[HN Gopher] Nanobots Can Swim Around a Wound and Kill Bacteria
___________________________________________________________________
Nanobots Can Swim Around a Wound and Kill Bacteria
Author : prostoalex
Score : 93 points
Date : 2022-05-13 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| mateo1 wrote:
| I feel like the benefits are overstated unless we're talking
| about really large molecules.
| davycro wrote:
| I presume this is intended for wounds in areas with poor
| circulation, like a diabetic foot or a walled off abscess. The
| bloodstream is damn good at delivering antibiotics and immune
| cells to infected areas.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Maybe this descriminates better? Localized delivery, instead of
| delivering everywhere. Could allow microdosing instead of
| megadosing?
| burnished wrote:
| I suspect it is not yet at the point where there are clear
| pro/cons, probably more at the experimental "what happens
| when I.." stage?
| kderbyma wrote:
| definitely read this as 'Nanobots can swim around the world and
| kill bacteria's like some heat seeking virus with a grudge..
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| The Wired article was paywalled and I could not read it, but it
| might be related to this ASME piece from 2018[1] regarding micro-
| robots killing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
|
| A possible concern with such technology is that it would weaken
| the body's immune response by creating a dependency on external
| factors. We get sick, and develop high fevers, for a reason --
| our bodies need to learn to combat pathogens which are constantly
| attacking us.
|
| If we stop training the immune system to go after some class of
| bacteria, then we may end up more vulnerable to related classes
| of microbes. Billions of years of evolution can't be second
| guessed.
|
| That said, resistant strains are becoming a major public health
| threat so this approach may become necessary as a "last resort"
| to save lives.
|
| 1. https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/these-
| robots-k...
| jrgd wrote:
| Would this be a long lasting problem if used once (or just a
| few times -- as in not constantly for any cut or graze)? I'm
| thinking within the context of war for wounded soldier with
| little access to hospital/medics.
| burnished wrote:
| The latter half of a charming video by Kurzgesagt[0] talks
| about the tension between anti-bacterial resistance and
| bacteriophage defenses - we might be able to see-saw treatments
| based on what local microbes have adapted to. I only mention it
| as a tangent, and because your comment makes me think you'd be
| interested.
|
| [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg
| anentropic wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| It doesn't work and we have to kill bacteria the old fashioned
| way?
| camjw wrote:
| We will add the nanobots' biological and technological
| distinctiveness to our own.
| swores wrote:
| As with any new medical treatment, drug etc.... shall we just
| stop looking for new solutions?
| maxk42 wrote:
| In this case, yes.
| risyachka wrote:
| Actually in this case we need to double down on research.
| [deleted]
| coldtea wrote:
| In many cases, yes.
|
| Especially when there are low hanging fruits that could save
| billions that we haven't touched, not because the science is
| hard, but because the political willingless/empathy is low.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| There are 7 billion of us. Some can work on nanobots, while
| others work on low-hanging fruit. That is called a 'False
| Dilemma Fallacy'
| amelius wrote:
| Sadly, no. The nanobots will be used for very bad things.
| To give you an idea, imagine a nanobot that will go into
| your cells, detect your race based on your DNA, and then
| decide to kill you or not; imagine how bad dictators can
| use these selectively against whole groups of people.
| It's biological warfare on a completely new level.
| moron4hire wrote:
| You can't detect race from DNA
|
| https://backintyme.wordpress.com/article/can-dna-tell-
| what-r...
| cortesoft wrote:
| Sure, but much smaller groups are more able to make
| technological advancements than they can make political
| changes.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _are more able to make technological advancements than
| they can make political changes._
|
| Yes, but without the political changes, the technological
| advancements are more likely to be used against us (or
| just as profit machines) than for good.
| bennyg wrote:
| I'm not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive. Some
| people are good at research and some people are good at
| politics. Why would the folks good at doing research stop
| doing the research and try to change policy?
| Parallelization is fine...
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I 'm not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive._
|
| Because resources, will, people, etc. are finite.
|
| > _Some people are good at research and some people are
| good at politics._
|
| The use of research is dictated by people good at
| politics (and bad as persons).
| [deleted]
| Thebroser wrote:
| I am always fascinated by the ignorance that is blatantly
| displayed on HN when it comes to biotech advancements. Not even
| some actual criticism of the tech, or even the faint
| understanding that this sort of thing is exploratory research.
| Wonder why this sort of skepticism is never applied to cutting
| edge AI research whose ethical ramifications are much more
| severe and which is already being utilized by bad actors to
| facilitate genocide [1].
|
| [1]
| https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/widm.1...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The software controlling these things could be backdoored or
| otherwise vulnerable. Now _that 's_ frightening.
| ajuc wrote:
| The software controlling these things is chemistry.
| shadowofneptune wrote:
| Should be noticed these are not nanobots in the sense of a tiny
| mechanical machine, but instead are based on the proteins that
| form the inner workings of our own cells. Science fiction and pop
| science has made the former popular, while biology researchers
| use the term to popularize the latter.
| colechristensen wrote:
| To be fair, when we do develop nanoscale machines, it's quite
| likely that they will partially or entirely consist of proteins
| or similarly produced complex molecules.
| sedatk wrote:
| I'd call them nanocules instead.
| simulate-me wrote:
| Aren't proteins basically tiny mechanical machinery?
| shadowofneptune wrote:
| Not mechanical, but chemical. At that level, brownian motion,
| molecular charges, and other forces we can't see at our scale
| are much more powerful than mechanical motion. All of the
| enzymes, ribozyes, etc. in your body rely on these forces as
| well as their own arrangement to produce chemical reactions
| which in turn drive their 'machinery'.
|
| The original idea of nanobots argued that with enough effort
| mechanical machines could work at that level, even if it
| would be difficult. It'd allow for these machines to work
| outside of water and for them to be built out of materials
| like diamond. We're still not there yet, and may never be.
|
| I understand why researchers use the term 'nanotechnology' to
| describe their work with molecular biology, but it gives
| entirely the wrong impression. Just look in this thread,
| where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?'
| Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey
| goo destroying the world.
| flobosg wrote:
| Mechanical energy is nevertheless relevant in several
| nanoscale events, see e.g. ATP synthase or bacterial
| flagellar motors.
| alimov wrote:
| I suppose so, but biological. Like another commenter pointed
| out "nanocules" could be a more fitting name (I don't know if
| it's used to refer to anything else)
| simulate-me wrote:
| To me, "nanocules" sound like small molecules, which is the
| opposite of a protein.
| alimov wrote:
| Oh, that's a good point :/
| fitch321 wrote:
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| think i'll stick to soap and water and let my body do the rest :)
| . Well for now, until the collective arrives and we all get
| assimilated.
| kradeelav wrote:
| You know, I never thought of Metal Gear Solid as being realistic,
| but ...
|
| --
|
| (the joke is that in the MGS video game series, everything
| ridiculous is hand-waved by "nanobots".)
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I recently played through the entire series again, and from the
| ending of Sons of Liberty[1], to Armstrong in Revengeance, it's
| almost uncanny how prophetic Kojima was. MGS II has sometimes
| been described as the first postmodern game both in terms of
| presentation, blurring player, game and narrative as well as
| thematically dealing with simulation vs reality, information
| overflow and so on but it's wild how relevant it is right now.
| Only thing that came close for me in recent years is Nier:
| Automata.
|
| [1]https://youtu.be/jKPDaiJTX9M
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhMsboqMMzs
| mateuszf wrote:
| Just playing the series for the first time, you made me laugh.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The age of nanotechnological augmentation is coming.
| hristov wrote:
| So can ordinary alcohol. And I would prefer the alcohol.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| When applied to an open wound, rubbing alcohol can cause tissue
| damage and actually slow the healing process.
| nano9 wrote:
| Slow healing process or pouring nanobots on the wound,
| hmmm....
| bool3max wrote:
| Something tells me you'd prefer the latter..
| skrbjc wrote:
| LOL, the nanos from 17776!
| tomcam wrote:
| Deep, ah, cut.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-13 23:00 UTC)