Nano/Bio
Lecture topic:
Nanotech/Nanoscience:
the age of the immaterial and the need for trans-disciplinary endeavor
Floating in an aliquot of laboratory test fluid,
these hypothetical early medical nanorobots are
testing their ability to find and grasp passing virus particles. Courtesy of Jeff Johnson, 2001. Copyright
2003 Hybrid Medical Animation.
BackStory: What is
Nanotechnology? What is Nanoscience?
(Excerpts in part from The Nanomeme Syndrome:
Blurring of fact & fiction in the construction of a new science by
Jim Gimzewski and Victoria Vesna and
other research )
Nanotechnology typically, is described as a
science that is concerned with control of matter at the scale of atoms and
molecules.
Nano is Greek for dwarf and a
nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter, written in scientific notation as:
1 x 10-9 m.
The Scanning Tunneling Microscope [8] represents a paradigm shift from
seeing in the sense of viewing, to tactile sensing -- recording shape by
feeling, much like a blind man reading Braille. The operation of a STM is based on a quantum electron tunneling current, felt
by a sharp tip in proximity to a surface at a distance of approximately one
nanometer. The tip is mounted on a three dimensional actuator like a finger as
shown schematically in Figure. 1. This sensing is recorded as the tip is
mechanically rastered across the surface producing
contours of constant sensing (in the case of STM this
requires maintaining a constant tunneling current). The resulting information
acquired is then displayed as an image of the surface topography.
Figure 1. Principle of a scanning tunneling
microscope uses a local probe: The gentle touch of a nanofinger
is shown in (a) where if the human finger was shrunk by about ten millions
times it would be able to feel atoms represented here by spheres 1 cm in
diameter. If the interaction between tip and sample decays sufficiently rapidly
on the atomic scale, only the two atoms that are closest to each other are able
to ‘‘feel’’ each other as shown in (b) where the human finger is replaced by an
atomically sharp tip. Binnig and Rohrer (1999) inspired this explanation of the
STM.
Figure 3. View of a Scanning Tunneling
Microscope (STM) at the PICO lab of one of the
authors (Gimzewski) at UCLA.
In 1981, Heinrich Rohrer and Gerd
Binning, at IBM Zurich research laboratories, invented the Scanning Tunneling
Microscope (STM), which for the first time “looked”
at the topography of atoms that cannot be seen. (Binning) With this invention,
the age of the immaterial was truly inaugurated.
Not coincidentally, the IBM PC was taking center
stage and causing a true revolution in arts and sciences alike. In a short
period of history, many new things appeared, creating a perfect environment for
a natural symbiosis between science, technology and art.
Another decade would pass before people occupying
these creative worlds would expand their perceptual field to include each
other’s points of views. Indeed, the surge of this expansion happened from a
genuine need to embrace and cross-pollinate research and development between
science, technology and art.
Both nanotechnology and media arts, by their very
nature, have a common ground in addressing the issues of manipulation,
particularly sensory perception, questioning our reaction, changing the way we
think. They are complementary, and the issues that are raised start to spill
over into fundamental problems of the limits of psychology, anthropology,
biology and so on. It is as if the doors of perception have suddenly opened and
the microscope’s imperfection of truly representing object form forces us to
question our traditional (Western) values of reality.
Tomorrow at
Department of Materials Science & Engineering
General Electric Distinguished Lecture
NEW METHODS FOR RELIABLE NANOSTRUCTURES
William W. Gerberich
Department of Chemical Engineering and
Increasingly, magnetic recording, optical
switching, biomedical, drug delivery and chemical sensor systems will be
reliant on very thin films,
nanowires and nanoparticles. These components small in 1, 2 or 3
dimensions represent challenges and
opportunities to the nanotechnology community. This involves both nanostructural design as well as failure analysis. At the
prevention level, how does one assess the appropriate mechanical behavior of nanoscale components prior to selection? Considering post-failure, how does one
examine the appropriate strength and fracture toughness, fracture mode and
inherent defects in such devices? While
speculative in many regards, we cite a number of examples of how advanced in
situ instruments might be involved.
These would employ combinations of transmission electron microscopy,
scanning probe microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, nanoindentation,
synchrotron radiation and acoustic emission in providing the fundamental
properties and diagnostics needed.
Concrete examples of yield stress, modulus, fracture toughness and
adhesion of nanoscale components are cited.
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
4:00-5:00 PM, CII-4050
Reception immediately following the seminar
Nano technology is used in
the fabrication techniques of nanowires, semiconductor fabrication such as deep
ultraviolet lithography, electron beam lithography, focused ion beam
machining, nanoimprint
lithography, atomic layer deposition, and molecular vapor
deposition, and further including molecular
self-assembly techniques such as those employing di-block
copolymers.
Nanotechnology at NASA http://ipt.arc.nasa.gov/nanotechnology.html
Nano images form The
Institute for Molecular Manufacturing:
Venture capitalists, the military, governments around
the world as well as educational institutions seduced by this syndrome are
portraying nanotech as the savior of our rapidly declining economies and
outdated military systems. Dovetailing on the recent frenzied exponential rise
and fall of information technologies, and also to a degree by biotechnology, the need for a new cure-all has been
identified.
Potential
risks of nanotechnology can broadly be grouped into three areas:
* the risk to health and
environment from nanoparticles and nanomaterials;
* the risk posed by
molecular manufacturing (or advanced nanotechnology);
* societal risks.
The mere
presence of nanomaterials (materials that contain nanoparticles) is not in itself a threat. It is only
certain aspects that can make them risky, in particular their mobility and
their increased reactivity. Only if certain properties of certain nanoparticles were harmful to living beings or the
environment would we be faced with a genuine hazard.
In addressing
the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials
we need to differentiate two types of nanostructures: (1) Nanocomposites,
nanostructured surfaces and nanocomponents
(electronic, optical, sensors etc.), where nanoscale
particles are incorporated into a substance, material or device (“fixed” nano-particles); and (2) “free” nanoparticles,
where at some stage in production or use individual nanoparticles
of a substance are present. These free nanoparticles
could be nanoscale species of elements, or simple
compounds, but also complex compounds where for instance a nanoparticle
of a particular element is coated with another substance (“coated” nanoparticle or “core-shell” nanoparticle).
There seems
to be consensus that, although one should be aware of materials containing
fixed nanoparticles, the immediate concern is with
free nanoparticles.
Because nanoparticles are very different from their everyday
counterparts, their adverse effects cannot be derived from the known toxicity
of the macro-sized material. This poses significant issues for addressing the
health and environmental impact of free nanoparticles.
To complicate
things further, in talking about nanoparticles it is
important that a powder or liquid containing nanoparticles
is almost never monodisperse, but will contain a
range of particle sizes. This complicates the experimental analysis as larger nanoparticles might have different properties than smaller
ones. Also, nanoparticles show a tendency to
aggregate and such aggregates often behave differently from individual nanoparticles.
There are
four entry routes for nanoparticles into the body:
they can be inhaled, swallowed, absorbed through skin or be deliberately
injected during medical procedures (or released from implants). Once within the
body they are highly mobile and in some instances can even cross the blood-brain barrier.
How these nanoparticles behave inside the organism is one of the big
issues that needs to be resolved. Basically, the
behavior of nanoparticles is a function of their
size, shape and surface reactivity with the surrounding tissue. They could
cause “overload” on phagocytes, cells that ingest and destroy foreign matter,
thereby triggering stress reactions that lead to inflammation and weaken the body’s
defense against other pathogens. Apart from what happens if non- or slowly
degradable nanoparticles accumulate in organs,
another concern is their potential interaction with biological processes inside
the body: because of their large surface, nanoparticles
on exposure to tissue and fluids will immediately absorb onto their surface
some of the macromolecules they encounter. Can this, for instance, affect the
regulatory mechanisms of enzymes and other proteins?
Not enough
data exists to know for sure if nanoparticles could
have undesirable effects on the environment. Two areas are relevant here: (1) In free form nanoparticles can be
released in the air or water during production (or production accidents) or as
waste byproduct of production, and ultimately accumulate in the soil, water or
plant life. (2) In fixed form, where they are part of a manufactured substance
or product, they will ultimately have to be recycled or disposed of as waste.
We don’t know yet if certain nanoparticles will
constitute a completely new class of non-biodegradable pollutant. In case they
do, we also don’t know yet how such pollutants could be removed from air or
water because most traditional filters are not suitable for such tasks (their
pores are too big to catch nanoparticles).
Health and
environmental issues combine in the workplace of companies engaged in producing
or using nanomaterials and in the laboratories
engaged in nanoscience and nanotechnology research.
It is safe to say that current workplace exposure standards for dusts cannot be
applied directly to nanoparticle dusts.
To properly
assess the health hazards of engineered nanoparticles
the whole life cycle of these particles needs to be evaluated, including their
fabrication, storage and distribution, application and potential abuse, and
disposal. The impact on humans or the environment may vary at different stages
of the life cycle.
Regarding to
the risks from molecular manufacturing, an often cited worst-case scenario
is "grey goo", a hypothetical substance into which the
surface of the earth might be transformed by self-replicating nanobots
running amok. This concept has been analyzed by Freitas
in "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with
Public Policy Recommendations" [1] With
the advent of nan-biotech, a different scenario
called green
goo has been forwarded. Here, the malignant
substance is not nanobots but rather self-replicating
organisms
engineered through nanotechnology.
Societal
risks from the use of nanotechnology have also been raised. On the instrumental
level, these include the possibility of military applications of nanotechnology
(for instance, as in implants and other means for soldier enhancement like
those being developed at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT [2]) as well
as enhanced surveillance capabilities through nano-sensors.
On the
structural level, critics of nanotechnology point to a new world of ownership
and corporate
control opened up by nanotechnology. The claim is that, just as biotechnology's
ability to manipulate genes
went hand in hand with the patenting of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to
manipulate molecules has led to the patenting of matter. The last few years has
seen a gold rush to claim patents at the nanoscale.
Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003,
and the numbers are increasing year to year. Corporations are already taking
out broad ranging monopoly patents on nanoscale
discoveries and inventions. For example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic
patents on carbon nanotubes, one of
the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes
have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several industries
from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to drug delivery and
diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a
major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional raw
materials. However, as their use expands, anyone seeking to manufacture or sell
carbon nanotubes, no matter what the application,
must first buy a license from NEC or IBM.
Regulatory
bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Food and Drug Administration in the
Studies of
the health impact of airborne particles are the closest thing we have to a tool
for assessing potential health risks from free nanoparticles.
These studies have generally shown that the smaller the particles get, the more toxic they become. This is due in part to the
fact that, given the same mass per volume, the dose in terms of particle
numbers increases as particle size decreases.
Looking at
all available data, it must be concluded that current risk assessment
methodologies are not suited to the hazards associated with nanoparticles;
in particular, existing toxicological and eco-toxicological methods are not up to
the task; exposure evaluation (dose) needs to be expressed as quantity of nanoparticles and/or surface area rather than simply mass;
equipment for routine detecting and measuring nanoparticles
in air, water or soil is inadequate; and very little is known about the
physiological responses to nanoparticles.
Regulatory
bodies in the
NANOTECHNOLOGY_essential big problems.doc
http://www.foresight.org/roadmaps/index.html
"Thus
the first replicator assembles a copy in one thousand
seconds, the two replicators then build two more in
the next thousand seconds, the four build another four, and the eight build
another eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they
would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in
another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets
combined - if the bottle of chemicals hadn't run dry long before."
Drexler describes grey goo in Chapter 11 Engines Of Destruction:
"...early
assembler-based replicators could beat the most
advanced modern organisms. "Plants" with
"leaves" no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete
real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible
foliage. Tough, omnivorous "bacteria" could out-compete real
bacteria: they could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce
the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators
could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop - at least if
we made no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit
flies."
It is thus worth noting that grey goo need not be grey or gooey. They could be like, for all
purposes, a plant
or bacteria.
It is only the result of their ecophagy that would
resemble grey goo.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Visiting artist:
Screenings:
Biomedicine and Biotechnology 47min dvd] / a presentation of Films for
the Humanities & SciencesR856.4
.B615 2004
NANOTECHNOLOGY_essential big problems.doc
Studio skills:
Advanced raster and/or vector imaging, dynamics
of text and image, dpi, layers, file management, imagination of the relevant issues
at the nano/macro level, creating expressive visual
explanations.
Project: Nano/bio
Task: Working in teams of 4 students, create a visual
explanation of your own and your team’s envisionment
of what nanotechnology is, what it could be and the potential impacts on the
world of your generation. Your nanotechbots can also be
seen to interact with each other with co, anti or alternate ideas.
Samples of visual explanations:
http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/all_pdfs/DSpace_letter.pdf
http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/all_pdfs/dD_visual_explanation.pdf#search=%22visual%20explanations%22
http://www.acrstudio.com/projects/teaching/design3_11visexp2.htm
http://www.acrstudio.com/projects/teaching/design3_05infoheir1.htm
http://www.visualexplanations.net/
http://www.ineedcpr.com/products_services/visual_explanations/visual_explanations.html
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/fineart
Deliverables:
* 1 visual explanation of/and/or about
nanotechnology. Your group image must be at least 11 x 8.5 inches at 72dpi.
Final image is in .pdf or .jpg format. You must all use your own original
images and original text only. (You may use your own visual research. literary research
or scientific research on the subject for reference only.)
Grading Criteria:
1. Assignment completed on-time.
2. Adherence to the size and file format
specifications
3. Appropriate use of Photoshop/ Illustrator
tools
4. Exploration and application of creative tools
in raster & vector imaging
5. Quality and clarity of class presentation with
each team member’s contributions clearly articulated.
6. Quality of Inventiveness, expression, and
imagination in your visual explanation