Gregor Wolbring on metagenomics

Metagenomics is a term coined a decade ago for a field that has taken off in recent years, mostly due to advances in information, sequencing, and data analysis and mining technologies (see here).

The New Science of Metagenomics: Revealing the Secrets of Our Microbial Planet by the Committee on Metagenomics: Challenges and Functional Applications, U.S. National Research Council, is a book one should read if one is interested in the field. It describes metagenomics as follows: “Metagenomics in either sense will probably never be circumscribed tightly by a definition, and it would be undesirable to attempt to so limit it now, but the term includes cultivation-independent genome-level characterization of communities or their members, high-throughput gene-level studies of communities with methods borrowed from genomics, and other “omics” studies..., which are aimed at understanding transorganismal behaviors and the biosphere at the genomic level.”

The book envisions collaborations among academic disciplines including: atmospheric, ocean, soil, and water studies; geology; medicine; veterinary science; agricultural science; environment; and bioengineering. Metagenomics offers a means of solving practical problems facing humanity in earth sciences, life sciences, biomedical sciences, bioenergy, bioremediation, biotechnology, agriculture, biodefense and microbial forensics.

Metagenomics enables the study of the 99 percent or more of microbes that have never been cultured and might not be cultured. According to the committee that published the book, the 12 members of the USA Microbe Project -- the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior US Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation along with the CIA and the FBI -- are the federal agencies likely to benefit further from advances in metagenomics.

In 2005 scientists, physicians, industry representatives, and administrators from funding agencies in Asia, the Americas, and Europe met in Paris met to discuss human metagenomic applications such as the human intestinal metagenome, and the International Human Gut Metagenome Initiative was born. Since then, more human applications have appeared.

SOURCE: http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2009-01-15.htm

Synthetic Biology 4.0 by Gregor Wolbring October 15, 2008 http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-10-15.htm

My very first column published in May 2006 was called Synthetic Biology 2.0, named after the 2006 conference of the synthetic biology community. I wrote the following year about the Synthetic Biology Conference 3.0 that took place at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2007. This provided an opportunity to reflect on what happened between the two conferences. I would like to reflect now on the Synthetic Biology 4.0 conference that took place on October 10-12, 2008 at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

According to the conference webpage, “The mission of Synthetic Biology 4.0 is to bring together researchers who are working to:

• design and build biological parts, devices and integrated biological systems
• develop technologies that enable such work
• place this scientific and engineering research within its current and future social context”

The goal of placing scientific and engineering research in synthetic biology in its “current and future social context” is interesting. What does that mean, and what do the synthetic biology researchers see as the current and future social context?

Tidbits from the conference agenda include: “Cosmetic Production in Escherichia coli,” “Can We Build Biological Systems in Mammalian Cells with Predictable Properties?”, “Self-Sustainable Biosolar Cells Based on Bacterial Photosynthesis and Respiration.” “Engineering Living Systems for Nanotechnology,” “Chemical Synthetic Biology,” Synthetic Biology and the Pharmaceutical Industry” (by Jeff Way of Merck Serano), “Nanomedicine,” “Live Bacteria HIV Therapy.” “Rice Engineering,” and “Limits for Life on Earth.”

Biofuel was covered in many presentations, which does not come as a surprise.

A few bloggers have already written about the conference. In Synthetic Biology 4.0 – Not so live blog, part 1, Rob Carlson states: “At just over 600 attendees, SB 4.0 is more than twice as big as even 3.0, with just under half the roster from Asia.” He highlights the desktop gene printer as technically feasible, and believes that a prototype could be built within eight weeks. He also draws attention to other work presented at the meeting, including work on SARS and the artificial chromosome. More write-ups are to come in a few days.

Andrew Maynard wrote about the conference on his blog sharing his sense that “threaded through everything is this feeling of a grass-roots movement that truly believes that it can change the world from the bottom up.”

There are short references to the conference on Jonathan Cline’s 88 Proof Synth Bio Blog.

Surprisingly, the Nature blog and molecular system biology blog, which provided day-by-day coverage last year, have published nothing so far this year. Readers may want to monitor them for future references.

The NGO ETC Group hosted a panel on the Global Societal Impacts of Synthetic Biology in this year’s conference. It wrote about the conference on its blog, reflecting on what is different:

“In some ways it’s a far cry from two years ago when civil society was turned away from the same Syn Bio confab meeting in California. On that occasion we had to resort to an open letter to prevent a disastrous self governance proposal going ahead. Those two years have changed nothing and changed everything. For the synthetic biology community themselves an unprecedented influx of commercial interest and funding has transformed Syn Bio into the new ‘IT’ industry for investors (Synvestors?). BP, Shell, General Motors, Du Pont, Chevron, Cargill, ADM, Marathon Oil and Goodyear are among the Fortune 500 firms now palling up with synthetic biology firms. BP even sunk 600 million dollars buying up access to University of California Berkely’s Syn Bio labs while also buying into Craig Venter’s Synthetic Genomics Inc and the trickle of oil company executives to head up Syn Bio start ups is beginning to look like a small flood”..... “At the same time unfortunately nothing has changed when it comes to governance. Despite a smattering of reports, meaningful progress on establishing accountable oversight of Synthetic Biology has stalled and doesn’t look likely to start moving again any time soon. The Syn Bio express is steaming ahead with corporations firmly in the driving seat and no limits or terms and conditions set by society.”

Nanoenergy

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-09-15.htm

NANOENERGY

Gregor Wolbring

I have covered nanosolar before. In this column I will highlight generic nanoenergy, starting with the late Nobel laureate who received the award for his work on buckyballs. According to Richard Smalley, humanity’s Top Ten Problems for next 50 years are: (1) energy; (2) water; (3) food; (4) environment; (5) poverty; (6) terrorism and war; (7) disease; (8) education; (9) democracy; and (10) population.

In a 2003 talk, he foresaw the following shift in energy generation and demand between 2003 and 2050…

Energy has been seen for a while as one of the main areas nanotechnology should tackle.

According to a 2006 Nano energy conference: “There is a growing awareness that nanoscience and nanotechnology can have a profound impact on energy generation, storage, and utilization by exploiting the significant differences of energy states and transport in nanostructures and macrostructures. Nanotechnology-based solutions are being developed for a wide range of energy problems such as: solar electricity, hydrogen generation and storage, batteries, fuel cells, and thermoelectrics.”

“From energy saving to revolutionary approaches” was the tagline of the Nano Energy 2008 conference. The conference materials elaborated: “Today, nano-materials are the foundation for a fast-growing approach to energy saving. Indeed, nanotechnology offers the ability to enhance many key properties of energy technologies to achieve sustainability and secure the future energy supplies.”

The European Nanoroadmap Synthesis Report prepared for the European Commission stated: “Modern society is heavily depending on energy and any progress in this field is affecting a very large spectrum of sectors which are important for the EU policy as, for example, security and diversification of energy supply, climate changes and pollution, industrial competitiveness and sustainable growth.”

It identified 10 areas of Nanoenergy applications and examined four in the report:

• solar cells;
• thermoelectricity;
• rechargeable batteries and supercapacitors; and
• heat insulation and conductance.

A report from Cientifica -- “Nanotechnologies for the Automotive Energy Markets” -- indicates that the primary impact of nanotechnologies will be in more efficient use of existing resources, rather than the creation of new supplies from solar and hydrogen based technologies.

The report concludes that:

• The most immediate opportunities lie in saving energy through the use of advanced materials and this is already a $1.6 billion dollar market, predicted to rise to $51 billion by 2014
• Despite advances in battery technology, hydrogen storage and fuel cells, energy saving technologies will exhibit faster growth, accounting for 75% of the market for nanotechnologies in 2014, up from 62% in 2007
• The adoption of energy generation technologies is highly sensitive to geopolitical factors and consumer acceptance, while energy saving technologies exhibit no such problems
• Solid state lighting, nanocomposite materials, aerogels and fuel borne catalysts will have the greatest impact between now and 2014
• Compound annual growth rates are 64% for energy saving technologies and 90% for energy generation, while energy storage applications show a comparatively lowly 30%.
• Applications in transportation will increase to $50 billion by 2014 with a CAGR of 72%

Nanoenergy does not come without challenges, however. The European Nanoroadmap outlines timeframes to 2015 for the development of solar cells, thermoelectricity, rechargeable batteries and supercapacitors, and heat insulation and conductance. Challenges, barriers, and bottlenecks are identified.

A presentation at a meeting at Rice University in May 2003 outlined the following Energy Nanotech Grand Challenges:

• Photovoltaics -- drop cost by 100 fold
• Photocatalytic reduction of CO2 to methanol
• Direct photoconversion of light + water to produce H2
• Fuel cells -- drop the cost by 10-100x + low temp start
• Batteries and supercapacitors -- improve by 10-100x for automotive and distributed generation applications
• H2 storage -- light weight materials for pressure tanks and LH2 vessels, and/or a new light weight, easily reversible hydrogen chemisorption system
• Power cables (superconductors, or quantum conductors) with which to rewire the electrical transmission grid, and enable continental, and even worldwide electrical energy transport; and also to replace aluminum and copper wires essentially everywhere -- particularly in the windings of electric motors and generators (especially good if we can eliminate eddy current losses)
• Nanoelectronics to revolutionize computers, sensors and devices
• Nanoelectronics based Robotics with AI to enable construction maintenance of solar structures in space and on the moon; and to enable nuclear reactor maintenance and fuel reprocessing
• Super-strong, light weight materials to drop cost to LEO, GEO, and later the moon by > 100 x, to enable huge but low cost light harvesting structures in space; and to improve efficiency of cars, planes, etc.
• Thermochemical processes with catalysts to generate H2 from water that work efficiently at temperatures lower than 900 C
• Nanotech lighting to replace incandescent and fluorescent lights
• NanoMaterials/ coatings that will enable vastly lower cost of deep drilling, to enable HDR (hot dry rock) geothermal heat mining
• CO2 mineralization schemes that can work on a vast scale, hopefully
• starting from basalt and having no waste streams

Molecular manufacturing

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-08-15.htm

MOLECULAR MANUFACTURING
Gregor Wolbring

The term ‘nanotechnology’ was used first to describe a way to manufacture something from atomic molecules (such as the food replicator in many science fiction films where, when one says “coffee,” the machine synthesizes the coffee molecule by molecule) (1; 2). In 2000, nanotechnology became linked to nanobots and nanoreplicators (3). Many use the term in the very narrow meaning of nano material sciences. It is also used to mean ‘nanoscale technology’ and nanoscale sciences covering ‘nanotechnology’ R&D products, ideas and processes with controlled size below 300nm (some say 100nm) (4; 5).

The original meaning of the term has been altered, and now ‘nanotechnology’ is generally known as molecular manufacturing or molecular nanotechnology (4). The International Organization for Standardization Technical committee 229 on Nanotechnology (ISO/TC229) that produces standards for classification, terminology and nomenclature, basic metrology, calibration and certification, and environmental issues related to nanotechnology uses the following definition:

1. Understanding and control of matter and processes at the nanoscale, typically, but not exclusively, below 100 nanometres in one or more dimensions where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications, where one nanometre is one thousand millionth of a metre,
2. Utilizing the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter, to create improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these new properties (6)

The ISO/TC229 business plan states:

“Nanotechnology is expected to evolve through four overlapping stages of industrial prototyping and commercialization. The first stage, already begun, involves the development of passive nanostructures: materials with fixed structures and functions often used as parts of a product. Products containing nanomaterials already in the marketplace mainly involve manufactured nanoparticles (metal oxides, quantum dots, carbon nanotubes, etc.) serving as raw materials, ingredients or additives in existing products. The second stage, also already begun, focuses on active nanostructures that change their size, shape, conductivity or other properties during use. For example, drug-delivery particles that release therapeutic molecules in the body when they reach their targeted diseased tissues. The third stage (projected to begin around 2010) will see the further development of expertise with systems of nanostructures and the directing of large numbers of intricate components to specified ends (for example, the guided self-assembly of nanoelectronic components into three-dimensional circuits and whole devices). In the fourth stage (projected to begin around 2015-2020), nanotechnology will expand to include molecular nanosystems --heterogeneous networks in which molecules and supramolecular structures serve as distinct devices. Computers and robots could be reduced to extraordinarily small sizes.” (6)

The ISO/TC229 uses a definition first promoted by the International Risk Governance Council 2006 nano white paper (7). This definition covers all the different nanotechnology definitions used so far, including the original one now called ‘molecular manufacturing.’

******

The jury is still out on whether the Star Trek food replicator will appear. If the move toward atomic commodities (molecular manufacturing) takes place, it is logical to expect a change in the nature of the commodity market and, in the end, in local, regional and global trade.We could also expect a change in labour force requirements and labour relations, and many other areas that are linked today to trade.

We often disregard research that does not offer concrete near-term results as “science fiction,” and question its feasibility. However, using a science fiction or “it-won’t-be-possible” argument with respect to molecular manufacturing or any other research with long term timelines is short-sighted and problematic. It leaves us unprepared in the event of a scientific breakthrough. It prevents us from taking a hard look at what the consequences of success would be, what societal changes it would precipitate or require, and what safeguards it would necessitate.

The neglect of taking a foresight look at possible developments is often justified by stating that there is enough time to deal with the product when it becomes feasible. That sentiment depends on a long lag phase between the scientific breakthrough and deployment of the market-ready product, so we can prepare ourselves for the consequences. This reality seems to be less and less true.

I call this it-will-not-happen dynamic the ‘Berlin Wall Syndrome’ (11). Prior to 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall was seen as impossible by most, and the discourse around German reunification reflected that belief. West Germany (in particular) and the rest of the Western World (more generally) were totally unprepared for the dismantling of the Wall.

Molecular nanotechnology or molecular manufacturing is treated as such a wall. Hardly anyone develops plans for the eventuality that this wall will fall, which leaves us unprepared for the disruptions which will inevitably appear in trade and other areas if and when it falls. The Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology (12) and the Foresight Institute for Nanotechnology(13) are the main promoters of molecular manufacturing. And while they do consider its social impact, the consideration is limited, and the people involved in the governance of molecular manufacturing are a narrow group of potential stakeholders -- making it a problematic discourse.

The choice is yours to get involved in the governance of molecular manufacturing, so plans are in place to deal with it, in case the vision becomes a reality.

Gregor Wolbring is an ability governance, science and technology governance, disability studies and health policy scholar. He is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences, Program in Disability Studies and Community Rehabilitation. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Adjunct Faculty, Critical Disability Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the Review Board for the journal Review in Disability Studies; Member of the International Editorial Advisory Board for the journal Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and is a regular contributor to the What Sorts of People blog.

Nanotechnology, transhumanism and the bionic man

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=5848.php

Nanomedical and bionic products that could directly improve sensory, motoric and other functions cover all aspects of the human body. A 2002 report by the U.S. National Science Foundation ("Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance"; pdf download, 5.9 MB) describes several nanotechnology-based areas for the improvement of human health and capabilities in the next 10-20 years. These visions go far beyond the current implant technologies (bionic ears and limbs, neural and retinal implants, artificial muscles, nanotechnology skin for prosthetic arms, etc) under development:

Nano-Bio Processor – A device for programming complex biological pathways on a chip that mimics responses of the human body and aids the development of corresponding treatments. An example would be the precise “decoration“ of nanoparticles with a tailored dosage of biomolecules for the production of nanomedicines that target specific early biomarkers indicative of disease. Self-Monitoring of Physiological Well-Being and Dysfunction Using Nano Implant Devices – One outcome of combining nanotechnology with biotechnology will be molecular prosthetics – nano components that can repair or replace defective cellular components such as ion channels or protein signaling receptors. Another result will be intracellular imaging, perhaps enabled by synthetic nano-materials that can act as contrast agents to highlight early disease markers in routine screening. Through self-delivered nano-medical intervention, patients in the future will be able in the comfort of their homes to perform noninvasive treatments autonomously or under remote supervision by physicians. Nano-Medical Research and Intervention Monitoring and Robotics – Nano-enabled unobtrusive tools will be invaluable for medical intervention, for example, nanorobots accomplishing entirely new kinds of surgery or carrying out traditional surgeries far less invasively than does a surgeon’s scalpel. Brain-to-Brain and Brain-to-Machine Interfaces – One goal is to establish direct links between neuronal tissue and machines that would allow direct control of mechanical, electronic, and even virtual objects as if they were extensions of human bodies. Researchers are already closing in on this sci-fi sounding scenario.

"'Enhancement medicine' is a new field providing remedy through surgery, pharmaceuticals, implants and other means that increasingly will blur the boundaries between therapeutic interventions and performance/ability enhancement" says Wolbring. "In the transhumanist enhancement model the notions of disease prevention, public health, healthy community, health promotion and the actions they entail, all change substantially."

Putting permanent, especially nanotechnology-enabled, body enhancements into a broader societal context, the issues of their (legal or illegal) use in sports becomes almost trivial. Wolbring says that the sport regulatory system is not prepared for what is coming. It appears that not only the general legal system but all levels of our society are not prepared either.

Anti-Aging, Longevity and Immortality

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-03-15.htm

Anti-Aging, Longevity and Immortality Technology by Gregor Wolbring March 15, 2008

Anti-aging research is booming. References to a number of anti-aging exhibitions and conferences can be found on the web. And here is a link to one that happened last year in my own province.

Aging is a concern to South Korean policy makers. The country has increased its funding for anti-aging research. The Korea Times mentions the work of Kim Tae-Kook, a professor at the state-run Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology who has created a newly synthesized small molecule that enables human cells to avoid aging and makes cells younger. The article states that “Kim expected that the CGK733-empowered drugs that keep cells youthful far beyond their normal life span would be commercialized in less than 10 years.” I could list Anti Aging research efforts happening in numerous countries, including China.

The Immortality Longevity-Industry Dec-07 Institute has just published a set of essays on the issue in a book called The Scientific Conquest of Death (PDF). Terms used in the extreme longevity discourse include: ‘cyber-immortality,’ ‘emancipation from death,’ ‘involuntary death,’ ‘immortal-ism,’ and ‘immortal-ist morality.’

The book states “Is it possible that scientists – or at least humankind – will conquer the blight of involuntary death? If so, to what extent will we succeed? What is in fact possible today, and what do the experts predict for the future? Is such a thing as ‘immortality’ feasible? Moreover, is it desirable? What would it mean from a political, social, ethical and religious perspective? This book will help to explore these questions.”

The book discusses biological theories of aging and biomedical strategies to counter it. It talks about alternative approaches such as medical nanotechnology, digitalization of personhood, and cryobiological preservation. It addresses questions that arise if radical life extension becomes a reality. Would it create overpopulation, stagnation and perpetual boredom? How would it change our society, our culture, our values and our spirituality? If science allows us to vastly extend our life span, should we do so? Although the book is written from a ‘we want it’ perspective, it allows for some insight into the debate.

There are many other places where this research is being pursued.

Aubrey de Grey -- one of the most visible people in the field of extreme longevity research – provides insight on ‘Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence’ on the website of the Methuselah Foundation, which he chairs.

De Grey tries to proactively deal with concerns people might have with his focus on extreme longevity research. He covers Overpopulation; Immortal Tyrants; Only the Rich; First Things First; Playing God. And others: I don't even want to live to 1000; I'm too old to have any chance of benefiting; we should focus on curing disease and feeding the starving first; let's become better people first – we don't deserve long lives; we should focus on postponing frailty, not death; life is already long enough to do the full range of what life offers; we'd be denying future generations the right to be born; this wouldn't be saving lives, it would be extending lives; we'd forget so much about our youth that we wouldn't be the same person.

I leave it for the reader to decide whether he effectively addresses these concerns or whether the arguments to dismantle these concerns will lead to other problems.

For people who want to read more, I have written an article called “Should We 'Cure' Aging? A Reply to De Grey” that was published in Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology. It responds to Aubrey De Grey's article called “Life Span Extension Research and Public Debate: Societal Considerations.”

I have responded to some of the arguments De Grey uses to justify the research and why it should have top priority -- especially his argument that extreme life extension research should take priority over increasing the quality of life and health of aging people within today’s typical life span. I have also described three visions of what immortality could look like and the questions they raise.

Nanotoxicology

Gregor Wolbring

February 28^th 2008

I covered some what I see as the start of the nanotoxicology debate in my recent column Nano-cosmetics, sunscreen and personal care . There I observed that “the Nanoparticle toxicology debate appears to have started with sunscreen. The nanoformulated titanium dioxide available in sunscreens captured the attention of NGO’s and led to a number of significant questions being raised.” I emphasized in that column that the investigation of the toxicology of nano particles is not new but that the term used in earlier investigations was not "nanoparticles" but "ultrafine particles." I listed some ultrafine particle toxicology research papers in that column. The column presented here covers the field of nanotoxicology and its future in more detail. I will cover the broader Environment, Health and Safety of Nanotech in a future column.

A number of review article and bibliographies on nanotoxicology that are worth reading are online (1-11). Some are free. The Journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology is an open access journal with many articles on the biological effects of Nanoparticle. A non open access journal is the journal Nanotoxicology. A paper which summarizes some Risk Asessment Studies of Nanomaterials in Japan and Other Countries can be found here. The fact that Nanotoxicology is an important agenda for many people is seen in the many conferences and forums that focus on this topic. The 1st Nobel Forum mini-symposium on nanotoxicology was held 2007 in Stockholm, Sweden (12). An International Conference on Nanomaterial Toxicology organized at Lucknow by Industrial Toxicology Research Centre and Indian Nanoscience Society ICONTOX 2008, took place in Lucknow, India, February 5-7, 2008 (13).The 2nd International Conference on Nanotoxicology will take place in Switzerland on 7-10, September 2008. The Nanorisk Conference , which will take place in October in Paris France, will among others look at the methodologies used to estimate toxicity.

READ THE REST: http://www.politicsofhealth.org/wol/2008-2-29.htm

Nano South Africa

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-02-15.htm

Nano South Africa by Gregor Wolbring February 15, 2008

In this column I will outline the state of Nano South Africa. South Africa plays a crucial role in the introduction of new and emerging sciences and technologies in the sub-Sahara, and developments there influence how new and emerging sciences and technologies are perceived in sub-Sahara Africa and in Africa in general.

I have just returned from a visit there. A lot has changed since I talked about nanotechnology for the first time in 2002. There are also new developments in synethic biology, which I will deal with in a Synbio 4.0 column to be published later this year.

The World Nano-Economic Congress (WNEC) South Africa 2007 took place recently, presented by the Department of Science and Technology of the Republic of South Africa, and Cientifica, a leading nanotechnology consultant group. WNEC South Africa is the eighth international event in the series since it first began in Washington, D.C., in 2003.

Nano aerospace

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2008-01-15.htm

Nano-Aerospace by Gregor Wolbring January 15, 2008

Nanoscale will increasingly have an impact on numerous commercial, military and space aero-applications.

A NATO lecture series has been developed on nanotechnology aerospace applications. Interestingly, a paper published in 1999 covered the application of molecular nanotechnology in aerospace.

The Open-Site free internet encyclopedia has a write-up about the purpose, needs, problems and solutions of nanotechnology research for aerospace.

The most complete publicly available report on nanotechnology applications in non-military aerospace was published recently by the Nanoforum. It says this Nanotechnology in Aerospace report “presents a concise introduction and contribution to the expert debate on trends in nanomaterials and nanotechnologies for applications in the civil aeronautics and space sectors in Europe and explicitly excludes any military R&D and applications.”

The following table reports timelines and expected trends. Table entries refer to chapters in the report.

Level of integration	0-5 years	5-10 years	>10 years
Societal boundary conditions for nanotechnology in aerospace	Current treaties and regulations guide nanotechnology R&D (ch8)	More stringent regulations incl. EHS regulations require (nano) innovations in aeronautics (ch3)	Global & national aims: space exploration & exploitation (ch6)
	Nanotoxicology and occupational nanosafety research ongoing (ch7)		Aircraft passenger numbers will increase by 5%/year until 2023 (ch3,6)
Impact of nanotechnology in aerospace on society	Need to start life cycle analysis & exposure scenarios for aerospace applications of nanomaterials (ch7)	Need action to stimulate EHS benefits of nanotechnology for aerospace (ch7)	Nanotechnology applications in aerospace will enable new activities and require changes in legislation (ch8)
		Nanotechnology applications in aerospace will enable new activities and require changes in legislation (ch8)
Economic factors affecting nanotechnology uptake in aerospace	Space budgets amount to billions of euros per year (ch6)		European public and private aeronautic R&D funding €100 billion by 2020 (ch6, EU STAR21)
	EU stimulates SMEs in space sector (ch6)		2023: 16,601 new aircraft needed, market size €1.48 trillion (ch6, Airbus)
Technical system	Nano/picosatellites (ch4)	Russia: new reusable spacecraft (ch6)	ESA: new systems, architectures & technologies to reinvent design of space missions (ch6)
		Satellite on chip, autonomous satellites swarm (ch4)	Aircraft weight half of current conventional (ch3, NASA 2001)
			Space elevator, colonisation, autonomous nanorobot swarm (ch4)
Technical subsystem	Black box using nanosensors, CNT based electronic noses; CNT based lab on a chip/biochip (ch4)	2015: fuel cells for onboard aircraft systems (ch3, Boeing, ch4)	Quantum devices for information management (ch4)
		Battery using nanoelements, quantum dot solar cells, drug delivery, CNT based imaging instruments (ch4)
Material / component	2009: apply metallic materials in mass markets (ch2, Lux 2006)	Industrial scale Severe Plastic Deformation process for metallic nanomaterials? (ch2)	2020: over 163 million kg nanomaterials in composites, value $2 billion (ch2, Freedonia, 2006)
	2006: 62 patented inventions of nanotech for aerospace (ch6)	Need for lighter, stronger materials for aeronautics (ch3)	2020: 40% of nanoclay/CNT polymer composites will be applied in aerospace (ch2, Freedonia, 2006)
	Clay-polymer nanocomposites for flame retardant panels and high performance components in aerospace (ch2)	CNT filled polymer composites (ch2,4) CNT reinforcing coatings, CNT in transistors, CNT based memory, MRAM (ch4)	Smart materials, bio memory (ch4)
	Nanoparticles reinforcing polymers and composites, nanoparticles in propellants (ch 4)	High performance polymer nanocomposite resins (ch2)
		Smart textiles (ch4)

Nanotechnology is everywhere, and every area deserves our attention. Advances made in nano related to aerospace will find their way into other areas and vice versa. It is essential that every area be monitored -- for its own sake and for its potential impact on other fields.

Nanoscale Drug Delivery Systems by Gregor Wolbring December 15, 2007

I covered nano-pharmaceuticals in my October 15 column. In this one, I have highlighted advances in different nanoscale material-based carrier systems for drugs (nanoscale or otherwise). I’ll cover nanodelivery-related patent issues in February 2008. Nanoscale material based drug delivery systems are a lucrative market and advances are happening quickly.

Flynn and Wei estimated that annual prescription expenditures in the United States were $117 billion in 2000 and that this would grow to $366 billion by 2010, “making nanomedicine applications for drug delivery an attractive market for manufacturers and investors.” (1)

A recent report titled “Innovation in Drug Delivery: The Future of Nanotechnology and Non-Invasive Protein Delivery” says: "Drug delivery is one of the most dynamic and fast-growing sectors of the pharmaceutical industry. The high level of innovation in this sector is evolving at a fast pace.”

Cientifica -- one of the oldest nanotechnology consulting firms -- projected in its report “The Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Market” that the total market for nanotechnology-enabled drug delivery will rise to $26 billion by 2012 from its current size of $3.39 billion -- a compound annual growth rate of 37%. But the report says this is just the beginning: “the market could steeply rise after 2012, reaching potentially $220 billion by 2015 for these nano-enabled compounds.” More than 60 different companies are covered, including 38 engaged in drug formulation and 23 in drug delivery.

A number of recent conferences have been held on this subject. The Ninth Annual Chinese-American Kavli Frontiers of Science Symposium covered polymeric nanopharmaceuticals among other topics. The fifth nanomedicine and drug delivery symposium took place in November in Boston. The symposium program is located here.

Researchers have made many recent advances in nanodelivery technology:

• Mitragotri and others have attached polymeric nanoparticles to red blood cells, which might become a new way to deliver drugs. The research appears in the July issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology and Medicine.
• Anan Yaghmur, Michael Rappolt, Peter Laggner and Shuguang Zhang have reported the formation of dynamic nanostructures of lipid-like peptides which provide new strategies to create systems with excellent potential for a variety of biotechnological applications such as the encapsulation of water-insoluble drugs and delivery of biologically active materials.
• U.S.scientists have developed an unusual nano-centered drug delivery system in which the drug itself acts as the delivery vehicle. The process is described in detail in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics.
• Researchers in France have developed a simple way to make inorganic microspheres that could be used to carry and release drugs.
• Researchers led by Sangeeta Bhatia at Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology and in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science have published a paper called “Nanoparticle Self-Assembly Directed by Antagonistic Kinase and Phosphatase Activities,” which is about remotely controlling nanoparticles used to fight cancer (see here and here).

There are many useful information sources online:

• A variety of videocasts related to nanodrug delivery can be found here, here and here.
• Biomedical applications and current status of peptide and protein nanoparticulate delivery systems can be found here
• Methods for preparation of drug-loaded polymeric nanoparticles can be found here.
• A review of dendrimers -- one class of nanoscale drug carriers -- can be found in a 2006 issue of the journal Nanomedicine. Other coverage of dendrimers can be found here and here.
• An overview of the development of novel nanoscale delivery and targeting systems of genetic material -- especially those encoding osteogenic (bone) growth factors -- can be found here.
• Typing in nanocrystals -- another group of nanoscale drug carriers -- here generates over 245 review articles.
• Papers on nanocrystals can be found here. Other write-ups can be found here.
• A presentation by Ruth Duncan of the Centre for Polymer Therapeutics, Welsh School of Pharmacy, Cardiff University, references numerous nanodrugs and delivery systems.
• The website of the summer school on women-in-nano links to a paper by P. Calvo with the title “Liposomes, dentrimers and other drug delivery systems: nanomedicine and industrial view.”

These are just a few snapshots of recent research in nano drug-delivery systems. Conducting research in this area makes sense. Studies have shown that existing drug delivery systems are less than perfect. In 2000, 15% of all hospital admissions (see here) were due to adverse drug effects, with 100,000 deaths (see here). Adverse drug effects have resulted in $136 billion in healthcare costs (see here and (2)).

Drug delivery is a rapidly expanding subsection of the market for therapeutic drugs. The report “Advanced Drug Delivery: Technologies, Applications, and Markets” estimated that the global drug delivery market would be worth $20 billion in 2003. However, in 2002, the market already represented about 13.5% of global pharmaceutical sales ($53.8 billion) and by 2007, it is expected to account for 39%. Growth in this market, the Nanoforum Consortium reports, will continue at an average annual rate of 11%.

A 2006 report “Effective Licensing & Commercialisation of Drug Delivery Systems” by Pharmaventures identifies the following market drivers as important for the development of drug delivery systems: improving the therapeutic index, patient compliance, patent prolongation, and life cycle management. Product differentiation and the promise of a drug discovery revolution are other drivers.

The Choice is Yours

In a 2001 report, the Premier's Advisory Council on Health in the Canadian province of Alberta recognized the existence, potential, and problems of emerging drug delivery systems. The context paper "What factors drive costs in health care" (see here or contact me and I’ll send you a copy) stated: “Nanorobotics, liposome technology and other exotic delivery systems will improve treatments but raise costs significantly.”

So what to do? We need to ask a few questions. How do we govern the development and uptake of nanodelivery systems? Are there any safety issues with these systems? What about the cost? Can a health care system afford them?

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Disability, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

Resources

Flynn, Ted; and C. Wei. The pathway to commercilization for nanomedicine (2005). Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 1, 1 47-51. Johnson, J.A.; and J. L. Booman. Drug-related morbidity and mortality. A cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med. 1995; 155:1949-56.

Please contact the author for information on this reference or for additional future references at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca

iGEM

The International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition by Gregor Wolbring November 15, 2007

I mentioned iGEM briefly in my Synthetic Biology 3.0 column. It deserves more coverage, which I would like to provide here.

iGEM is a competition which tries to address the question: “Can simple biological systems be built from standard, interchangeable parts and operated in living cells? Or is biology simply too complicated to be engineered in this way?”
Its broader goals include:

• enabling the systematic engineering of biology;
• promoting the open and transparent development of tools for engineering biology; and
• helping to construct a society that can productively apply biological technology

iGEM tries to answer this question and achieve these goals by hosting a yearly competition where student teams design and assemble engineered machines using advanced genetic components and technologies. The competition has taken place three times so far, and it is growing. In 2006, 36 teams from around the world participated. In 2007 the number increased to 56.

The 2007 IGEM competition concluded in November, and prizes were awarded for the following categories:

• foundational research: basic science and engineering research;
• information processing: genetically encoded control, logic, and memory;
• energy: biological fuels, feedstocks, or other energy projects;
• environment: sensing or remediation of environmental state;
• health and medicine: applied projects with the goal of directly improving the human condition;
• best BioBricks part;
• best foundational technology enabling synthetic biology; and
• best model or simulation.

The winners were:

• foundational research: Paris;
• information processing: Peking;
• energy: Alberta, Canada;
• environment: Glasgow;
• health and medicine: Slovenia;
• best BioBricks part: Cambridge and Melbourne;
• best foundational technology: USTC; and
• best model or simaultion: Bangalore.

The best poster award was given to Berkeley and Calgary, and the best presentation award to ETH-Zurich. The Grand Prize was won by Peking.

The project of Paris university was about the engineering of the first synthetic multicellular bacterium. Glasgow designed a self-powering electrochemical biosensor, called ElectrEcoBlu. Alberta genetically engineered Escherichia coli bacteria to convert biomass into butanol for use as an energy source.

The team from Slovenia generated a synthetic system of antiviral defense against the HIV-1 infection that is not sensitive to viral mutations. Melbourne used light to form a solid fluorescent mass of E. coli where two light beams intersect in a suspension of cells. They called their building system "coliforming." Cambridge among others constructed a "chassis" out of a Gram-positive bacterium, into which genetic engineers can add BioBrick parts and control circuits.

University of Science and Technology China USTC “provided a new method for building up a fully extensible bio-logic circuit in bacteria.” Bangalore did a proof-of-principle project. Calgary engineered E. coli so they release a protein called agarase when one shines a light on them. Agarase dissolves the agar medium in which the bacteria rest. The system can be used to dissolve images into agar plates and create very high resolution pictures.

Berkeley developed a cost-effective red blood cell substitute constructed from engineered E. coli bacteria. Their system is designed to safely transport oxygen in the bloodstream without inducing sepsis, and to be stored for prolonged periods in a freeze-dried state. ETH-Zurich designed E. coli that can be trained to memorize and recognize their environment in the future.

The descriptions of these projects referenced above are in the language of their respective webpage.

I have paraphrased Peking's description of its project as follows:

Our projects deal with the ability for bacterial cells to differentiate out of homogeneous conditions into populations with the division of labor. The objective is to create devices conferring host cells with the ability to form cooperating groups spontaneously, and to take consecutive steps sequentially even when the genetic background and environmental inputs are identical.

Two devices are required, that are respectively responsible for temporal and spatial differentiation. These will lead to bioengineering where complex programs consisting of sequential steps (structure oriented programs) and cooperating agencies (forked instances of a single class, object and event oriented) can be embedded in a single genome.

Although this "differentiation" process resembles the developmental stages of a multicellular organism, we use a bioengineering analogy: the assembly line. Some years from now, perhaps, this will not be just an analogy.

The Choice is Yours

Synthetic biology (the bottom-up design and creation of living matter) and molecular manufacturing (the bottom-up design and creation of non-living matter) will change our basic concepts of how society functions, if indeed they are able to deliver what their proponents are promising. iGEM is yet another indication that synthetic biology is both thriving and global, and that it deserves much more publicity than it has actually received to date.

I will deal with molecular manufacturing in a future column.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Disability, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

Nanofármacos

Nanopharmaceuticals by Gregor Wolbring October 15, 2007

Nano -- especially in its nanoscale meanings (see my column “From Nanotech to Nanoscale Technology and Sciences”) -- plays an increasingly important role in medicine (see my nanomedicine and nano cancer treatment columns). Pharmaceuticals also play a big role. I will explore nanopharmaceuticals in this column, nano-drug delivery systems in November, and nano-related patent issues in December.

The term “pharmaceutical nanotechnology” first appeared in the National Library of Medicine database PubMed in 1999. The Albany College of Pharmacy has set up a Center for NanoPharmaceuticals. Others will follow, I am sure.

In 2004, the editorial “Pharmaceutical nanotechnology: A new section in IJP," the International Journal of Pharmaceutics highlighted a number of areas in pharmaceutical sciences that use nanotechnology:

• drug discovery, including combinatorial chemistry and synthesis on the molecular and macromolecular scale;
• nanoanalysis, including bioanalysis using miniaturized probes, microarrays, and lab-on-a-chip approaches;
• body fluid approaches;
• drug delivery systems having sizes in the nanometer range (e.g. liposomes, nanoparticles, microemulsions, dendrimers);
• implantable devices that can sense blood levels and automatically administer drugs;
• nanoscale biomaterials including biomimetics;
• biological macromolecules (e.g. proteins, enzymes, DNA- and RNA-based nanostructures, molecular assemblies, biomolecules, cells, biochips);
• molecular sensors and biosensors, clinical diagnostic techniques; and gene delivery and expression.

Polymeric nanopharmaceuticals were the topic of a recent Ninth Annual Chinese-American Kavli Frontiers of Science Symposium.

According to the market research portal Infoshop, the market for nanopharmaceuticals will grow from $406 million in 2004 to $3 billion in 2009 and $16.6 billion in 2014. The USA National Science Foundation estimates that half of all drugs will be made with nanotechnology by 2010.

A recent article in Nanotechnology Law and Business highlighted the first three nanodrugs Emend® ,Tricor®, Rapamune®, approved by the FDA. The 2006 report of the Lux consulting firm -- quoted by Pharmadevices.com -- states: “As of mid-2006, 130 nanotech-based drugs and delivery systems and 125 devices or diagnostic tests are in preclinical, clinical or commercial development.”

Physorg.com reported in 2005, ”While only two kinds of nanoparticle therapies against cancer are now clinically available in the United States, roughly 150 more lie in various stages of development... The combined market for nanoenabled medicine (drug delivery, therapeutics and diagnostics) will jump from just over $1 billion in 2005 to almost $10 billion in 2010.”

It is less clear what counts as nanodrugs. Some include liposome-based drugs as nanodrugs. (For nanoparticle-related nanodrugs see the pdf here.) Many drugs with a variety of delivery systems are called nanodrugs today. I think this terminology may leave some with the false impression that nanodrugs are nothing new and they are not worth special coverage. Nanodrugs are new, and indeed nanoformulated drugs are seen as having various advantages over existing drugs, such as increased solubility and bioavailability, ability to cross biological barriers such as the blood-brain barrier, better half-life and imaging, and better ways of targeting the drug. These advantages also create the possibility of toxic side-effects, overdosing and other issues that need to be considered. However, safety is only one concern with respect to nanoformulated drugs.

The Choice is Yours

It is clear that a growing number of nanoformulated drugs will appear. However, there is more to the issue than an increase in nanoformulated drugs. Drugs of any kind are big business -- and that’s nothing specific to nanoformulated drugs. In previous columns, I covered the dynamic of medicalization in high-income countries, the consequences of focusing on medical fixes for neglected diseases, and the impact of medicalization in low income countries.

In one of my publications (pdf) I covered a number of issues I think need to be considered in addition to safety issues:

• Growing use of existing drugs is seen by the health system as the number one cost driver for drug expenditures.
• In Canada, increased drug spending is a consequence of the volume of drug use and the entry of new drugs that are typically introduced to the market at higher prices.
• Prescription drug spending can be attributed to increased use of existing drugs (50%), sales of new drugs in their first full year (32%), and price increases of existing drugs (18%).
• Drugs are both over-utilized and inappropriately used.

A recent Forbes article used data collected by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality -- a US government organization charged with assessing where Americans' health care dollars are spent -- to conclude: "Of the ten fastest-growing diseases ranked by percentage increase in cost, only one was caused by an increase in the cost of care per patient whereas in the other nine the cost increased because more and more people were diagnosed."

So what to do? The choice is yours.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Disability, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.