[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)