Guyana Journal | Nanobiotechnology

This Issue | Editorial | Feature | E-mail

Nanobiotechnology
The New Size of Medicine

“This would mean that one day, a patient would be able to visit a doctor’s office and be screened for virtually every infectious or genetic disease in the course of an ordinary doctor’s visit.”

By Judith S. Martinez
Guyana Journal, June 2007

Illness and death is something that humanity has attempted to control since the beginning of time. We have accomplished a variety of successes in medicine, but we are still forced to admit that our medical capabilities are limited. Plagued by the threats of stubborn diseases like diabetes, cancer and heart disease we strive to find more effective ways to conquer this never ending battle. As Michio Kaku points out in his book Visions, “The best technology available today [can not] predict with certainty whether you will drop dead on your doctor’s floor. Furthermore, in the case of cancer, by the time the doctor spots a tumor, it may be too late; there may already be several hundred million cancer cells growing and spreading inside your body”(45). Nanobiotechnology looks to be the answer to some of our current health problems. Before doctors adopt this technology across our nation, it is our duty to inform ourselves of what this technology is, what its consequences will be (both negative and positive), and who are at the forefront of its development.

In order to grasp a sound understanding of nanobiotechnology, one must first become familiarized with the technology preceding it, being that which is called nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is defined in ways as varied as its potential applications, but is generally described as the process of building structures and machines nanometers in length, through the manipulation of atoms and molecules.

A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, a difficult concept to fathom at first mention. NASA describes this extremely minute scale as being “smaller than a bacterium and smaller than the wavelength of visible light” (NASA 11). A Stanford University professor, Thomas Kenny, looked to achieve an average person’s understanding of a nanometer when he described it as, “…almost as wide as a DNA molecule and 10 times the diameter of a hydrogen atom. [It is] about as much as your fingernails grow each second… [It is] the thickness of a drop of water spread over a square meter. [It is] one-tenth the thickness of the metal film on your tinted sunglasses or your potato chip bag” (IBM 5). Norio Taniguchi is credited for assigning the name in 1974, which he said meant, “precision machining with tolerances of a micrometer or less” (Hook 4).
The entire movement of nanotechnology began with what seemed like the crazy, unsubstantiated, sci-fi ramblings of an audacious physicist, Richard Feynman, at an American Physical Society meeting in 1959. He presented his idea of the possibility of writing all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a single pin, adding, “… I am telling you what could be done if the laws are what we think; we are not doing it simply because we have not gotten around to it” (Hook 5). A bold statement for 1959 when Feynman had little more than a wacky dream, and high hopes for new innovations to immerge and partake in the realization of this dream. Surprisingly, Feynman did manage to attract a handful of followers, and his vision began to materialize through experiments and new discoveries, growing slowly but promisingly.

In 1986, Eric Drexler1 gave Feynman’s vision a little push when he wrote Engines of Creation. In his book, Drexler makes it very clear that nanotechnology is indeed possible, but makes the mistake of presenting it as the ultimate solution to all of our earthly problems. With such a generalization those cynical about the technology continued to doubt it. It was not until three years later that a thoroughly convincing discovery immerged. In 1989, IBM researchers proved by tangible means that nanotechnology can be done. Using a device called a scanning tunneling microscope, researcher manipulated a single atom at a time, placing it in a precise position until they spelled the letters ‘IBM’. Even critics like Philip W. Barth,2 and Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr.3 could not ignore such a commendable feat.

The 1980’s invention of the scanning tunneling microscope by physicists at IBM Research labs in Zurich was crucial to the advancement of nanotechnology. In the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review, writer David Rotman points out that the scanning tunneling microscope made “it possible for the first time to capture direct images of matter at the atomic scale.” IBM’s marvelous invention not only allows humans to see at the extremely minute scale of atoms and molecules, but it can also be used to position atoms and molecules in desired locations with great precision (IBM 3). This caused the further growth of nanotechnology into the production of tiny motors and intricate machines.

Scientists immediately began to think of places where this technology could be applied and make a difference in society. The potential applications for this technology abound. It suddenly became the innovation that would “revolutionize our computer, health care, automotive, agriculture, telecommunications, and energy industries, to name a few” (Dietz). Even if the laws of physics say that all these applications are possible it is impossible to make them a reality without the necessary funding to continue the research.

It was not until the year 2000 that the United States Government realized the enormous potential of nanotechnology. In his January 2000 State of the Union Address, the former President Bill Clinton announced the formation of the $497 million multi-agency U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. The agencies that would be receiving government funding to further their research included: the Department of Energy, Defense, and Commerce; the National Science Foundation; and NASA. The National Institute of Health was also included, receiving the most funding (Dietz).

Working at the nanoscale – the scale of life and biology itself – it was not long before researchers began to see the greater promise of applying nanotechnology in medicine. James Gimsewski4 is a strong supporter of the medical application of nanotechnology (also referred to as nanomedicine or nanobiotechnology). He stated, “Nanotechnology could reduce fear in the world through medical application and personal security as this is the one thing that is a really negative element in the world” (Lawrence). Obviously, the government also recognized the potential nanotechnology would have when applied within the realms of biology. In fact, in 2002 $40.8 million (of the $604 million in federal money) went to the National Institute of Health (Malsch).
Nanotechnology has come a very long way from where it first began as a “chiefly theoretical applied science” (Dietz). Researchers have taken Drexler and Feynman’s utopian dream and begun to separate what is humanly possible and what is merely fantasy. This segregation has seemed to occur more rapidly and more naturally in the coupling of nanotechnology and medicine, which has lead to its many advancement. Nanobiotechnology has achieved successes by targeting three major areas; the production of diagnostic devices, the development of more effective treatments, and the improvement of prosthetics and implants.

Currently, a trip to the doctor’s office is expensive and requires time and patience. In a serious medical situation one expects immediate answers and cannot afford the agony of waiting two or three days to receive test results. Northwestern University and Nanosphere Inc.5 are collaborating on a device that will minimize some of the anxieties that awaiting for a diagnosis can entail. The handheld device will function somewhat like a pregnancy test result. A small sample of a patient’s blood, urine or saliva will be placed into the device where it will be analyzed by millions of nanoparticles. Each nanoparticle will be programmed to detect for a distinct characteristic of a disease. If the patient is positive for a particular illness the corresponding color will appear, signaling the doctor and allowing him/her to take action. According to Sandra Guy, “This would mean that one day, a patient would be able to visit a doctor’s office and be screened for virtually every infectious or genetic disease in the course of an ordinary doctor’s visit” (19). The adoption of this handheld device would also mean a slight decrease in medical costs for the patient since one sample can be screened for a variety of illnesses, reducing the need for several lab tests and examinations. Similar devices are being developed in labs all around the United States.

At Harvard University, Charles Leiber is developing a new ultra sensitive tool that has the capability of detecting the presence of PSA, which is a signal protein for prostate cancer. The device contains a chip that can detect the presence of as few as four molecules of this protein, as well as other subtle changes that may occur within the body. Lieber’s goal is to design this device to function as a cheap and disposable test that can be easily administered within a patient’s home between doctor’s visits. He estimates the device to be in clinics as early as in three years (Stikeman 1). According to Paul Alivisatos, these hand held device could also be utilized in genetic tests, “such as those meant to determine a person’s susceptibility to different disorders or to reveal which specific genes are mutated in a patient’s cancer” (Alivisatos 2). In fact, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has put its nanotechnology funding to use in the development of instruments that are capable of collecting DNA sequence variations and gene expression data from patients (Dietz).

Other diseases being considered when creating these devices are diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. At Stanford University Hongjie Dai has built a device that has the ability to detect glucose. The way the device works is: when glucose molecules react with molecules on the surface of the nanodevice, it creates electrical signals corresponding to glucose concentrations. “Though only a proof of concept today, such a device could be developed into an implantable glucose sensor for diabetics” (Stikeman 8).

Nanodevices like the ones mentioned would be extremely useful in the diagnosis of diseases with complex molecular signatures like rheumatoid arthritis. The reason for this is because it concurrently searches for millions of biological molecules in a single drop of a patient’s bodily fluid. Currently, all rheumatoid arthritis sufferers are treated in the same way, when in reality each variant should be fought in a slightly different manner. The nano array device would be very beneficial to these patients, because according to Dai, it “…could serve as a highly precise and discriminating diagnostic device, providing a road map for custom treatment” (Stikeman 9).

Heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in America, which is why researchers have strived to make a device that would be able to detect the potential for a heart attack. The way in which this device would work is much like Stanford’s prostate cancer detecting device. Since the calling cards for heart attacks are subtle changes in the mix of several proteins within the body, the device can be programmed to detect these changes and report back to the doctor (Stikeman). According to Douglas Mulhall,6 the early detection of heart attacks “…could replace more than half of today’s surgeries at a fraction of the cost. This would slash the heart attack rate and improve our quality of life… Postindustrial society’s pervasive disease could be postpones and minimized” (Mulhall 72).

Nanobiotechnology will not only revolutionize the detection of diseases, it will also provide a new and greatly effective way of treating a stubborn disease with the use of Nanodrugs, also referred to as nanorobots. James Gimzewski points out that drug companies are already using nanotechnology and are not even aware of it. They use it in the form of time-releasing tablets, which have a simple coating that dissolves upon the medication’s arrival at a specific location within the body. They will most likely be fueled by naturally occurring chemical reactions that occur within the body, such as the production of ATP and glucose. They will also most likely be self replicating to allow for continuous effectiveness. Nanodrugs will look to elevate the level of effectiveness and precision by being programmed to reach a specific location, and not releasing the medication until it arrives at its target (Lawrence 10). This could provide a less harmful alternative for chemotherapy, by targeting only those cells, which are cancerous, allowing the healthy cells to maintain their health and vigor.

Researchers have found an array of potential uses for nanorobots. In the case of cardiovascular disease, nanorobots could be used to monitor the condition of blood vessels. They can also be used to restore artery walls and unclog them by removing arterial deposits (Balaji K. 7). Other potential uses of nanorobots include nanodevices that aid the immune system by locating and capturing viruses for later disposal. Mauro Ferrari7 from Ohio State University has come up with a way to use nanorobots in the fight against one particular form of diabetes in which cells in the pancreas that normally produce insulin are not functioning properly. His plan is to use the nanorobots to implant fresh copies of islets of Langerhans, which are tiny glands responsible for the production of insulin. Ferrari looks to accomplish this task by containing the replacement cells within a container made up of a nanoporous membrane. The way in which this would function is by allowing small glucose molecules to stream freely into the capsule to activate cells, and then the insulin would be allowed to trickle out to control blood chemistry within the body (Voss). “The pores in the membrane are small enough to screen out the body’s biological soldiers but large enough to allow desirable molecules to flow in and out” (Hearn 3). When used in conjunction with drug-delivery chips that are planted under the skin, it can slowly release a needed drug. This could prove to be extremely helpful to patients that are unable to adhere to a dosage schedule because of psychological disorders, like Alzheimer’s, for example. Such an advancement could also lead to insulin pills for diabetics, eliminating the need for insulin shots and other impractical and inconvenient forms of treatment.

Nanorobots could also be used to sneak in genetic material to correct genetic disorders. The problem with all uses of nanorobotic devices is the difficult task of sneaking in foreign materials without triggering an aggressive response by the body’s immune system. Currently gene therapy uses viruses to disguise replacement DNA. Unfortunately, this is an extremely risky route to take, which has led to fatality as a result of the body’s aggressive response (Voss). Researchers have somewhat conquered this task by having the robots be comprised primarily of a smooth and flawless layer carbon in the form of diamond/fullerene nanocomposites. According to Balaji K., “carbon is preferred because of its strength and chemical inertness. Many other light elements such as oxygen and nitrogen can be used for special purposes. A passive diamond coating is the best choice. The smoother and more flawless this coating, the lesser the reaction from the immune system and hence the less the chance of attack” (Balaji K. 2).

In April 2002, American Pharmaceutical Partners presented their results of a new delivery system for an established anticancer drug called ABI-700. According to Malsch, “ABI-700…contains paclitaxel, which is used to treat breast, bladder, and more than a dozen other cancers. Such new delivery systems combine a drug with an artificial vector that can enter the body and move in it like a virus. If more advanced clinical tests are successful, ABI-700 is likely to enter the market in a few years” (Malsch 11). This is an extraordinary advancement when we look at how much of a threat cancer truly is in our society in this day and age.

Nanobiotechnology is also extremely promising in the medical sector of implants and prosthetics. According to John Jensen of the Catholic University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, what they are looking to accomplish is the replacement of damaged or missing tissue by a similar material (Malsch 8). Kambiz Pourrezaei states, “given the notorious scarcity of donor organs, a feasible alternative is to use advanced tissue engineering approaches to include stem cells and innovative bioreactor biotechnology for re-creating cardiac tissues. These tissue constructs can be used for patching or repairing damaged areas of the heart… If successful, the proposed studies will contribute to reducing the cost of healthcare for the society at large, while improving the patient’s quality of life” (Pourrezaei 3). Simply reducing the cost of healthcare will be an enormous accomplishment, considering that “among individual sectors, healthcare now consumes the largest percentage of financial resources” (Mulhall 247). The fact that these nanorobots will be programmed with a self replicating characteristic will eliminate the necessity for physical labor and intensive manufacturing, ultimately making such a technology cost effective and available to a large portion of the population (Mulhall 247).

Douglas Mulhall looks at the bigger picture and says, “For consumers to consume products they need disposable income. To have disposable income they need higher paying jobs. To work at higher paying jobs they need to be healthy” (Mulhall 75). It is difficult to imagine any negative consequences that such a promising technology can bring. How could a technology promising us the ability to extent life by 50% from present expectations8 bring us anything other than comfort and satisfaction? Well, as with any new technology, there is a great concern about the unforeseen adverse effects. And as Ed Regis9 pointed out, when we come to think of it, the human race does not have a great record when it comes to dealing with significant amounts of power (the development of the atomic bomb being an excellent example).

Considering that this technology will be self replicating and existing within our very own bodies, there is a significant fear of what could happen if the robots were to get out of control! Eric Drexler considers that his concern is unsubstantiated due to the fact that great precautions will be taken to eliminate such an accident from occurring. He states that this problem will be avoided by isolation. Nanorobots will be programmed to work only under certain conditions, in specific environments, and will be programmed to replicate only a certain number of times (Regis 122).

Another concern is the potential for people to use these technological advances to enhance themselves rather than for treatment (Hook). Christopher C. Hook addresses this particular concern by stating that we should develop these technologies for therapeutic purposes while concurrently identifying ways to prevent harmful applications. He adds, “We must exhibit not a fear of technology, but a courageous control of technology coupled with a refusal to let technology control us” (Hook 11).

The ultimate question at hand is whether our current concerns are enough reasons to cease the development of a technology that has not fully flourished and evidently brings a great potential to change our lives for the better. Michael Dertouzos illustrates an interesting approach for looking at this particular situation; he says, “I suggest we broaden our perspective to the fullness of our humanity, which besides reason includes feelings and beliefs. Sometimes, as we drive the car of scientific and technological progress, we’ll veer because our reason says so. At other times we’ll follow our feelings, or we’ll be guided by faith. Most of the time we will steer with all three of these human forces guiding us in concert, as they have guided human action for thousands of years. As we do so, we should stay vigilant, ready to stop, when danger is imminent, using our full humanity to make that determination… Let us have faith in ourselves, our fellow human beings and our universe” (Dertouzos).

Considering that we are dealing with an extremely new technology, it is difficult to estimate all of the benefits and consequences that it will encompass. Evaluating where we currently find ourselves on the subject, the only measure of action we can take is that of acquiring as much information as possible, until the time arrives where we have to make a definite decision. At the moment nanobiotechnology poses no immediate threat that is substantiated by anything other than our overly active imaginations. We must proceed with caution, welcoming this powerful technology with open eyes and cautious curiosity. As Michio Kaku so eloquently puts it, “Some may welcome this revolution for the unquestionable benefits it will bring in relieving suffering and… prolonging the lives of millions. Others, for social or religious reasons, may oppose it for its excesses. But even its severest critics admit that all of us will be intimately touched by it” (Kaku 149). Ultimately, only time will tell.

Notes
1 Eric Drexler was the first graduate degree recipient in nanoscale research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2 Philip W. Barth was an engineer at Hewlett-Packard. He claimed that nanotechnology was becoming a pseudoscientific political/social sect like any other religion (Kaku 269).
3 Istvan Csicsery- Roney Jr. was an editor for Science Fiction Studies. He claimed, “nanotechnology has become the magic poison, the magic dust that allows everything to happen with pseudoscientific explanations” (Kaku 269).
4 James Gimzewski is the founder of the Institute of Nanotechnology, a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and board member on the Board of Editorial Reviewers for Science magazine. He won the 1997 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology for Experimental Work, the 1998 Wired 25 Award from Wired magazine, and holds two IBM Outstanding Innovation Awards (Lawrence, p.1).
5 Nanosphere Inc. was named in the May 2002 edition of Red Herring magazine as one of the fifty private companies ‘most likely to change the world’ (Guy).
6 Author of Our Molecular Future; How nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World.
7 Professor of internal medicine and mechanical engineering at Ohio State University. He is also the director of biomedical engineering at the university’s new center.
8 As stated by Ineke Malsch in the article “Biomedical Applications of Nanotechnology”.
9 Ed Regis is the author of Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the World- Molecule by Molecule.

Sources
Alivisatos, A. Paul. “Less Is More In Medicine.” Sept. 2001. Scientific American. Vol.285, issue 3, p.66.

Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society and The Rising Culture. New York: 1982. Simon and Schuster.

Cetron, Marvin and Owen Davies. Probable Tomorrows: How Science and Technology Will Transform Our Lives In The Next Twenty Years. New York: 1997. St. Martin’s Press.

Dietz, Francis. “A Tight Focus For Federal Research.” Oct. 2000. Mechanical Engineering. Vol.123, issue 10, pg.37.

Dietz, Francis. “Catching Up To Technology.” July 2000. Mechanical Engineering. Vol.122, issue 7, pg.34.

Dertouzos, Michael. “Not By Reason Alone.” Sept./Oct. 2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue 5, pg.26.

Enriquez, Jean. As the Future Catches You: How Genomics and Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work and Health. New York: 2001. Crown Business.

Feynman, Richard. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. New York: 2000. Perseus Publishing.

Guy, Sandra. “Nanotech Leading to Diagnosis By Handheld.” July 10, 2002. Sun-Times. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://www.suntimes.com>.

Gross, Michael. Travels to the Nanoworld: Miniature Machinery in Nature and Technology. New York: 1995. Plenum Trade.

Hearn, Kelly. “Company Creating Tiny Medical Tools.” March 13, 2001 United Press International. 7 Jan. 2003. <http://cgi.sparknot es.com/newsfeed.mpl>.

Hook, C. Christopher. “In Whose Image? Remaking Humanity Through Cybernetics & Nanotech.” Spring 2002. Dignity. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. 6 Jan. 2003. <www.cbhd.org/newletter>.

IBM. “Nanotechnology.” IBM Research 2002. 6Jan. 2003. <http://research.ibm.com>.

IBM. “Scanning Tunneling Microscope.” IBM Research 2002. 6 Jan. 2003. <http:domino.research.com>.

Kaku, Michio. Visions. New York; 1998. Anchor Books.

K., Balaji. “Nanorobots: The Future of Medicine.” January 2002. Industry Intelligence. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://www.inpharm.com>.

Lawrence, Rebecca. “James Gimzewski Discusses the Potential of Nanobiotechnology.” Drug Discovery Today. 2002. 17 Jan. 2003. <http://reviews.bmn.com>.

Malsch, Ineke. “Biomedical Application of Nanotechnology.” June/July 2002. American Institute of Physics.

Mulhall, Douglas. Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World. New York: 2002. Prometheus Books.

NASA. “Voyage of the Nano Surgeon.” January 15, 2002. Science @ NASA. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://science.nasa.gov>.
uld be an extremely large step towards better health practices.

Phillips-Han, Arline. “Nanopharmaceuticals Open Up Brand New Field of Study.” June 18, 2002. Daily University Science News. 5 Jan. 2003. <http://reviews.bmn.com>.

Pourrezaei, Kambiz. “Application of Nanotechnology to Medicine.” Oct. 28, 2001. Drexel University. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Regis, Ed. Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the World- Molecule by Molecule. New York, 1995. Little, Brown and Company.

Rotman, David. “Quantum Dot Com.” Jan./Feb. 2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue1, p.50.

Rotman, David. “Will the Real Nanotech Please Stand Up?” Mar./Apr.1999. Technology Review. Vol.102, issue 2, p.46.

Stikeman, Alexandra. “Nanobiotechnology Makes the Diagnosis.” May 2002. Technology Review.

Voss, David. “Nanomedicine Nears the Clinic.” Jan./Feb.2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue 1, p.60.

Wilson, Jim. “Miracles of the Next Fifty Years.” Feb. 2000. Popular Mechanics. 11 Nov. 2002. <http://web1.infotrac.galegroup.com>

Judy Martinez pursued Latin American Studies and Organizational Leadership at Rutgers University. She is a Research Assistant to the Director of International Affairs Paul Tennassee, Office of International Affairs, Department of University Relations & Communications, University of the District of Columbia. Her interests lie in Public Policy. This paper was written as part of the Montgomery Scholars Program and won her a ‘Finalist in BEACON Writing Competition’ (2003).

Current
Main
Writings
E-mail

© GuyanaJournal

Nanobiotechnology
The New Size of Medicine

“This would mean that one day, a patient would be able to visit a doctor’s office and be screened for virtually every infectious or genetic disease in the course of an ordinary doctor’s visit.”

By Judith S. Martinez
Guyana Journal, June 2007

Illness and death is something that humanity has attempted to control since the beginning of time. We have accomplished a variety of successes in medicine, but we are still forced to admit that our medical capabilities are limited. Plagued by the threats of stubborn diseases like diabetes, cancer and heart disease we strive to find more effective ways to conquer this never ending battle. As Michio Kaku points out in his book Visions, “The best technology available today [can not] predict with certainty whether you will drop dead on your doctor’s floor. Furthermore, in the case of cancer, by the time the doctor spots a tumor, it may be too late; there may already be several hundred million cancer cells growing and spreading inside your body”(45). Nanobiotechnology looks to be the answer to some of our current health problems. Before doctors adopt this technology across our nation, it is our duty to inform ourselves of what this technology is, what its consequences will be (both negative and positive), and who are at the forefront of its development.

In order to grasp a sound understanding of nanobiotechnology, one must first become familiarized with the technology preceding it, being that which is called nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is defined in ways as varied as its potential applications, but is generally described as the process of building structures and machines nanometers in length, through the manipulation of atoms and molecules.

A nanometer is one billionth of a meter, a difficult concept to fathom at first mention. NASA describes this extremely minute scale as being “smaller than a bacterium and smaller than the wavelength of visible light” (NASA 11). A Stanford University professor, Thomas Kenny, looked to achieve an average person’s understanding of a nanometer when he described it as, “…almost as wide as a DNA molecule and 10 times the diameter of a hydrogen atom. [It is] about as much as your fingernails grow each second… [It is] the thickness of a drop of water spread over a square meter. [It is] one-tenth the thickness of the metal film on your tinted sunglasses or your potato chip bag” (IBM 5). Norio Taniguchi is credited for assigning the name in 1974, which he said meant, “precision machining with tolerances of a micrometer or less” (Hook 4).
The entire movement of nanotechnology began with what seemed like the crazy, unsubstantiated, sci-fi ramblings of an audacious physicist, Richard Feynman, at an American Physical Society meeting in 1959. He presented his idea of the possibility of writing all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica on the head of a single pin, adding, “… I am telling you what could be done if the laws are what we think; we are not doing it simply because we have not gotten around to it” (Hook 5). A bold statement for 1959 when Feynman had little more than a wacky dream, and high hopes for new innovations to immerge and partake in the realization of this dream. Surprisingly, Feynman did manage to attract a handful of followers, and his vision began to materialize through experiments and new discoveries, growing slowly but promisingly.

In 1986, Eric Drexler1 gave Feynman’s vision a little push when he wrote Engines of Creation. In his book, Drexler makes it very clear that nanotechnology is indeed possible, but makes the mistake of presenting it as the ultimate solution to all of our earthly problems. With such a generalization those cynical about the technology continued to doubt it. It was not until three years later that a thoroughly convincing discovery immerged. In 1989, IBM researchers proved by tangible means that nanotechnology can be done. Using a device called a scanning tunneling microscope, researcher manipulated a single atom at a time, placing it in a precise position until they spelled the letters ‘IBM’. Even critics like Philip W. Barth,2 and Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr.3 could not ignore such a commendable feat.

The 1980’s invention of the scanning tunneling microscope by physicists at IBM Research labs in Zurich was crucial to the advancement of nanotechnology. In the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review, writer David Rotman points out that the scanning tunneling microscope made “it possible for the first time to capture direct images of matter at the atomic scale.” IBM’s marvelous invention not only allows humans to see at the extremely minute scale of atoms and molecules, but it can also be used to position atoms and molecules in desired locations with great precision (IBM 3). This caused the further growth of nanotechnology into the production of tiny motors and intricate machines.

Scientists immediately began to think of places where this technology could be applied and make a difference in society. The potential applications for this technology abound. It suddenly became the innovation that would “revolutionize our computer, health care, automotive, agriculture, telecommunications, and energy industries, to name a few” (Dietz). Even if the laws of physics say that all these applications are possible it is impossible to make them a reality without the necessary funding to continue the research.

It was not until the year 2000 that the United States Government realized the enormous potential of nanotechnology. In his January 2000 State of the Union Address, the former President Bill Clinton announced the formation of the $497 million multi-agency U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. The agencies that would be receiving government funding to further their research included: the Department of Energy, Defense, and Commerce; the National Science Foundation; and NASA. The National Institute of Health was also included, receiving the most funding (Dietz).

Working at the nanoscale – the scale of life and biology itself – it was not long before researchers began to see the greater promise of applying nanotechnology in medicine. James Gimsewski4 is a strong supporter of the medical application of nanotechnology (also referred to as nanomedicine or nanobiotechnology). He stated, “Nanotechnology could reduce fear in the world through medical application and personal security as this is the one thing that is a really negative element in the world” (Lawrence). Obviously, the government also recognized the potential nanotechnology would have when applied within the realms of biology. In fact, in 2002 $40.8 million (of the $604 million in federal money) went to the National Institute of Health (Malsch).
Nanotechnology has come a very long way from where it first began as a “chiefly theoretical applied science” (Dietz). Researchers have taken Drexler and Feynman’s utopian dream and begun to separate what is humanly possible and what is merely fantasy. This segregation has seemed to occur more rapidly and more naturally in the coupling of nanotechnology and medicine, which has lead to its many advancement. Nanobiotechnology has achieved successes by targeting three major areas; the production of diagnostic devices, the development of more effective treatments, and the improvement of prosthetics and implants.

Currently, a trip to the doctor’s office is expensive and requires time and patience. In a serious medical situation one expects immediate answers and cannot afford the agony of waiting two or three days to receive test results. Northwestern University and Nanosphere Inc.5 are collaborating on a device that will minimize some of the anxieties that awaiting for a diagnosis can entail. The handheld device will function somewhat like a pregnancy test result. A small sample of a patient’s blood, urine or saliva will be placed into the device where it will be analyzed by millions of nanoparticles. Each nanoparticle will be programmed to detect for a distinct characteristic of a disease. If the patient is positive for a particular illness the corresponding color will appear, signaling the doctor and allowing him/her to take action. According to Sandra Guy, “This would mean that one day, a patient would be able to visit a doctor’s office and be screened for virtually every infectious or genetic disease in the course of an ordinary doctor’s visit” (19). The adoption of this handheld device would also mean a slight decrease in medical costs for the patient since one sample can be screened for a variety of illnesses, reducing the need for several lab tests and examinations. Similar devices are being developed in labs all around the United States.

At Harvard University, Charles Leiber is developing a new ultra sensitive tool that has the capability of detecting the presence of PSA, which is a signal protein for prostate cancer. The device contains a chip that can detect the presence of as few as four molecules of this protein, as well as other subtle changes that may occur within the body. Lieber’s goal is to design this device to function as a cheap and disposable test that can be easily administered within a patient’s home between doctor’s visits. He estimates the device to be in clinics as early as in three years (Stikeman 1). According to Paul Alivisatos, these hand held device could also be utilized in genetic tests, “such as those meant to determine a person’s susceptibility to different disorders or to reveal which specific genes are mutated in a patient’s cancer” (Alivisatos 2). In fact, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has put its nanotechnology funding to use in the development of instruments that are capable of collecting DNA sequence variations and gene expression data from patients (Dietz).

Other diseases being considered when creating these devices are diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. At Stanford University Hongjie Dai has built a device that has the ability to detect glucose. The way the device works is: when glucose molecules react with molecules on the surface of the nanodevice, it creates electrical signals corresponding to glucose concentrations. “Though only a proof of concept today, such a device could be developed into an implantable glucose sensor for diabetics” (Stikeman 8).

Nanodevices like the ones mentioned would be extremely useful in the diagnosis of diseases with complex molecular signatures like rheumatoid arthritis. The reason for this is because it concurrently searches for millions of biological molecules in a single drop of a patient’s bodily fluid. Currently, all rheumatoid arthritis sufferers are treated in the same way, when in reality each variant should be fought in a slightly different manner. The nano array device would be very beneficial to these patients, because according to Dai, it “…could serve as a highly precise and discriminating diagnostic device, providing a road map for custom treatment” (Stikeman 9).

Heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in America, which is why researchers have strived to make a device that would be able to detect the potential for a heart attack. The way in which this device would work is much like Stanford’s prostate cancer detecting device. Since the calling cards for heart attacks are subtle changes in the mix of several proteins within the body, the device can be programmed to detect these changes and report back to the doctor (Stikeman). According to Douglas Mulhall,6 the early detection of heart attacks “…could replace more than half of today’s surgeries at a fraction of the cost. This would slash the heart attack rate and improve our quality of life… Postindustrial society’s pervasive disease could be postpones and minimized” (Mulhall 72).

Nanobiotechnology will not only revolutionize the detection of diseases, it will also provide a new and greatly effective way of treating a stubborn disease with the use of Nanodrugs, also referred to as nanorobots. James Gimzewski points out that drug companies are already using nanotechnology and are not even aware of it. They use it in the form of time-releasing tablets, which have a simple coating that dissolves upon the medication’s arrival at a specific location within the body. They will most likely be fueled by naturally occurring chemical reactions that occur within the body, such as the production of ATP and glucose. They will also most likely be self replicating to allow for continuous effectiveness. Nanodrugs will look to elevate the level of effectiveness and precision by being programmed to reach a specific location, and not releasing the medication until it arrives at its target (Lawrence 10). This could provide a less harmful alternative for chemotherapy, by targeting only those cells, which are cancerous, allowing the healthy cells to maintain their health and vigor.

Researchers have found an array of potential uses for nanorobots. In the case of cardiovascular disease, nanorobots could be used to monitor the condition of blood vessels. They can also be used to restore artery walls and unclog them by removing arterial deposits (Balaji K. 7). Other potential uses of nanorobots include nanodevices that aid the immune system by locating and capturing viruses for later disposal. Mauro Ferrari7 from Ohio State University has come up with a way to use nanorobots in the fight against one particular form of diabetes in which cells in the pancreas that normally produce insulin are not functioning properly. His plan is to use the nanorobots to implant fresh copies of islets of Langerhans, which are tiny glands responsible for the production of insulin. Ferrari looks to accomplish this task by containing the replacement cells within a container made up of a nanoporous membrane. The way in which this would function is by allowing small glucose molecules to stream freely into the capsule to activate cells, and then the insulin would be allowed to trickle out to control blood chemistry within the body (Voss). “The pores in the membrane are small enough to screen out the body’s biological soldiers but large enough to allow desirable molecules to flow in and out” (Hearn 3). When used in conjunction with drug-delivery chips that are planted under the skin, it can slowly release a needed drug. This could prove to be extremely helpful to patients that are unable to adhere to a dosage schedule because of psychological disorders, like Alzheimer’s, for example. Such an advancement could also lead to insulin pills for diabetics, eliminating the need for insulin shots and other impractical and inconvenient forms of treatment.

Nanorobots could also be used to sneak in genetic material to correct genetic disorders. The problem with all uses of nanorobotic devices is the difficult task of sneaking in foreign materials without triggering an aggressive response by the body’s immune system. Currently gene therapy uses viruses to disguise replacement DNA. Unfortunately, this is an extremely risky route to take, which has led to fatality as a result of the body’s aggressive response (Voss). Researchers have somewhat conquered this task by having the robots be comprised primarily of a smooth and flawless layer carbon in the form of diamond/fullerene nanocomposites. According to Balaji K., “carbon is preferred because of its strength and chemical inertness. Many other light elements such as oxygen and nitrogen can be used for special purposes. A passive diamond coating is the best choice. The smoother and more flawless this coating, the lesser the reaction from the immune system and hence the less the chance of attack” (Balaji K. 2).

In April 2002, American Pharmaceutical Partners presented their results of a new delivery system for an established anticancer drug called ABI-700. According to Malsch, “ABI-700…contains paclitaxel, which is used to treat breast, bladder, and more than a dozen other cancers. Such new delivery systems combine a drug with an artificial vector that can enter the body and move in it like a virus. If more advanced clinical tests are successful, ABI-700 is likely to enter the market in a few years” (Malsch 11). This is an extraordinary advancement when we look at how much of a threat cancer truly is in our society in this day and age.

Nanobiotechnology is also extremely promising in the medical sector of implants and prosthetics. According to John Jensen of the Catholic University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, what they are looking to accomplish is the replacement of damaged or missing tissue by a similar material (Malsch 8). Kambiz Pourrezaei states, “given the notorious scarcity of donor organs, a feasible alternative is to use advanced tissue engineering approaches to include stem cells and innovative bioreactor biotechnology for re-creating cardiac tissues. These tissue constructs can be used for patching or repairing damaged areas of the heart… If successful, the proposed studies will contribute to reducing the cost of healthcare for the society at large, while improving the patient’s quality of life” (Pourrezaei 3). Simply reducing the cost of healthcare will be an enormous accomplishment, considering that “among individual sectors, healthcare now consumes the largest percentage of financial resources” (Mulhall 247). The fact that these nanorobots will be programmed with a self replicating characteristic will eliminate the necessity for physical labor and intensive manufacturing, ultimately making such a technology cost effective and available to a large portion of the population (Mulhall 247).

Douglas Mulhall looks at the bigger picture and says, “For consumers to consume products they need disposable income. To have disposable income they need higher paying jobs. To work at higher paying jobs they need to be healthy” (Mulhall 75). It is difficult to imagine any negative consequences that such a promising technology can bring. How could a technology promising us the ability to extent life by 50% from present expectations8 bring us anything other than comfort and satisfaction? Well, as with any new technology, there is a great concern about the unforeseen adverse effects. And as Ed Regis9 pointed out, when we come to think of it, the human race does not have a great record when it comes to dealing with significant amounts of power (the development of the atomic bomb being an excellent example).

Considering that this technology will be self replicating and existing within our very own bodies, there is a significant fear of what could happen if the robots were to get out of control! Eric Drexler considers that his concern is unsubstantiated due to the fact that great precautions will be taken to eliminate such an accident from occurring. He states that this problem will be avoided by isolation. Nanorobots will be programmed to work only under certain conditions, in specific environments, and will be programmed to replicate only a certain number of times (Regis 122).

Another concern is the potential for people to use these technological advances to enhance themselves rather than for treatment (Hook). Christopher C. Hook addresses this particular concern by stating that we should develop these technologies for therapeutic purposes while concurrently identifying ways to prevent harmful applications. He adds, “We must exhibit not a fear of technology, but a courageous control of technology coupled with a refusal to let technology control us” (Hook 11).

The ultimate question at hand is whether our current concerns are enough reasons to cease the development of a technology that has not fully flourished and evidently brings a great potential to change our lives for the better. Michael Dertouzos illustrates an interesting approach for looking at this particular situation; he says, “I suggest we broaden our perspective to the fullness of our humanity, which besides reason includes feelings and beliefs. Sometimes, as we drive the car of scientific and technological progress, we’ll veer because our reason says so. At other times we’ll follow our feelings, or we’ll be guided by faith. Most of the time we will steer with all three of these human forces guiding us in concert, as they have guided human action for thousands of years. As we do so, we should stay vigilant, ready to stop, when danger is imminent, using our full humanity to make that determination… Let us have faith in ourselves, our fellow human beings and our universe” (Dertouzos).

Considering that we are dealing with an extremely new technology, it is difficult to estimate all of the benefits and consequences that it will encompass. Evaluating where we currently find ourselves on the subject, the only measure of action we can take is that of acquiring as much information as possible, until the time arrives where we have to make a definite decision. At the moment nanobiotechnology poses no immediate threat that is substantiated by anything other than our overly active imaginations. We must proceed with caution, welcoming this powerful technology with open eyes and cautious curiosity. As Michio Kaku so eloquently puts it, “Some may welcome this revolution for the unquestionable benefits it will bring in relieving suffering and… prolonging the lives of millions. Others, for social or religious reasons, may oppose it for its excesses. But even its severest critics admit that all of us will be intimately touched by it” (Kaku 149). Ultimately, only time will tell.

Notes
1 Eric Drexler was the first graduate degree recipient in nanoscale research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2 Philip W. Barth was an engineer at Hewlett-Packard. He claimed that nanotechnology was becoming a pseudoscientific political/social sect like any other religion (Kaku 269).
3 Istvan Csicsery- Roney Jr. was an editor for Science Fiction Studies. He claimed, “nanotechnology has become the magic poison, the magic dust that allows everything to happen with pseudoscientific explanations” (Kaku 269).
4 James Gimzewski is the founder of the Institute of Nanotechnology, a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and board member on the Board of Editorial Reviewers for Science magazine. He won the 1997 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology for Experimental Work, the 1998 Wired 25 Award from Wired magazine, and holds two IBM Outstanding Innovation Awards (Lawrence, p.1).
5 Nanosphere Inc. was named in the May 2002 edition of Red Herring magazine as one of the fifty private companies ‘most likely to change the world’ (Guy).
6 Author of Our Molecular Future; How nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World.
7 Professor of internal medicine and mechanical engineering at Ohio State University. He is also the director of biomedical engineering at the university’s new center.
8 As stated by Ineke Malsch in the article “Biomedical Applications of Nanotechnology”.
9 Ed Regis is the author of Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the World- Molecule by Molecule.

Sources
Alivisatos, A. Paul. “Less Is More In Medicine.” Sept. 2001. Scientific American. Vol.285, issue 3, p.66.

Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society and The Rising Culture. New York: 1982. Simon and Schuster.

Cetron, Marvin and Owen Davies. Probable Tomorrows: How Science and Technology Will Transform Our Lives In The Next Twenty Years. New York: 1997. St. Martin’s Press.

Dietz, Francis. “A Tight Focus For Federal Research.” Oct. 2000. Mechanical Engineering. Vol.123, issue 10, pg.37.

Dietz, Francis. “Catching Up To Technology.” July 2000. Mechanical Engineering. Vol.122, issue 7, pg.34.

Dertouzos, Michael. “Not By Reason Alone.” Sept./Oct. 2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue 5, pg.26.

Enriquez, Jean. As the Future Catches You: How Genomics and Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work and Health. New York: 2001. Crown Business.

Feynman, Richard. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. New York: 2000. Perseus Publishing.

Guy, Sandra. “Nanotech Leading to Diagnosis By Handheld.” July 10, 2002. Sun-Times. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://www.suntimes.com>.

Gross, Michael. Travels to the Nanoworld: Miniature Machinery in Nature and Technology. New York: 1995. Plenum Trade.

Hearn, Kelly. “Company Creating Tiny Medical Tools.” March 13, 2001 United Press International. 7 Jan. 2003. <http://cgi.sparknot es.com/newsfeed.mpl>.

Hook, C. Christopher. “In Whose Image? Remaking Humanity Through Cybernetics & Nanotech.” Spring 2002. Dignity. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. 6 Jan. 2003. <www.cbhd.org/newletter>.

IBM. “Nanotechnology.” IBM Research 2002. 6Jan. 2003. <http://research.ibm.com>.

IBM. “Scanning Tunneling Microscope.” IBM Research 2002. 6 Jan. 2003. <http:domino.research.com>.

Kaku, Michio. Visions. New York; 1998. Anchor Books.

K., Balaji. “Nanorobots: The Future of Medicine.” January 2002. Industry Intelligence. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://www.inpharm.com>.

Lawrence, Rebecca. “James Gimzewski Discusses the Potential of Nanobiotechnology.” Drug Discovery Today. 2002. 17 Jan. 2003. <http://reviews.bmn.com>.

Malsch, Ineke. “Biomedical Application of Nanotechnology.” June/July 2002. American Institute of Physics.

Mulhall, Douglas. Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World. New York: 2002. Prometheus Books.

NASA. “Voyage of the Nano Surgeon.” January 15, 2002. Science @ NASA. 14 Nov. 2002. <http://science.nasa.gov>.
uld be an extremely large step towards better health practices.

Phillips-Han, Arline. “Nanopharmaceuticals Open Up Brand New Field of Study.” June 18, 2002. Daily University Science News. 5 Jan. 2003. <http://reviews.bmn.com>.

Pourrezaei, Kambiz. “Application of Nanotechnology to Medicine.” Oct. 28, 2001. Drexel University. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Regis, Ed. Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the World- Molecule by Molecule. New York, 1995. Little, Brown and Company.

Rotman, David. “Quantum Dot Com.” Jan./Feb. 2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue1, p.50.

Rotman, David. “Will the Real Nanotech Please Stand Up?” Mar./Apr.1999. Technology Review. Vol.102, issue 2, p.46.

Stikeman, Alexandra. “Nanobiotechnology Makes the Diagnosis.” May 2002. Technology Review.

Voss, David. “Nanomedicine Nears the Clinic.” Jan./Feb.2000. Technology Review. Vol.103, issue 1, p.60.

Wilson, Jim. “Miracles of the Next Fifty Years.” Feb. 2000. Popular Mechanics. 11 Nov. 2002. <http://web1.infotrac.galegroup.com>

Judy Martinez pursued Latin American Studies and Organizational Leadership at Rutgers University. She is a Research Assistant to the Director of International Affairs Paul Tennassee, Office of International Affairs, Department of University Relations & Communications, University of the District of Columbia. Her interests lie in Public Policy. This paper was written as part of the Montgomery Scholars Program and won her a ‘Finalist in BEACON Writing Competition’ (2003).