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 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.
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.
Potentials in New Cancer Research:
gold covered nanoshells
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/03-nanoshells.html
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Visiting artist:
Adam Zaretsky
Screenings:
Biomedicine and Biotechnology 47min
dvd] / a presentation of Films for the Humanities & Sciences
R856.4
.B615 2004
http://www.ciac.ca/magazine/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm
and
and
NANOTECHNOLOGY_essential
big problems.doc
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:
Submit
one folder to your drop box (named with your name) which contains all the
elements of your Bio/Nano Art Net Project. This should
include at least:
* index .html
* 3 to 12 original web ready images envisioning your project
* at least linked 6 pages which contain your images/text/etc
Additionally: Also upload
your site to your rcs public html and ensure that your BioArt Net Project
works. Use the following to upload it: (pc)
ftp.rpi.edu
right click
login
public html
drag your folder into your public html folder
check it then at:
www.rpi.edu/~yourrcsusername/yourfoldername/index.html
Grading
Criteria:
1. Assignment completed on-time
2. Adherence to the size and file
format specifications
3. Exploration and application of
creative tools in Dreamweaver, html, or xml
4. Quality and clarity of class
presentation
5. Quality, originality, relevance
and relation to issues in Biotech/Nanotech expressed in your artistic project,
and the technological, ethical and social questions which your project poses.
6. Ability to create a well designed
and workable web project which expands your existing skill levels.