India Daily runs disturbing military nanotech editorial
By a staff reporter at India Daily: "Fourth, the most dangerous Nano-application use for military purposes is the Nano-bomb that contain engineered self multiplying deadly viruses that can continue to wipe out a community, country or even a civilization. Militaries all around the world is about to embark upon the use of Nano-materials, Nano-bots and Nano-technologies that will make current Weapons of mass Destruction look miniscule. Armies of enormous strengths can be wiped out slowly without even fighting a single battle. The soldiers may never know that they have been nano-poisoned." Three causes for concern here: first, the errors in the article (e.g., viruses would be biotech, not nanotech); second, the possibility of over-reaction; and third, the real issues raised by military use of advanced nanotech in the longer term.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:13 AM
Those are not errors.
> the errors in the article (e.g., viruses would be biotech, not nanotech)
Nothing stops you from making a nanotech virus. In fact, once you have nanotech, such viruses would be considerably simpler to make than the biological kind, and be far more effective.
> second, the possibility of over-reaction
What would you call "over-reaction"?
March 1st, 2005 at 12:13 PM
Re:Those are not errors.
And as viruses are easier to make, so are agents which render those viruses ineffective. This article is obviously over-reaction. The possibility for a "mad sscientist" to unleash a deadly thing exists, and the possibly of a government funding such a scientist or group scientists probably also exists, but I can assure you they are outnumbered by scientists with the preservation rather than the destruction of human life in mind.
March 2nd, 2005 at 8:00 AM
Re: Those are not errors.
No no no.
A virus by definition is an entity that replicates itself by using the resources of its host.
It is completely possible using existing biotechnological methods to produce either a human designed virus and perhaps even a bacteria (though I would not say it would be cheap — but we need to be concerned that one day it will be.) A virus (and bacteria) are by definition "nanotechnology" or complex nanotechnology based systems. *But* they should first be labeled "biotechnology" so we are clear about the fact that they have been around for hundreds of millions of years. The species has not been wiped out yet by them though they certainly take a significant toll each year.
I would suggest that you need to define the difference between a "nanotech" virus and a "biotech" virus. But before you do that I would like to suggest you read through a current edition of "Fields Virology" which in my edition which is over a decade old — and therefore extremely outdated — contained 2300+ pages. Even scanning a few brief chapters in that will give you an idea of the variety, adaptability, etc. which *biotechnology* based viruses can assume. Once one understands the variety of viruses (and/or bacteria) which exist *today* in our world and can be engineered using *current* technology — then one can begin to discuss the concept of "nanotech" viruses.
The "over-reaction" aspect is due to the fact that using the "nano-" prefix because people are not familiar with it over shadows the risks of things which are really important (such as the risk of cholera outbreaks in the areas impacted by the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.) It is potentially creating a focus on a problem that might be significant in 10 or 20 years rather than an emphasis on problems we have today. It demonstrates irresponsible reporting and careless editing.
March 2nd, 2005 at 9:20 AM
Re: Those are not errors.
What's more of a resource to a host than its atomic building blocks? *wry grin* If such a device could replicate inside or outside a host using its chemical components, somehow staving off or outperforming the biochemical defenses of that host, wouldn't that fit within the definition you cited?
March 2nd, 2005 at 10:14 AM
More capabilities
Nanoviruses are of a different variety from bioviruses due to their ability to plan. A biovirus has only one goal – to reproduce. Its every action is directed toward it, and the death of the host is an unintended and in most cases undesirable consequence. A nanovirus can be programmed to have other goals, including the intentional destruction of the host or of maximum possible number of hosts. Unlike a biovirus, a nanovirus can perceive time, sleep, and wake up at a predetermined moment, or on command to kill.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:22 AM
Viruses vs. bacteria
I'm not sure I understand this point. Viruses do not have sufficient capability within their genomic programs to (a) produce all of the "chemical components" they need or (b) self-replicate (in general — though one could argue about this with respect to specific viruses and the reproduction strategies they use). Bacteria on the other hand do have sufficiently complex genomic programs and the necessary molecular manufacturing machinery that they can both harvest chemical resources from their environment and use them to self-replicate. Viruses and bacteria both have some rather amazing strategies for avoiding host defenses.
This doesn't get us any closer to what a "nanovirus" vs. a normal old everyday "biovirus" is however. In fact I would argue that they are the same thing — so the use of the "nano-" term seems to be sensationalistic more than descriptive.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:44 AM
Re:Viruses vs. bacteria
You're correct, my bad – that would be more of a bacteriological response.
However, regarding your second point – terminology is currently struggling to differentiate between 'natural' and 'man-made' nanometer-scale systems. The terms being used in the orginal citation are IMO the ones most people would use.
Perhaps an analogy would be dams. Human dams are 'better' than beaver dams – bigger, last longer, etc – but both perform the same function of flooding an area. Yet, human dams are protested as 'upsetting nature' whereas beavers are considered 'cute' (unless you're the landowner) and are protected by humans in their actions for this 'cuteness'.
We've been struggling with this dichotomy for a long time. I don't think the nanotech debate will be able to sidestep the issue, regardless of whether it's exactly the same thing or not.
- JB
March 3rd, 2005 at 7:01 AM
Re: More capabilities
A "virus" by definition is operating on a very fixed plan — "get in", "make copies", "get out". Some of the larger viruses, such as HSV or CMV, get somewhat more complex — to the level of "how can I remain in 'stealth' mode for an extended period?"
To have the program complexity you are suggesting you are *not* talking about something called a "virus". This would be a bioengineered bacteria. And I would suggest that natural bacteria already have many of capabilities you describe built into their genetic programs. The only possible exception might be "on command to kill" because in general most microorganisms do not want to kill the host which is providing them with such a nice living environment.
The fact that I can program level such a level of complexity into bacteria has nothing to do with "nano-"-technology. It has to do with the fact that we now have many more genetic programs (250+) from which we can "read the code" than we had a decade ago. These have to do with systems analysis theory, genetics, protein structure, molecular biology, etc. *none* of which require the use of the "nano-" prefix. Of course they depend upon "nano-" but there again so does nearly everything you see when you look out the window.
March 4th, 2005 at 12:27 AM
Hazardous-impact Misperceptions
Since the building-blocks (smallest particles) of the universe can not be defined absolutely, only the ëfrom-top-to-downwardí approach is applicable for the device and procedural developments in Nanoscience. Unless there is precisely-sustained environmentally-guided molecular self-assembly, there is no chance of molecular replication, that itself also only with simple units and not possible with complex organic modules. Anyhow, the Nanoscience is the science of the Nature and it should not be explored for defensive or offensive purposes.
March 4th, 2005 at 6:48 AM
Re:Hazardous-impact Misperceptions
Since when are 'smallest particles of the universe' in the nanometer scale? *wry grin*
We're talking atoms, not quarks, not muons, and certainly not photons. Atoms can be defined as being here, at this time, moving in this direction at this speed with this inertia – what more do you need in this world for something to be 'defined absolutely'?
As for your last sentence – ever hear the phrase, "Nature red of tooth and claw"? If it's in Nature (capitalized or not), it *IS* being explored for defensive and offensive purposes, and not just by human intellect, but by evolutionary processes.
- JB