The Evolution Of Control

Here’s a slide that anyone who has seen one of my presentations recently will be familiar with – illustrating the shift we are undergoing from using things that we find to producing the things that we need, something beautifully illustrated by the recent slough of news items about the ‘invention” of artificial arteries using nanotechnology.

Professor George Hamilton from the Royal Free Hospital in North-West London said, “The new graft pulses rhythmically to match the beat of the heart. The graft material is strong, flexible, resistant to blood clotting and doesn’t break down, which is a major breakthrough.”

The real breakthrough of course, is that we have been able to create something that works as well as the material that nature has been using for arteries!

Ten years ago nanotechnology was thought to be a technology that would enable us to cure all kinds of disease by creating tiny robots, or replacing natures creations with our own. In fact a great deal of time and effort went into producing large tomes fantasising about how we could replace our nervous and circulatory systems with various things that may be one day created if the laws of physics and chemistry could somehow be bent in a way that would allow them (as well as warp speed travel, teleportation, holodecks etc – you get the idea).

Fortunately the rest of the scientific community was focused on more practical issues, and the most exciting thing about nanotechnology is it’s ability to give us the precise control over the properties of materials that we have lacked for so long. For the past twenty thousand years we have been using things that we found int he environment, a rock and a stick for example as tools. We got a little more sophisticated when we realised that certain types of rock contained ores of metals, and developed bronze, iron and finally steel tools, but we were still adapting things that we happened to find.

Adding functionality to a bit of PTFE through control over the properties of materials

Synthetic chemistry and polymers moved us a few steps away from depending directly on things we stumbled upon in the natural world, but they have always been crude when compared to the creations of nature – bone is a favourite example of nature coming up with the prefect solution, something that is rigid without being brittle, and self repairing to a large extent.

But where we are heading now is that our combined knowledge of biology, chemistry, and physics is being applied at the nanoscale to create materials and devices that essentially mimic what nature has already created, but with the added element of control.As The Med Guru reports, the artificial artery is far from being just a bit of tubing, and our control over the nanoscale properties of the material, and our ability to reproduce this over larger areas, has enabled to device to have a number of different functions and it these in combination that makes this kind of breakthrough so important.

Study of controlling matter on an atomic and molecular scale coupled with use of nanotechnology enables the spikes to magnetize stem cells or ‘master cells’ from the blood.

“Once the stem cells are attracted to it, they cover the whole inside of it and turn into endothelial cells,” informs Professor Alexander Seifalian

That is the real technology revolution, the ability to specify the properties of an ideal material, and then create it.

Tagged with:
 

A number of people asked about the possibility of re-recording the podcast of the talk I gave at Green Futures at the weekend as the quality is a bit patchy. It’s something I have been meaning to do for some time, as I can talk several orders of magnitude faster than I can type. I should also point out that this was a talk given to an audience with no knowledge of (or prior interest in) nanotechnologies so the more sophisticated among you may already know most of this.

Here’s my first attempt, not word for word but using the same notes so it may be the same thing in a slightly different order, so now you can do something more useful while listening to my mellifluous tones with a bit of added hiss. If I do this again I promise to buy a proper microphone!

Tagged with:
 

Good Riddance to Bad Science

I enjoyed Rick Weiss’”Good Riddance” piece directed at the outgoing US administration, and it probably echoes  the views of many US based researchers.

Good riddance to the lies, the deception, the White House-edited pseudoscience reports. Good riddance to the stacked science advisory committees, the faux peer-review of proposed regulations, the junkyard claims of “junk science.”

Good riddance to the scientist manqué at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency who big-footed actual evidence for political convenience. Good riddance to the leadership at the Office of Science and Technology Policy that supported President Bush’s skepticism about the need to address climate change aggressively.

Good riddance to the vice-president who thought the telecom revolution was about better bugging of innocent citizens’ phone calls. Good riddance to the president who cared more about human embryos than he did about children living in the lower Ninth Ward.

footmouthcullI have been hearing lots of positive things about Obama’s science team (mainly from US based colleagues who may or may not have an interest in positions/funding so the traditional academic infighting may resume once the honeymoon is over), so let’s hope that they can deliver on the promises and set an example to the rest of the world.

However having good scientists is not the only criteria for good science. The 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease cost the economy some £20 billion as a result of what is now seen as a disastrously wrong decision by the Chief Scientist Sir David King to slaughter animals rather than vaccinate them (as happened in most other countries), perhaps illustrating the problems of putting a chemist in charge of epidemiology. The result? Half of the countryside out of bounds and pyres of dead carcasses being burned for weeks on end.

In one of the more intriguing conference programs Cientifica has been involved with, we have joined forces with the London College of Fashion (LCF) on a conference that discusses nanotechnology’s impact on the fashion industry: Micro and Nanotechnologies for Fashion and Textiles to be held at LCF on January 24th.

What does nanotechnology have to do with fashion, you ask. More than you might think.

Micro and nanotechnologies have already had a huge impact on the textile industry, with nanotechnologies accounting for a US$13.6 billion market in 2007 and expected to grow to $115 billion by 2012, according to our Textile report released last year.

But the impact of wearable electronics or stain resistant pants made possible by micro and nanotechnologies, respectively, is also changing the way fashion designers and retailers are approaching their craft and commerce.

This seems to be part of a larger trend in which fashion has evolved over the most recent decades to be less about purely creative concerns—albeit still its most spectacular component—to become a highly complex and specialized system to establish competitive advantage.

This system involves stylistic, industrial, cultural and social elements.

Technology in general, and nanotechnology specifically, has a role to play in all of these elements.

Clearly, it has a role to play in the industrial element by improving textile manufacturing and its products. And technology has become increasingly more important in the areas of stylistic, cultural and social concerns. One need only look to the iPod, which is coveted as much as a fashion statement as it is its utility to play music.

Technology is the new fashion statement.

Tagged with: