Biology advances into unknown

Biology's Big Bang

Molecular biologists have gone from thinking that they know roughly what is going on in their subject to suddenly realising that they have barely a clue.

That might sound a step backwards; in fact, it is how science works. The analogy with physics is deeper than just that between RNA and the neutron. There is in biology at the moment a sense of barely contained expectations reminiscent of the physical sciences at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a feeling of advancing into the unknown, and that where this advance will lead is both exciting and mysterious.

Know thine enemy

As Samuel Goldwyn so wisely advised, never make predictions--especially about the future. But here is one: the analogy between 20th-century physics and 21st-century biology will continue, for both good and ill.

Physics gave two things to the 20th century. The most obvious gift was power over nature. That power was not always benign, as the atomic bomb showed. But if the 20th century was distinguished by anything from its predecessors, that distinctive feature was physical technology, from motor cars and aeroplanes to computers and the internet.

It is too early to be sure if the distinguishing feature of the 21st century will be biological technology, but there is a good chance that it will be. Simple genetic engineering is now routine; indeed, the first patent application for an artificial living organism has recently been filed (see page 96). Both the idea of such an organism and the idea that someone might own the rights to it would have been science fiction even a decade ago. And it is not merely that such things are now possible. The other driving force of technological change--necessity--is also there. Many of the big problems facing humanity are biological, or are susceptible to biological intervention. The question of how to deal with an ageing population is one example. Climate change, too, is intimately bound up with biology since it is the result of carbon dioxide going into the air faster than plants can remove it. And the risk of a new, lethal infection suddenly becoming pandemic as a result of modern transport links (see page 67) is as biological as it gets. Even the fact that such an infection might itself be the result of synthetic biology only emphasises the biological nature of future risks.

At the moment, policymakers have inadequate technological tools to deal with these questions. But it is not hard to imagine such tools. Ageing is directly biological. It probably cannot be stopped, but knowing how cells work--really knowing--will allow the process to be transformed for the better. At least part of the answer to climate change is fuel that grows, rather than fuel that is dug up. Only biotechnology can create that. And infections, pandemic or otherwise, are best dealt with by vaccines, which take a long time to develop. If cells were truly understood, that process might speed up to the point where the vaccine was ready in time to do something useful.

Economist, Biology's Big Bang, 6/16/2007, Vol. 383 Issue 8533, p13-13, 1p




Nanotechnology: Only Natural

Although, Nanoscience has created an era of rising questions on different relationships happening at nanoscale with an unknown perspective, but the pace of curiosity has only grown following the landmark support of the National Nanotechnology Initiative NNI by a politician, Bill Clinton in the year 2000. Many respectable scientists were reluctant to push the agenda forward, for the way scenarios and fairy tales were unfolding in the media. But the support from highly unexpected source for the advancement of magical technology set the agenda for science to go deep. The aim was to mobilise the scientific community to engage in further research in the small world, to uncover relationships and explore plenty of information at nanoscale.
Nanoscience raised as many questions about technology as about life itself that are related to biology (Jones R, 2004). Scanning probe microscopy techniques provided clear visibility with the prospect of watching cells doing their daily jobs. Materials in smaller size are not simply representative of their bulks. The ratio of forces of attraction (Van der Waals) becomes much powerful with active atoms exposed on the surfaces. “At atomic level we have new kind of forces” (Feynman 1959) and new kinds of effects and possibilities, including all natural programming that are at work in biology. Biology is filled with plenty of executable information already explored, with which relationships at very small scale involving 1014 atoms active in every single cell can be exposed. For instance, membrane proteins account for 50% of known drug targets (Oxford Univ research into cystic fibrosis).
With powerful support pouring continuously from official sources, media interest turned realistic. There was collective realisation that scientific researches unlike fictions are funded with sole interest in solving medical and environmental issues. Scientists are working on the problems that are threatening life, nature and the environment. No one other than fiction writers are funded or are interested to work on the fiction side of Nanotechnologies. Nanoscience, hence, found further legitimacy with recent announcement from the Dept of Industry, Universities and Skills DIUS that provided £ 1 billion fund available for R&D programmes. Equally in the US increasing investment in R&D by the government showed a rising budget-curve from $ 270 m in 2001 to 1.3 billion in 2006. More than 1500 companies were accounted for to be involved in producing nanomaterials with an annual growth rate of 25%, which reached over $ 40 Billions (Roco 2007). Elsewhere, EU investment summed up to $ 1.6 billion in 2008. Thence, Nanotechnology found the momentum. The hope is that Nanotechnologies create 2 million jobs for the skilled labour by 2015.
Nanoscale technology followed laws of nature in computing machines as well, using bottom up manufacturing with tiny wires and transistors with the objective to mimic human brains in connecting nonlinear networks. Computers ought to do magical things as they get smaller and use more complicated wiring. Consider recognising a face, which our brains readily process, not only from the same angel or for the same age, rather for recognising traces that are searchable and evoked in the brain. IBM’s research project funded by DARPA involves several universities who made it their task to build complex designed computer, namely iBrain, which is destined for problem solving rather than responding to specific questions. This is an attempt to mimic mammal brain system which translates into nonlinear computer design, in which connections are developed by sensory devices similar to that of brain that receives load of data feedbacks from various senses. One realistic use for this is particularly unprecedented, that is to gather global financial information and make smart decisions in the light of processed complex information.
Such non-linear computing machine may equally assist us in measuring algorithms of so much sought exposure risks of nanoparticles, particularly as there are competing forces present, out of which we need to calculate dominant force and direction, in order to anticipate reactivity dynamics. Nanoparticles <100nm and engineered-nanoparticles strange behaviours have become points of safety concerns, although their risk potentials are poorly understood. Larger surface area of nanoparticles that increase their reactivity with the environment may accelerate production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), including free radicals. ROS prompted is considered to cause oxidative stress which may damage proteins and membranes (Nel, 2006). But how rapidly ROS are produced, and the ratio of scale of nanomaterials in relation with the speed of ROS production is the key to the problem of toxicity measure of nanoparticles. For instance Peter Dobson from Oxford has discovered how to eliminate exposure risks of photocatalytic properties of nanotitania used in sunscreens by changing their functionality.
There are yet, loads of detailed information already available as a result of research studies conducted by drug companies on large enough population. Similarly, research findings from descriptive analysis by universities, and research organisations are plenty as well. However, there are still gaps between experimental and computational measures, in terms of quantification. Additionally, there are issues of making descriptive characterisation meaningful in diverse functionalities in order to extrapolate mechanism-based observations for the task of predictive scientific model. Likewise there are still gaps in making comparisons between various research findings that may be used for quantification and qualification of processes in system biology. For example in diabetes the measurement of blood sugar enabled people to take control of disease. For cancer there is no such marker, but the assumption is that electric devices can measure changes that affect cells to turn cancerous.

The key question is with holistic approach that considers simplifying and modelling a systemic response, some regular and repeating patterns can be drawn out from pile of information hidden in research results. Jim Heath from Caltech expresses concern that “implants of putting something in the body turned out to be a much different game even in a mouse. It is much more complicated environment that we thought”. But, the pathway of discovery is extremely rich. The skill gaps to identify exposure health and environmental risk potentials calls for similar approach. The latter has been recognised by regulatory bodies, and officials, aiming at ensuring “a high level of protection of human health and the environment”. REACH and NNI are under enormous pressure to compile Environment, Health and Safety EHS information and turn them into workable computational and statistical power for figuring out measures of human exposure toxicity.

Nonetheless, Nanoparticles have always been present in nature. “If we consider atmospheric dust alone, estimates indicate about one billion metric tons per year are produced globally” (Kellogg and Griffin 2006). http://www.springerlink.com/content/940g431151604721/.

Oxford University’s David Pyle’s multidimensional research on volcanic nanoparticles found trace-metals flying thousand miles away from the source. http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~davidp/

Even so, omnipresent in nature, nanoparticles require classification of whole new categories for their diverse functionality, dynamic, structure and size. These gaps are to be eventually filled by combining in vivo findings from behaviours of Nanomaterials already present in consumer goods with in vitro research results to take accurate account of nanoparticles behaviour toward life.

Nasrin Azadeh-McGuire
Post Graduate Nanotechnology,
Begbroke Science Park, Oxford University


References:

Big Picture on Nanoscience
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Professional-resources/Education-resources/Big-Picture/Nanoscience/index.htm

Dobson P, Centenary Lectures, University of Oxford, 6 May 2008
www.eng.ox.ac.uk/events/centenary/programme.html
www.isis-innovation.com/documents/Dobson-precisandbiographicalnote.pdf

Canton, J., 2004 'Designing the future - NBIC technologies and human performance', Coevolution of Human Potential and Converging Technologies, vol 1013, pp. 186-198.

Nanotechnology KTN, Knowledge Transfer Networks,
http://mnt.globalwatchonline.com/epicentric_portal/site/MNT?mode=0

Goddard W et al, (2007), Handbook of Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, Taylor & Francis

Oxford Centre for Integrative Systems Biology, OCISB, News (2008), University of Oxford leads cystic fibrosis research with Mac.
http://www.sysbio.ox.ac.uk/newsevents/index.html

Nel A, Xia T, Li N (2006). “Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel”. Science Vol 311:622-627

Service R, Report Faults U.S. Strategy for Nanotoxicology Research, Science, Vol 322, 19 Dec 2008, p 1779, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5909/1779a

NTP (National toxicology Programme) Nanotechnology Safety Initiative,http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=7E6B19D0-BDB5-82F8-FAE73011304F542A

REACH and the regulation of nanotechnology, http://www.safenano.org/Uploads/NanoREACH.pdf

By Erika Morphy, TechNewsWorld, IBM, Academics Seek to Create a Computer That's More Like Us, http://www.technewsworld.com/story/65237.html

http://icon.rice.edu

http://www.safenano.org/nanoREACH.aspx

Prof Jim Heath at Caltech, Woodrow Wilson nano-programmes
www.nanotechproject.org
http://www.penmedia.org/podcast/nano/Podcast/Entries/2008/8/29_Episode_5_-_Creating_Tomorrows_Tools_Today.html