Nanotechnology

[mhaze]

just neat piles of purified carbon, calcium, iron, and other trace elements found in the human body.

Okay, you've got dibs on those.

I got dibs on the neat pile of gold.

 

[joobz]

I just had two nanotech* papers accepted last week.


These would be printed on microfiche?

Obviously, it's nanofiche.

 

[Muppet]

I cannot believe that anyone who posts on this forum would ever, ever procrastinate.

Oh sweet irony, I suckle thy tit.

 

[krazyKemist]

Using what- a very tiny pair of tweezers?

My views on nanotechnology are somewhat tainted by hearing an obnoxious high school student lecture me on the possibilities many years ago- he thought such nanobots could be used to make ozone and fix the ozone layer. Presumably, they would have tiny tweezers to put the atoms into place, and even smaller tweezers to move the electrons into the proper bonding orbitals.

A more educated fellow who was also in on this sermon/conversation suggested that they may work similar to a catalyst. Unfortunately, the formation of ozone is thermodynamically unfavourable, so a catalyst would only decompose the ozone more quickly.

And I've seen many conferences presenting cyclic peptide autoassembled tubes supposed to insert themselves in bacteria walls to kill them. I'm seeing them since many years in fact. It looked interesting at first. So far, no pharma has jumped on it. I guess the idea doesn't sound great to them.

Now 'nanotech' is a word a chemist professor puts on a grant application to increase the chance of payoff. In any field, from materials science to medicinal chemistry.

My opinion: lousy buzz-word made to appeal to the public's imagination and justify (not always honestly) funding.

the Kemist

 

[joobz]

And I've seen many conferences presenting cyclic peptide autoassembled tubes supposed to insert themselves in bacteria walls to kill them. I'm seeing them since many years in fact. It looked interesting at first. So far, no pharma has jumped on it. I guess the idea doesn't sound great to them.

Now 'nanotech' is a word a chemist professor puts on a grant application to increase the chance of payoff. In any field, from materials science to medicinal chemistry.

My opinion: lousy buzz-word made to appeal to the public's imagination and justify (not always honestly) funding.

the Kemist

I cna think of some colloidial and surface scientists who would agree with you.

To my mind, the "nanotech" umbrella does helps bring together seperate areas of research that might not have had much interaction.

All those who jumped on the nanotech gravytrain due to a lack of creativity will be leaving the field shortly for the "alternative energy" train that's soon to depart the station.

 

[krazyKemist]

I cna think of some colloidial and surface scientists who would agree with you.

To my mind, the "nanotech" umbrella does helps bring together seperate areas of research that might not have had much interaction.

All those who jumped on the nanotech gravytrain due to a lack of creativity will be leaving the field shortly for the "alternative energy" train that's soon to depart the station.

What you're publishing I would actually call polymer supported therapeutics. Maybe it sounds less flashy than the nanorobots, but this is something that actually means something, and sure has a future (I can vaguely remember pharmaceuticals linked to PEG polymers already on the market). The thing is 'nanotech' means nothing in particular (simply imposing a size limit seems a little absurd to define a field of science), except in the imagination of the public. Maybe it forged some alliances between material scientists and organic/medicinal chemists.

Alternative energy sounds cool as a buzz-word. Not as sci-fi as nanotech, but still, 'alternative' is popular after all... Voters will like that.

the Kemist

 

[joobz]

What you're publishing I would actually call polymer supported therapeutics. Maybe it sounds less flashy than the nanorobots, but this is something that actually means something, and sure has a future (I can vaguely remember pharmaceuticals linked to PEG polymers already on the market). The thing is 'nanotech' means nothing in particular (simply imposing a size limit seems a little absurd to define a field of science), except in the imagination of the public. Maybe it forged some alliances between material scientists and organic/medicinal chemists.

Well, there are some cool aspects at that size scale. The rapid transport of water through carbon nanotube membranes come time mind right.

You are correct, as to the name of the field. Indeed, polymer based drug delivery and biomaterials is my exact area. Also, you can say that nanomedicines are on the market (PEGylated liposomes loaded with doxorubicin)

I will say, though that the stuff I'm working on has had enough unique size characteristics, that the name isn't so terrible.

For instance, the worm-like micelles (due to the high aspect ratio) flow allign in circulation and are capable of evading macrophage clearence. this has resulted in enhanced circulation times over what is seen with purely PEGylated proteins and PEGylated spherical counterparts.

Further, when you get to cell response, size is everything. >500nm or larger, endothelial cells don't internalized carriers very readily(if at all). However if you taget 300nm or less carriers, you can get extremely high levels of internalization.

I'll admit, though, this this is simply in vitro observations. I have no clue if it translates to what occurs in vivo yet.

As another aside, my current work has switched a bit from enzyme delivery to polymeric prodrugs. Just out of interest.

 

[rocketdodger]

A couple of reasons. I think old folks need to die off to make room for young folks. The world is plenty populated enough (and the population is still exploding) with current death rates.

A finite lifespan makes it more important to choose meaningful activities in which to spend one's time. It's also a spur to action rather than perpetual planning (fantasizing). I already procrastinate way too much, without the luxury of all the time in the world.

Well what you have to realize is that these are all reasons that you formulated while living in a society of humans that know they are going to die, most likely, within 100 years of being born. Perhaps this type of thing would be a good thread in another section, but if people *didn't* think this, there would be some major paradigm shifts in how we view life.