Rapid Innovative Research

How much time and money would be required to develop a system with the capabilities of a ribosome--only better?

• Synthesizes linear chains of building blocks in programmed sequence.
• The building blocks can be very diverse--molecules or nanoparticles. Each user can use their own set of blocks in the system.
• The blocks will be linked by covalent bonds.
• The system will be programmed by a DNA sequence. Synthesize whatever sequence you want, and it will direct the synthesis of the molecule.
• The links between the blocks will be electrically conductive.
• The system is intended to be available to users as sets of chemicals in plastic vials.
• The system does not incorporate natural ribosomes.

I can hear the opinions: This is science fiction. We can't do better than biology, at least not for decades. This would cost far too much to develop, and there's no market. Take smaller steps--prove it can work first.

Well, something different happens when you put twenty scientists, one sculptor, and a team of facilitators in a room for a week. The Ideas Factory that I blogged about a couple weeks ago has done its work, and this is one of the two proposals that will be funded. They think they have found a way to make this happen in a few years for about $1.5 million (a bit less than half of the £1.5 million funding).

This will be a very powerful technology for research. Being able to put together a broad diversity of materials and molecules into chains will be extremely useful. If, as seems likely, one of the materials is DNA strands, then it should be possible to fold the chains into 2D and 3D structures.

This does not solve the problem of actuation--making the structures move robotically. The other idea, which I'll blog about tomorrow, aims at developing controllable actuators and doing mechanically guided chemistry with them.

Neither of the ideas will build a nanofactory. But they will enable research in that direction--as well as many other directions. And they should start people--scientists, users, and policymakers--thinking a bit more boldly about what's possible and on what timeline.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology weblog blog

Comments

[RedSevenOne]

Chris – I would suggest that given the broad scope of the three projects and the expertise that has assemble them, there is a bright beacon of hope for great developments to come. One of the most interesting aspects of this whole process is that not once in the discussions was there any consideration of cost, only benefit, whether it was commercial or community or both.
The funding process is interesting given that diverse locations of the project participants. It is to be hoped that not too much is spent on commuting. One of the advantages of course is that the distances are small compared to a North American context.
One proposal I would thus make, the Sandpit process is to be repeated here, we should consider not only using the process for the initial hashing of ideas but also the development as well.
A flash of an idea bounced across the floor of the Safeway Centre last evening – Why not build a lab which can not only be used for internal exploration and creation, but also as a location where other can come to create, just a thought.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

RedSevenOne, I have wondered why the teenagers next door spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on their car, but they would never think of getting some inexpensive lab equipment and doing research in some understudied field.

As to the Ideas Factory--I proposed an online ongoing lightweight design over on their blog. It would allow proposals to be developed and rated interdisciplinarily, bounced around until they were funded (or were rejected too many times).

Chris