This idea is impractical, unrealistic, and not at all what we're working on in cutting edge nanotechnology. These conversations of how to build tiny robots are best left in the 1990s where they belong.
You are made of tiny, self-replicating, self-repairing robots called cells. For several years now, the best of us in nanotechnology have realized that seeking to make mechanical versions of cells is... inefficient. Our task now is to find ways to engineer and work with biology such that it can be seamlessly integrated with digital infrastructure. It's not easy, but it's going well.
It's not your father's biology either! Probably no field of science is changing as fast as biology right now. It's like being in computer science in the 1980s.
In many ways, we're riding just behind the wave of that revolution in biology. The tools used and research approach is a combination of what could broadly be described as MEMS, CMOS, cell biology, and protein engineering. This is a very significant break from the past, where you would never use biochemical or biological engineering as part of an elec
I have to admit I am extremely intrigued by your posts regarding nanotech and biology merging. Are there any online info resources about this cutting edge stuff to read about?
I'm not surprised to find that it's more effective to use cellular machinery that has been time-tested over hundreds of millions of years to perform work for us rather than trying to reinvent some newer, much crappier wheel.
Well... MEMS are good practical science also. Nanotech is also good. I mean, just because we have nano-machines doesn't mean we won't want to build cars and tractors, right? MEMS are not new - they are being used in scenarios such hormone/drug monitoring and regulating, using NFC systems embedded to stomach lining, for instance.
The one thing I totally agree with is that none of this is particularly 'new', and it falls outside of the scope of 'news for geeks'.
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.
-- Sagan
your father's nanotechnology (Score:4, Interesting)
This idea is impractical, unrealistic, and not at all what we're working on in cutting edge nanotechnology. These conversations of how to build tiny robots are best left in the 1990s where they belong.
You are made of tiny, self-replicating, self-repairing robots called cells. For several years now, the best of us in nanotechnology have realized that seeking to make mechanical versions of cells is... inefficient. Our task now is to find ways to engineer and work with biology such that it can be seamlessly integrated with digital infrastructure. It's not easy, but it's going well.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, my father was a biologist, so I think you have it backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your father's biology either! Probably no field of science is changing as fast as biology right now. It's like being in computer science in the 1980s.
In many ways, we're riding just behind the wave of that revolution in biology. The tools used and research approach is a combination of what could broadly be described as MEMS, CMOS, cell biology, and protein engineering. This is a very significant break from the past, where you would never use biochemical or biological engineering as part of an elec
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well...
MEMS are good practical science also. Nanotech is also good. I mean, just because we have nano-machines doesn't mean we won't want to build cars and tractors, right? MEMS are not new - they are being used in scenarios such hormone/drug monitoring and regulating, using NFC systems embedded to stomach lining, for instance.
The one thing I totally agree with is that none of this is particularly 'new', and it falls outside of the scope of 'news for geeks'.