Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Category: Nanodot

Greater Washington Nanotech Group holds open house events

Some presentations on nanotechnology and materials science from an open house held at the University of Maryland Department of Physics held on 25 October 2001 are available on the UMD website. The open house was part of a series of events being sponsored by the Greater Washington (D.C.) Nanotech Group, a loose coalition of Greater Washington-area universities and government laboratories, to highlight area facilities and research programs in nanoscience and promote innovation in research by encouraging collaborative interactions among scientists engaged in complimentary research activities.

Other upcoming NanoScience Open House events are also listed on the UMD website.

Alife: researchers claim software agents evolve purposeful behavior

from the basic-motivations dept.
An article in Technology Research News ("Software agents evolve purpose", by Kimberly Patch, 2 January 2002) describes work by researchers from the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics at the Russian Academy of Science have shown that purposeful behavior can emerge naturally in a software simulation that has simple software beings, or agents, evolving over many generations. The researchers described these evolved behaviors as purposeful motivation. The researchers say the simulation showed that a system that uses motivations to control simple reflexes can emerge in an evolutionary process. Having motivation was an advantage likely to be passed on to subsequent generations of the agents, said Mikhail Burtsev, one of the researchers. "The population of agents with motivations had obvious selective advantages compared with the population of agents without motivations," he said.

The researchers began with a small population of simple, identical neural-net based agents that could move, eat (gain energy from the environment), and mate with other agents to reproduce. The agent population as a whole had one goal — survival. This goal required individuals to push toward two basic subgoals — to replenish energy, and to reproduce, said Burtsev. The agents evolved to seek out [food] and other agents. "The most important thing here is that we didn't force agents to follow these needs. The needs were prescribed explicitly by [the] environment, and only agents that had these two needs could successfully undergo selection pressure," said Burtsev.

The article also contains comments from another artificial life researcher, who expressed some skepticism at the interpretation that the agents had evolved motivated behavior; rather, he said, it may simply be the result of the neural net having better access to information about the environment and acting on it more effectively.

The Russian researchersí technical paper ("A Life Model of Evolutionary Emergence of Purposeful Adaptive Behavior") is available online at the Lawrence National Laboratory archive, as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file.

Workshop on Nanostructures for Electronics, Optics

Torsten Mueller writes "[Here is the] First announcement of the International Workshop on Nanostructures for Electronics and Optics – NEOP, August 18 – 21, 2002, Dresden, Germany.
The organizers would like to inform you about this 3-day workshop. The full, updated information can be found under http://www.neop.de.

Topics are

Organizers and Sponsors are the company ZMD AG, the Research Center Rossendorf, the Center of Competence – Nanotechnology."

?

Seeman Lab at NYU reports advance on DNA nano-device

from the A-new-twist dept.
According to a press release (2 January 2002), Nadrian Seeman and his co-workers at New York University have been able to create a more robust, controllable version of the rudimentary DNA-based device that Seemanís group first reported they had created in January 1999 (see report in Foresight Update 36).
According to the release, the new device "improves upon previously developed nano-scale DNA devices because it allows for better-controlled movement within larger DNA constructs. The researchers say that the new device may help build the foundation for the development of sophisticated machines at a molecular scale, ultimately evolving to the development of nano-robots that might some day build new molecules, computer circuits or fight infectious diseases." Their research is reported in the 3 January 2002 issue of Nature.

The January 1999 version of the device constructed from DNA molecules had two rigid arms that could be rotated from fixed positions by adding a chemical to the solution. However, the chemical affected all molecules within a structure uniformly. The most recent findings demonstrate how movement can be manipulated within molecule pairs without affecting others within a larger structure. This is done by inserting DNA ìsetî and ìfuelî strands into individual molecule pairs. Scientists used special DNA molecule pairs and produced a half-turn rotation by converting them from one configuration into a second configuration by removing the set strands with fuel strands and replacing them with new set strands that reconfigure the structure of the device.

Update: An illustration of the new DNA-based device, along with a not particularly lucid explanation of the change in configuration that produces the rotation, is available on this page of the Seeman groupís website.

Dr. Seeman was awarded the 1995 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology (see Foresight Update 23) in recognition of his pioneering work to synthesize complex three-dimensional structures with DNA molecules.

Article, quoting Foresight, says nanotech benefits must be global

An article from the Inter Press Service ("Nanotech should help the world, not just the West, experts warn", 2 January 2002) says "Scientific breakthroughs last year heralded potential benefits for developing countries but experts urge that research be managed in a socially responsible manner." The piece focuses on breakthroughs in nanotechnology (molecular electronics and computing, in particular) and their potential impact on the developing world. The article contains extensive quotes from the Foresight Guidelines for the safe development of nanotechnology. Also quoted are the head of the United Nations Development Program and the non-profit American Council for the United Nations University; both organizations cited the need to ensure that scientists from around the world — not just in the West — actively participate in cutting-edge research projects.

Brainstorming to prevent nanotech-based terrorism

from the Applied-group-genius dept.
In his weekly column on technology and public policy for Tech Central Station, University of Tennessee law professor and Foresight Director Glenn Reynolds calls 2001 "the year that people started to get serious about the promises and dangers of nanotechnology" ("Preventing Nanoterror Now", 27 December 2001). Reynolds lauds recent efforts to envision ñ and therefore prevent — possible dangers from and misuse of molecular nanotechnology, such as the recent AAAS symposium that included a panel discussion on nanotech dangers that included Eric Drexler, and points to efforts such as the Foresight Guidelines for the safe development of nanotechnology.

But Reynolds goes on to suggest that policy makers need to do much more to develop a broad vision of potential nanotech threats. One possibility: "get together technical experts, leading science fiction writers, experts on terrorism, and some people who have thought about the social impacts of nanotechnology, and have them brainstorm on the kinds of threats that might emerge. From this, we could then move to a consideration of how to prevent those threats from becoming realities. . . . To broaden the idea base, we might also solicit suggestions from the general public", perhaps from web-based forums such as here on Nanodot. "I imagine that such an effort would yield thousands of ideas, from which experts could evaluate the best", says Reynolds. And he concludes:

"Where this powerful technology is concerned, a nanogram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure. Letís start thinking about nanoterrorism now, while we have the luxury of time. Itís a luxury that wonít last forever."

Quantum dots allow communication with, perhaps control of, brain cells

An article in EE Times ("Scientists activate neurons with quantum dots", by R. Colin Johnson, 6 December 2001) describes research by scientists led by Christine Schmidt, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Texas-Austin to use quantum dot devices to selective electrical contacts to neurons. According to the article, by selectively coding peptides that coated quantum dots, University of Texas scientists precisely controlled the spacing of hundreds of quantum dots on the surface of the living neurons. The cadmium sulfide contacts act as photodetectors, allowing researchers to communicate with the cells using precise wavelengths of light.

The research has some . . . interesting implications:

In this new biological application, attaching quantum dots directly to cells eliminates the need for external electrodes. The procedure is entirely non-invasive, similar to the use of fluorescent dyes to mark cells. And since molecular recognition is used, it is a "smart" technology that can pick precisely which capability will be controlled on each neuron to which a quantum dot is attached. Taken to the logical extreme, biologists could remotely control any neural function by activating select neurons.

"Presumably, in the future we will be able to turn on an ion channel or turn off something else," said Schmidt. "We could have highly regulated activity in the neuron. . . . One idea is to put a quantum dot right next to a protein channel ó one that opens and closes ó allowing ions to go in and out, and basically control the ion exchange, which in turn controls action potentials [neuron 'firing']. These are the electrical signals with which the neuron interacts with the brain."

"The Case Against Mars" by Drexler (1984)

An article by K. Eric Drexler that appeared in the October 1984 issue of the L5 News ("Space Development: The Case Against Mars") is now available on the Foresight webiste. The article argues that Mars is not a good target if the goal is development of a broadly-based human expansion into space. At the time, Drexler was Associate Editor of the L5 News and a member of the Society's Board of Advisors, but the article reflected his views rather than L5 Society policy. He now serves on the Board of Governors of the National Space Society, with which the L5 Society merged. Given that humans have made no progress beyond low Earth orbit in the intervening years, the arguments in the article are still valid.

UQ establishes Australian Institute of Bio-Engineering and Nanotechnology

from the World-Watch dept.
According to a University of Queensland (Australia) news release (11 December 2001), the Queensland Government and the University of Queensland have formally announced the establishment a $50 million Australian Institute of Bio-Engineering and Nanotechnology at the UQ St. Lucia campus in Brisbane. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said the Institute was the first project to be funded through the $A 100 million Smart State Research Facilities Fund established in this yearís State Budget. Although the new institute will initially focus on biotechnology-related research and development, Beattie said, ìNanotechnology will provide the building blocks of the future. Itís the ëSmart Stateí technologies that will drive employment opportunities in Queensland in the years ahead.î

The announcement said the Queensland Government, the University of Queensland and "an overseas philanthropic organization" are funding the new institute. Beattie said the Australian national Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) would also be a key contributor to the institute. Beattie had announced plans to establish the center at a biotechnology conference in June 2001. The St. Lucia campus is already home to the University of Queensland NanoMaterials Centre (NanoMac) and Nanotechnology and Biomaterials Centre.

In a related development, on 18 December 2001 Premier Beattie also invited the collaboration of researchers in New Zealand with the new University of Queensland institute. "The NEST group (the Nanostructure Engineering, Science and Technology group) at the University of Canterbury [in New Zealand] is highly regarded by their colleagues in Queensland. . . . Links with the new Australian Institute would be a natural fit and could be beneficial to both parties," Beattie said.

NASA Ames Center may be closed; maybe NT Center, too

from the penny-wise… dept.
According to an article from the Gannett News Service (ìNASAís future in balance; closures seem imminentî, by Larry Wheeler, 26 December 2001), the Bush Administration is conducting a thorough review of the core needs and capabilities of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). According to the article, the review will include consideration of the possibility of closing down one of NASAís ten major regional centers. The report states that one of the centers that is considered vulnerable to closure or conversion to a private, non-government research park is the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, in the south San Francisco Bay area. NASA Ames is home to the Center for Nanotechnology. The impact that closure of the Ames Center, and any other cuts that might result from the review, would have on NASA nanotechnology efforts is unclear.

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute