In a recent seminar which discussed the ethics and challenges of nanotechnology is used to prolong life, a series of questions were placed on the panelists online may not be covered during the debate live-streaming. Professor Mark Miodownik, a materials scientist at the University College London and member of the seminar, which summarizes the debate made ...
Whatdefines technology as "nano" in the first place? This is the word "nano" used ad-hoc arouse people's interests or means something specific? Is (re) cells or bacteria (for example), "nanotechnology"?
"nano" means a small part, a very, very small, one-billionth to be precise. Thus, nanotechnology is the technology at the scale of a billionth of a meter. It is difficult to get an idea of ??how this technology is tiny. If you see one of the fine hairs on the back of your hand, it is one of the smallest structures that we see with the naked eye, but it's huge compared to a nanometer, 10,000 times greater. Now imagine zoom in hand to explore the individual cells, they are invisible to the eye, but still 1000 times larger than a nanometer. Zoom into a cell and discover that it is something like a miniature city, full of dynamic structures, transportation routes and communication systems technologies. These structures are still 100 times larger than a nanometer. Increasing scale, and you begin to see the molecular machines that do the work in cells, the equivalent of cars and people that make a city. It is the genius of this magnitude is called nanotechnology, either in a cell or a cell phone, or suspended in a face cream.
Why invest in nanotechnology rather than addressing the most immediate problems, such as: (i) the development of new antibiotics to fight against other resistant insects, or (ii) investment in systems to treat childhood obesity?
may also wonder why they spend billions of euros that explore space, there is no easy answer to understanding the priorities of government funding of science, except to say it is the opinion of, and so therefore the policy field. The British government tends to finance science you expect to grow the economy and keep its citizens healthy. Nanotechnology, because it is so powerful, has the potential to do both, and for this reason is funded. Most research in medical sciences in the UK is funded by the government, but by charities, and they put their own strategies to solve problems that were created to meet. Personally, I think the best argument for investment in nanotechnology is a culture: science and engineering are part of our identity, and appreciate the arts and contemporary, we must appreciate the contemporary genius, and n ' is not the cutting edge of nanotechnology.
because nanotechnology operates the smallest scales of the body, is immensely powerful. We could, for example, the design of nanoparticles to infiltrate and destroy cancer cells or to restructure the capacity of livers and kidneys of sick inside, cell by cell. This is not so different from the way drugs that act at the molecular level, nanotechnology gives us only a set of sophisticated molecular tools. Of course, there are dangers in this approach, and it is important that nanotechnology applied to human health is regulated like all drugs. The system is not infallible, but nanotechnology is tested in the same way that all drugs and surgery are tested. When talking about risk, but we must also consider the risks of not developing nanotechnology, talk to anyone on dialysis or awaiting a transplant, and you begin to realize that there are millions of sick people for whom this technology is its best hope for a normal life.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น