Thursday, December 25, 2008

Preparing an anticancer drug carrier


A research team led by Prof. MA Guanghui with the CAS Institute of Processing Engineering has developed a one-pot approach to couple the crystallization of CaCO3 nanoparticles and the in-situ symmetry-breaking assembly of these crystallites into hollow spherical shells under the templating effect of a soluble starch.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Nano for Kids

Good educational resources for kids at the Nano for Kids site within the CNSE (College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering).

The videos they have done are great entry-level tools: http://cnse.albany.edu/Nano_for_Kids/iKnowNanoTVSegments.html

Nano 'Bama


The nanobama structures are made of carbon nanotubes, and the pictures were taken using optical and electron microscopes. Structures and images made by John Hart, Sameh Tawfick, Michael De Volder, and Will Walker

Monday, December 15, 2008

Nanotube fireball


Found this image last week but cannot locate the site where it originated. If you know who made it please contact me.

NanoArt 2008

I have been chosen as one of two judges for NanoArt 2008.

Here is the announcement:

The worldwide competition NanoArt 2008 is open to all artists 18 years and older. The online exhibition will open for public on January 20, 2009. Judges: Jeanne Brasile, artist, director and primary curator of the Walsh Gallery at the Seton Hall University; Rocky Rawstern, artist and consultant, former editor of Nanotechnology Now, awarded with the 2005 Foresight Institute Prize in Communication. Winners will be notified and published online on March 31, 2009. The competition will be promoted on different venues online, nanoart21.org contacts, word-of-mouth. The artists could also promote the competition on their websites and other venues.
The following is an email “conversation” I had with one of my Access Nanotechnology team members, Patti Hill . The Questions and Statements are her’s; the Answers are mine.

Q: Are there advantages to products with “nano inside”?

A: The short answer to this seemingly simple Q is “yes.” A better answer is “Caveat emptor.”

Statement: The consumer marketplace has become rich with nanotechnology-based or enhanced products from sunscreens to water repellant and stain-resistant clothing, gum, car wax, sporting equipment, heat-resistant windshields, consumer electronics, and nanoparticle-laden cosmetics.

Q: They all suggest significant strides from the scientific perspective - but from your point of view, does it matter?

A: Yes, as long as the “nano inside” the product has A) made it cheaper to the consumer, while making it no more harmful to the environment or the consumer, B) made the product more effective or better able to meet a need (with the same caveat as above), or C) created an altogether new product that serves a new market (again, with the caveat as above).

Additionally, the fact that we are making real strides in our understanding of nanoscale properties means that we have a whole new set of tools that will also enable the creation of products that are less harmful to the environment, as well as those that help remediate environmental damage. Those two categories alone make the effort and investment worthwhile.

Q: Are these products simply new or different versions of products in an already crowded marketplace, or would you purchase a product that claims to have “nanotechnology inside”?

A: “Claims to have,” no. Does have, and meets the criteria as above, then yes. Addressing “simply new or different versions” my answer would be “what have product promoters done in the past?” Have they always been truthful? Do the products always do what they say they will do? You get my drift.

Q: Do you believe the integration of nanotechnology boosts a product’s strength, durability or performance?

A: It certainly can, but may not always. In the “certainly can” area, take a look at products that contain sunlight-activated (photocatalytic) nanoscale titanium dioxide (Tio2).

There are several Tio2-enable surface coatings products on the market that have anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-mold properties. In addition, some of these coatings reduce pollution and improve air quality, while protecting from environmental contamination. Such coatings are, or will soon be, economical for building owners (for reducing maintenance costs) and anyone who simply wants to coat a surface to take advantage of one or more of those properties.

Having said that, as always with new products, there is a need to more fully understand the long-term effects of the nanoscale particles that may come in contact with you and I; products used in items such as cosmetics and skin treatments. Due to their size, these particles have the ability, under certain conditions, to penetrate well past the outer skin layers and possibly into the circulatory system (with unknown effects). Consideration must be given to the fact that nanoscale particles, by their very nature, can and do follow their own set of rules; rules different from their larger cousins (whose properties we pretty much understand and account for).

We also need to fully understand the ways in which nanoscale particles may harm those who handle them during production. And further, we need to understand the long-term waste stream potential of these products. I believe that both these issues can, are now, and will be dealt with easily and will be accounted for during development (at least by companies that understand the downside of not applying “an ounce of prevention”).

Getting back to “but not always,” there have been notable exceptions to the claim of “nano inside,” such as the now infamous “Magic Nano.” Magic Nano was billed as a “a protective glass and bathroom sealant” which in fact did not contain nanoscale particles. It did, however, cause breathing difficulties in several users, prompting a public outcry over “harmful nanotechnology.” The product was recalled. Face was lost, as were dollars, or Euros in this case.

I believe that our immediate investment of dollars and time should be focused on nanoscale particles that can be used for screening, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of disease (where great strides are already being made). With subsequent technologies we will be able to rid ourselves of many age-old scourges, such as cancer. After that, I think the bulk of our efforts should go towards creating nanoscale-enhanced products that exhibit astonishing strength, flexibility, conductivity, and/or reactivity (other areas where we are making huge strides, a few of which are enabling changes in how we generate clean energy). With these, we will be able to reach for the stars and go to them, too, as well as power our future. Our third focus should be on products that help remediate environmental damage (and yes, this too is an area where we’re seeing massive leaps in understanding). Any one of those three areas, by themselves, have the potential to create huge numbers of new, high-paying jobs. Together, it is believed by many learned individuals, governments and corporations that these technologies will make those nations that invest in them quite wealthy, more secure, and more productive.

To sum up: No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time-frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided attention. Will we be ready?

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Picture of the day

More from NanoArt 2008

My next favorite four (click to see large version):



Title: Nano Woods
Artist: Renata Spiazzi



Title: Infinite Exploration
Artist: David Hylton



Title: Seal
Artist: Geert Lenssens



Title: Thought Form
Artist: David Derr



What is NanoArt?

Artist and scientist Cris Orfescu presents NanoArt, reflecting advances in the arts related to nanoscale technologies.

One goal of the NanoArt series is to raise the public's awareness of Nanotechnology and its impact on our lives, which by even conservative measure will be significant.

Who?

37 nanoartists from 13 countries and 4 continents, presenting 121 NanoArt works to this second edition of the international competition.

www.absolutearts.com/nanoart

To vote for your favorite NanoArt work you can also visit directly the competition site at:

http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9

Follow these 3 easy steps:

1. click on the album’s thumbnail to open album
2. click on the artwork’s thumbnail to see the large image
3. click on the number of stars you would like to rank that artwork


To see more examples of “taking it to the next level” see http://future-is-here.com/Desktops.htm

Jump The Curve

Once again, my favorite technology author Jack Uldrich makes complex topics accessible to the general reader. In his latest book, Jump The Curve: 50 Essential Strategies to Help Your Company Stay Ahead of Emerging Technologies, Uldrich explains how, “in the next decade, exponential trends in computers, data storage, bandwidth, gene sequencing, and other fields will transform the global economy.”

“With fifty vital strategies at its core, Jump The Curve teaches managers and organizations how to simultaneously adopt and stay ahead of both technology and trend.”

Insightful, thought provoking, and inspiring.

What you should take away from this bit

Get your hands on a copy, find a quiet place to read, and learn how you can Jump The Curve by taking advantage of the tremendous growth in technologies.

http://www.jumpthecurve.net/

This is one that I'll read a 2nd and 3rd time.

Is nanotechnology morally acceptable?

The Next Bit comes to us from The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN)

“For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.” The survey, by Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, shows that “religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.”

To understand where the nano-nay-sayers come from, note especially this paragraph describing just what nanotechnology is, and see if in fact it differs from any other set of technologies, hundreds of which enable our current life style:

“Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules.”

Hmmmmmm… just science. Can’t blame the science, nor the resulting technologies, for things we don’t like. Blame perhaps each of us for not participating in the decisions that can enable or stifle new technologies.

“In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.”

Let me go out on a limb and state that these folks equate anything “not occurring in nature” as unnatural. Have they given even the smallest bit of thought to the many “unnatural” bits and pieces found in everyday 21st Century life? Things such as, oh, let’s see….. most modern medicine (diagnosis and treatment), the vast majority of technologies that create functional items from base materials and components, etc. Almost everything we do and see and eat owes some part of its existence to one or more “unnatural” elements.

My point? Do not equate the science nor the resulting technologies with how they will be used and how they effect society. Science is neither good nor bad. (Geez, how many times have we heard that. Did we all pay attention? Apparently not everyone.) Good and bad come from our use of technologies, for instance by allowing some to be used to impinge on another’s rights. Just google “Genocide” to get an idea of what I mean.

Are there some technologies that we should ban? Excellent question, glad I asked. Absolutely. The world, as a body, has banned the use of some weapons of mass destruction, such as nerve gas. So yes, we can make “morality-based” decisions, as an informed group. Have we made mistakes, allowing some bad technologies to live and some good ones to die on the vine? I’ll leave that up to each of you to decide.

Where are we now?

Once again we find ourselves at a crossroad, trying to decide which of many technology-paved paths to take. Many of them could lead us to a nanotech-enabled, globe-spanning, prosperous future, where no person is treated as having less value than another. A future where the few don’t get to decide for the many. Where everyone is heard, anyone can speak, and decisions-makers listen.

Because more and more of us are paying attention to and participating in the debate surrounding nanotech-enabled technologies, I am hopeful that we are traveling down the better paths.

In Closing, let me hammer home this point, yet again (I will undoubtedly do so again, and probably many times, right up to the point where it doesn’t matter, one way of the other):

No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale societal change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided and immediate attention.

Will we be ready?

One of the best places to stay informed about preparing for advanced nanotechnologies is at The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (crnano.org).

Find news and information about nanotechnologies at Nanotech Now (nanotech-now.com)

Read entire article at
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2008/02/religion-nanote.html

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Picture of the day

NanoArt 2008

My favorite four:



Title: Nano Depths
Artist: Renata Spiazzi



Title: Blossom
Artist: David Hylton



Title: Tekeli-li
Artist: Bjoern Daempfling



Title: Micro/Macro
Artist: Eva Lewarne


To be fair, my favorite eight are by artists Renata Spiazzi & David Hylton. Spiazzi’s work continues to impress with it’s novelty and eye-catching fantastical flavours. Hylton’s is a dive into the sublime, and a welcome splash of cool clear water in the face of modern sensibilities. With their highly interpretive versions of modern science-art, these artists take it to the next level, mirroring the awe-inspiring advances being made in nanoscale technologies.



NanoArt

Artist and scientist Cris Orfescu presents NanoArt, reflecting advances in the arts related to nanoscale technologies.

One goal of the NanoArt series is to raise the public's awareness of Nanotechnology and its impact on our lives, which by even conservative measure will be significant.

Who?

37 nanoartists from 13 countries and 4 continents, presenting 121 NanoArt works to this second edition of the international competition.

www.absolutearts.com/nanoart

To vote for your favorite NanoArt work you can also visit directly the competition site at:

http://nanoart21.org/nanoart2006/index.php?cat=9

Follow these 3 easy steps:

1. click on the album’s thumbnail to open album
2. click on the artwork’s thumbnail to see the large image
3. click on the number of stars you would like to rank that artwork


To see more examples of “taking it to the next level” see http://future-is-here.com/Desktops.htm

Nanotechnology catches the EPA’s eye

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published this week in the Federal Register its plan for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The plan takes a first step by offering industry, non-governmental organizations and other groups the opportunity to voluntarily submit safety data on engineered nanoscale materials. “

The key word here is “offering.” Nobody is quite ready to regulate nanoscale materials just yet (it’s way too slippery a slope at this time). However, if industry does volunteer the information, it should mean that their new nanoscale materials are safe, tested and regulated, as well as being profitable to company shareholders.

Featured in R&D magazine (*) as well as many others, regulation of nanoscale materials has been on the minds of industry and potential regulatory agencies across the globe for several years. It is just now starting to catch the eye of the general public due to the rapid growth of products containing nanoscale materials, as well as those that only claim to.

What you should take away from this bit

Nanoscale materials are the catalysts for humankind’s next great step forward in future products. Man-on-the-street (along with Woman-on-the-street) are beginning to have to pay attention, if for no other reason than the recent media-induced saturation of “nano” news. Nanoscale materials impact on society is potentially the most revolutionary humankind has seen; more so than all previous eras put together. From lighter auto bodies (for increased gas mileage) to high-tech composites used in the aerospace industry (for decreased launch costs) and in all cases where strength-to-weight ratios count most, nanoscale materials will play an enabling role in the vast majority of all next-generation technologies, as they are doing now everywhere where computational devices are used.

This is another topic that will remain contentious, and worth reading about.

(*)http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000100&ISSUE=0801&RELTYPE=MS&PRODCODE=0000000&PRODLETT=JN&CommonCount=0

Nano-sized “Trojan horses” get government funding

“The Department of Defense has commissioned a nine-month study from Rice University chemists and scientists in the Texas Medical Center to determine whether a new drug based on carbon nanotubes can help prevent people from dying of acute radiation injury following radiation exposure. The new study was commissioned after preliminary tests found the drug was greater than 5,000 times more effective at reducing the effects of acute radiation injury than the most effective drugs currently available.”

Good news for anyone destined to having cancer in his or her lives.

Summing it up: From James Tour, Rice's Chao Professor of Chemistry, director of Rice's Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory (CNL) and principal investigator on the grant:

"Ideally, we'd like to develop a drug that can be administered within 12 hours of exposure and prevent deaths from what are currently fatal exposure doses of ionizing radiation.”

Coupled with the many other advances being made in detection and treatment of cancers, I am hopeful that within the next decade that cancer will go the way of other easily diagnosed and treated diseases, if not the dodo.

CRN at 5 years

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) at five years.

An overview of their accomplishments, disappointments, and plans for the future.

“We chose to go back and review what we believed and what we said when we started CRN, and to ponder and report on what we have learned since then.”

Well worth your time reading. In fact, please read this update on CRN and it’s mission.

The most telling paragraph:

It’s interesting to note that while CRN’s time frame for the expected development of molecular manufacturing has shifted back by approximately five years, the mainstream scientific community’s position has been moving forward, from a point of ‘never’, to ‘maybe by the end of the century’, to ‘not until at least 2050’, and now to ‘perhaps around 2030 or so’. These projections might not yet match up exactly with CRN’s, but the gap is steadily shrinking.

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times:

No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale societal change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided and immediate attention.

Will we be ready?

http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2008/02/crn-at-five-yea.html

One of the best places to stay informed about preparing for advanced nanotechnologies is at The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (crnano.org).