highly speculative, there is no one working on anything remotely close a nanobot that can replicate. Something like that could possibly be done within a 50-100 years. Now there is still alot of ground to be made using plausible nano-biotech that we have coming out or is here today, such as stem cell research and tissue engineering.
Ian Stirling - 04 Jan 2005 18:44 GMT In misc.survivalism Bunn E. Rabbit <BunnERabbit@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
> Before you continue reading understand I vigorously drank my way > through the Bio-Chem curriculum in college and vaguely remember [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > assemblers called Nanobots which are measured in nanometers or even > atoms/molecules of length. They have to ability to manufacture at the For "mature nanotechnology", that's almost the small end.
Not only can it make you immortal (barring really serious accidents), free of disease, but also able to eat grass, dive naked to the deepest ocean, and deal with being cut in half as only a few hours annoyance, it can give you a 'seed' that you plant, and up grows a house in a few weeks.
In principle, this can be essentially free.
Politics will probably mean that this is not so.
I would be surprised if this is technically possible within 50 years, and if it's not in 200.
Essentially, consider that life is an existance proof that some of this is possible.
Any creature you can imagine (as long as it is biomechanically possible, it has to have working circulation, muscalature, ...) is possible, in addition as they are engineered, you can use materials that may not be possible in evolved systems.
There are a number of steps towards this.
First you have machines capable of moving around single atoms at a time, some sort of this is almost here now. Next, you have devices that can make nanoscale features in bulk. Then the ability to mass produce special purpose machines. Then the capability to make self-reproducing general purpose machines.
Socialism is a Mental Disease - 04 Jan 2005 18:46 GMT >Then the capability to make self-reproducing general purpose machines. At which point humans become a thing of the past...
 Signature "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Ian Stirling - 04 Jan 2005 19:47 GMT In misc.survivalism Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>Then the capability to make self-reproducing general purpose machines. > > At which point humans become a thing of the past... Debatable. If it was me doing the designing, I'd want security measures to prevent the buggers evolving to be utterly paranoid.
Socialism is a Mental Disease - 04 Jan 2005 20:21 GMT >In misc.survivalism Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If it was me doing the designing, I'd want security measures to >prevent the buggers evolving to be utterly paranoid. Paranoid or not, the thing is that the bugs will be affect by selection pressures and will evolve rather quickly.
 Signature "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
Ian Stirling - 04 Jan 2005 21:51 GMT In misc.survivalism Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote:
>>In misc.survivalism Socialism is a Mental Disease <root@localhost.> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>If it was me doing the designing, I'd want security measures to >>prevent the buggers evolving to be utterly paranoid. Oops, missing "the" between want and security.
> Paranoid or not, the thing is that the bugs will be affect by > selection pressures and will evolve rather quickly. The key is preventing evolution.
Things like multpile copies of the 'genetic' code, error checking, multiple mechanisms to terminate the bot on program errors. I'd want failures of this mechanism to be about the same likelyhood as Marilyn Monroe arising from her coffin on the whitehouse lawn singing 'happy birthday'. (techincally possible, just really unlikely)
Socialism is a Mental Disease - 04 Jan 2005 23:21 GMT >> Paranoid or not, the thing is that the bugs will be affect by >> selection pressures and will evolve rather quickly. > >The key is preventing evolution. Hmm, not sure it can be done reliably 100% of the time...
>Things like multpile copies of the 'genetic' code, error checking, >multiple mechanisms to terminate the bot on program errors. Ok, the probability of errors will be reduced but not eliminated.
>I'd want failures of this mechanism to be about the same likelyhood as >Marilyn Monroe arising from her coffin on the whitehouse lawn singing >'happy birthday'. >(techincally possible, just really unlikely) At the molecular level, with quantum uncertainty in the mix, I'm not convinced these low levels of probability will be achievable. I guess we have both to wait and see...
 Signature "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule." -- Ayn Rand
DBM - 05 Jan 2005 12:46 GMT Begin Quote from a post allegedly made by Ian Stirling...
"...If it was me doing the designing, I'd want security measures to prevent the buggers evolving to be utterly paranoid..."
End Quote...
Ever read 'Blood Music' by Greg Bear?
It's a Science Fiction novel about a scientist who creates intelligent 'nanites', based off of Human blood cells...
The new species develop a 'benevolent' attitude towards Humans - they derived from cells that 'protected' the scientist's body...
...Except that now, they tend to see ALL of Humanity as their 'host body'. Just as their forebears terminated 'rogue cells' within the Scientist's body, they feel compelled to protect Humanity from all those 'rogue cells' that threaten Humanity...
By the way, are you Rogue?
Personal Opinion? An interesting TEOTWAWKI novel...
-- Yours, DBM - dbmacpherson@uq.net.au From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...
Ian Stirling - 06 Jan 2005 11:06 GMT In misc.survivalism DBM <dbmacpherson@uq.net.au> wrote:
> Begin Quote from a post allegedly made by Ian Stirling... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ever read 'Blood Music' by Greg Bear? Yes. <snip>
> Personal Opinion? An interesting TEOTWAWKI novel... Nanotech leads to many TEOTWAWKIs. From everyone in the world becoming the slave of the inventor, to everyone having enough to eat, to complete destruction of the biosphere, to humanity evolving into something quite different.
chatw@my-deja.com - 05 Jan 2005 19:41 GMT > Anyway, although this is still theory per se, one can reasonably IMHO > extrapolate that Nanotechnology could be that elusive elixir, if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > self-replication and be able to replicate specific tissues either > directly or along with stem cells and genetic manipulation. My government industrial-hygenist friend brought up how he's studing some health concerns of nanotech particles (ex. nano-sized carbon can be relatively toxic).
But he scoffed about the potential of monecular or genetic manipulation using tiny nanomachinery because of the reality of ~ Brownian Motion. ~
I was trying to arrive with him at a reasonable potential use - such as nanotech being able to attach to at least human cell or bacterial walls. He still couldn't foresee this every being practical.
|
|
|