Category: Nanodot

from the If-it's-not-one-thing-it's-another dept.

Researchers examining complex systems, both biological and artificial, find interesting parallels between communities of organisms and the Internet in their tolerance for error — and in their high vulnerability to attack. Complex networks of nanotech devices may exhibit similar behaviors; this presents a design challenge for future MNT systems engineers, as well as today's information system engineers. The article appeared in Nature (sorry, no link, since access requires an active subscription).

If you have access to the printed journal, see "Error and attack tolerance of complex networks," by Reka Albert, Hawoong Jeong and Albert-Loszlo Barabosi, Nature, v406, pp 378 – 382.

(The full text of the abstract appears in the "Read More.")

Update: The full text of the Nature article, plus a commentary is available either online or as an Acrobat PDF file on the Nature web site. (Note: Full access may eventually be cut off, but this was current as of 31 August 2000.)

from the nano-vroom-vroom? dept.
Correction from EricDrexler: these are more accurately called actuators, not motors.
From the revised press release : "Scientists from Bell Labs, the research and development arm of Lucent Technologies, and the University of Oxford have created the first DNA motors. The devices, which resemble motorized tweezers, are 100,000 times smaller than the head of a pin, and the techniques used to make them may lead to computers that are 1,000 times more powerful than today's machines…The researchers designed pieces of synthetic DNA that would recognize each other during each step of making the DNA motors. As a result, the only necessary ingredients in a laboratory test tube were DNA itself. “Because DNA acts as the 'fuel' for these motors, they are completely self-sufficient and do not require other chemicals to operate, '' [Bell Labs physicist Bernard] Yurke said. The self-assembling aspect of the DNA motors also is crucial for manufacturing nanodevices." See the photo.

from the wonderful-discoveries-promised dept.
An article in Chemical & Engineering News (subscription req'd) reports "The [US] National Institutes of Health is getting ready to jump into the field of nanotechnology…The need for tool development, such as single-molecule detection and nanofabrication methods, was a theme that was sounded repeatedly…" at the NIH Symposium "Nanoscience & Nanotechnology: Shaping Biomedical Research". Harvard chemist George Whitesides called for a separate funding group within NIH: "Tools for nanofabrication are not going to be easily evaluated in the same study section that studies more conventional subjects." Symposium co-chair Lynn Jelinski: "We're saying, 'Here is a small set of scientific priorities, and here is where the investments should go.' With that, I can guarantee you that if you sic really smart people on things, wonderful discoveries will emerge."

from the don't-ignore-scared-folks dept.
BryanBruns writes "The Washington Post has a good story on biotechnology for trees. We talk about how long it may be until nanotech appears, but here is an industry investing in advances that won't pay off for decades. As with other transgenic plants, there is some fierce opposition, scaring off some scientists and companies, and some direct action to destroy test plots.

All this again raises the question of how to improve the quality of public discussion about new technologies. In terms of public relations strategy, focusing on the benefits from nanomedicine and taking safety very seriously may be the best way to go. However, there ought to be ways to improve the whole process of considering new technologies. Science courts don't seem to have taken off, and there is a need for policy recommendations, not just agreement on facts. Maybe deliberative democracy approaches such as citizen's juries are worth trying, for nano and other technologies."