Breaking the Carbon Barrier of Life
Since starting Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity" (which I still haven't finished) there has been a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that while we are about to be swept into a vast technology explosion, we may be moving much faster than we are able to understand the consequence. Creating new hybrid lifeforms that we ultimately may not have total understanding of. Not to mention control over.
Alan Goldstein has a piece in Salon that puts teeth into my nagging fear. For instance if you follow nanotechnology you are aware of research in the medical field to develope nanobots that can move throughout our bodies powered by our glucose, and repair things like cancer, dissolving plaque, replacing damaged cells or just about anything imaginable.
But as Goldstein points out these are not really "nanobots," but "nanobiobots." The additon of bio to the term makes a tremendous differece not to mention advantage. They will have the ability to exchange molecular information with biological systems because it will be a requirement for them to carry out the functions for which they will be designed. If fact what we have is true artificial lifeforms that we don't yet know how they will act under all conditions.
There are some that would also call that evolution. There is a lot more like the "prion" scenario where a damaged or modified nanobiobot gains the ability to convert other nanobiobots. Possible changes that alters things like longevity and tissue target.
Momentous changes are coming, but can we handle them? Will we want to? I'm not saying that gloom and doom will prevail but shouldn't we be concerned? Read the rest for yourself from Goldstein's link above. It's a long article but worth the read.
Via KurzweilAI.net
Alan Goldstein has a piece in Salon that puts teeth into my nagging fear. For instance if you follow nanotechnology you are aware of research in the medical field to develope nanobots that can move throughout our bodies powered by our glucose, and repair things like cancer, dissolving plaque, replacing damaged cells or just about anything imaginable.
But as Goldstein points out these are not really "nanobots," but "nanobiobots." The additon of bio to the term makes a tremendous differece not to mention advantage. They will have the ability to exchange molecular information with biological systems because it will be a requirement for them to carry out the functions for which they will be designed. If fact what we have is true artificial lifeforms that we don't yet know how they will act under all conditions.
Suppose a glucose-powered nanobiobot has been created to hunt cancer cells via a component antibody moiety. In effect, this nanobiobot has a protein grappling hook designed to dock it with a specific type of tumor cell. Standard dosing therapy will require that billions of these nanobiobots be released into their human "host." If the antibody arm on even one of these nanobiobots is modified (either by some type of catalytic recombination with circulating antibodies or by simple chemical damage) so that it binds to a different type of cell, it could stay in that body for life, like cryptic viruses such as Epstein-Barr. If this nanobiobot is modified so that it can attach to a human sperm or egg cell, it could theoretically stay in the population for generations.
If this type of nanobiotechnology-based cancer therapy becomes common (and according to the NCI's nanomedicine site, that is a real possibility), we could have tens of thousands of people carrying cryptic nanobiobots. Even though these nanobiobots were designed for different functions, it is reasonable to assume that they will have a number of components in common. For example, many of them may have antibody components that, in turn, have regions of identical protein structure. These interchangeable parts could act just like the repetitive DNA of introns in eukaryotic genomes. What happens when one nanobiobot (say) on a sperm cell meets a second one on an egg cell? The probability of this is, of course, extremely low. But if the population of nanobiobots introduced into the body is high (say, billions), then a one-in-a-million event becomes common. In fact, microbial and viral systems like E. coli and bacteriophages enabled the molecular genetics revolution precisely because with billions (or even trillions) of test organisms in hand, one-in-a-million events become commonplace.
Suppose in the near future, a routine nanomedical procedure involved the introduction of billions of nanobiobots designed to scour the arteries dissolving plaque. Cleaning out the circulatory system would be considered a "one shot" treatment so that these therapeutic nanomedical devices (nanobiobots) would not have the engine necessary to use human metabolic energy as a power source. But what if, during another "routine" nanomedical procedure, a second therapeutic nanomedical device (nanobiobot) designed to vaccinate against cancer is introduced into the same person? This latter nanobiobot would, by definition, be designed for longevity so that metabolic energy would likely be the power source. Now, what if these two meet up and combine, or exhange vital components? This could happen through physico-chemical damage or perhaps via some type of catalysis mediated by the host's own complex biochemistry. Now we have a novel, hybrid nanobiobot capable of crawling through our circulatory system for life. Or until it exchanges even more information — either with another nanobiobot or with the body itself. In the world of biology, this type of event would be called a mutation.
If this type of nanobiotechnology-based cancer therapy becomes common (and according to the NCI's nanomedicine site, that is a real possibility), we could have tens of thousands of people carrying cryptic nanobiobots. Even though these nanobiobots were designed for different functions, it is reasonable to assume that they will have a number of components in common. For example, many of them may have antibody components that, in turn, have regions of identical protein structure. These interchangeable parts could act just like the repetitive DNA of introns in eukaryotic genomes. What happens when one nanobiobot (say) on a sperm cell meets a second one on an egg cell? The probability of this is, of course, extremely low. But if the population of nanobiobots introduced into the body is high (say, billions), then a one-in-a-million event becomes common. In fact, microbial and viral systems like E. coli and bacteriophages enabled the molecular genetics revolution precisely because with billions (or even trillions) of test organisms in hand, one-in-a-million events become commonplace.
Suppose in the near future, a routine nanomedical procedure involved the introduction of billions of nanobiobots designed to scour the arteries dissolving plaque. Cleaning out the circulatory system would be considered a "one shot" treatment so that these therapeutic nanomedical devices (nanobiobots) would not have the engine necessary to use human metabolic energy as a power source. But what if, during another "routine" nanomedical procedure, a second therapeutic nanomedical device (nanobiobot) designed to vaccinate against cancer is introduced into the same person? This latter nanobiobot would, by definition, be designed for longevity so that metabolic energy would likely be the power source. Now, what if these two meet up and combine, or exhange vital components? This could happen through physico-chemical damage or perhaps via some type of catalysis mediated by the host's own complex biochemistry. Now we have a novel, hybrid nanobiobot capable of crawling through our circulatory system for life. Or until it exchanges even more information — either with another nanobiobot or with the body itself. In the world of biology, this type of event would be called a mutation.
There are some that would also call that evolution. There is a lot more like the "prion" scenario where a damaged or modified nanobiobot gains the ability to convert other nanobiobots. Possible changes that alters things like longevity and tissue target.
Momentous changes are coming, but can we handle them? Will we want to? I'm not saying that gloom and doom will prevail but shouldn't we be concerned? Read the rest for yourself from Goldstein's link above. It's a long article but worth the read.
Via KurzweilAI.net