
Nanorobots That Can Travel Down the Bloodstream and Precisely Target Tumors - azazqadir
http://sciencenewsjournal.com/scientists-created-nanorobots-can-travel-bloodstream-precisely-target-cancerous-tumors/
======
cm3
Anytime we get practical implementations of ideas of the past by scientists
and engineers working on it despite cutbacks in funding, I wonder where
humanity would be if we at least halved the money spent on state-funded
violence and similar counterproductive activities. Flying cars, deep sea
habitats, space habitats, clean energy, hair style robots, fully coordinated
jam-free personal traffic.

~~~
apatters
And this future would be even less evenly distributed than the one which
exists now, which would lead to even more unrest which the state might try to
quell with even more violence. So let's spend a quarter of the money spent on
state-violence on future tech, and another quarter on health, education,
liberty and peace in the developing world. I think on some level the Bill
Gates philanthropist types are doing their charity because they realize that
if the future moves too far and too fast then the bottom half just might rise
up and destroy it.

~~~
yomly
Can't upvote this enough. I was recently at a talk by Kenneth Cukier from the
Economist and he discussed how our economic climate is similar to the early
days of the industrial revolution - inequality is increasing as jobs are being
eroded by technology. In the short term, this actually causes problems as a
whole generation are essentially displaced by technology and are not able to
reskill, but in the long term the next generation inherit the right skill base
to benefit from the new trajectory of civilization and mass prosperity is
achieved.

The problem is that individuals often cannot see the bigger picture. It also
does not necessarily follow that individuals benefit from aggregate wealth
creation. If you are unemployed (by technology) and can no longer feed
yourself or your dependents why do you really care that goods are now
available cheaper and can be delivered 247: _you still can 't afford them_. If
in your lifetime technology only brought starvation upon you, why should you
care that future generations will benefit. Last I checked, we are not
indoctrinated from young to be altruistic martyrs for humanity nor do I recall
that being a basic human instinct either.

So displacement is a somewhat inevitable outcome from mass technological
disruption. It's very easy to champion progress when you're on the winning
side, and ultimately progress is important. It falls to the powerful (the
wealthy like Gates and Zuckerberg) and nation States to protect the interest
of all citizens to make sure everyone's basic rights are still preserved.
Especially over trasitory eras such as the current one.

~~~
kncukier
Hey - thanks for the nice words. The talk builds on work I'm doing for my
upcoming book on AI.

A link to the video of the talk is at:
[https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/strata-
hadoop...](https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/strata-
hadoop/9781491944639/video249103.html)

If you'd like to read more on the topic, the book Big Data is at
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009N08NKW/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009N08NKW/)
(or a synopsis, for free, is at
[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2013-04-03/rise-
big-...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2013-04-03/rise-big-data))

Have stories to tell about how AI is changing business and society? Please
reach me via twitter at @kncukier

Thanks!

~~~
dmix
Thanks for the links. Is the video posted elsewhere? Only a preview was
available at that Safari link.

------
astazangasta
By 'nanorobot' they mean bacteria.

>We show that when MC-1 cells bearing covalently bound drug-containing
nanoliposomes were injected near the tumour in severe combined immunodeficient
beige mice and magnetically guided, up to 55% of MC-1 cells penetrated into
hypoxic regions of HCT116 colorectal xenografts. Approximately 70 drug-loaded
nanoliposomes were attached to each MC-1 cell. Our results suggest that
harnessing swarms of microorganisms exhibiting magneto-aerotactic behaviour
can significantly improve the therapeutic index of various nanocarriers in
tumour hypoxic regions.

So they load these little guys up with drug and use magnets to guide them into
the tumor, which kind of works in SCID mice, although you'll note they make no
claims about ability to actually kill or shrink tumors.

This news piece is awful, incidentally, but what else is new.

~~~
chewymouse
Unfortunately, the original article is inaccessible both from a paywall
standpoint ($32 at
[http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano...](http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html))
and also from a technical standpoint.

~~~
iak8god
It is available on sci-hub [http://sci-
hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137](http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137)

------
yomly
This is pretty cool research, from what I can recall hypoxic tissue is hard to
treat for three reasons:

1\. It is hard to detect 2\. Hypoxic tissue is hard to access as there is
little blood supply 3\. Hypoxic tissue is hard and physically robust

So according to this release, the work done here should help to address the
issues of hypoxic tissue.

Is anyone with deeper subject knowledge able to discuss the viability of this
research: how much is hype? Are there any risks or weaknesses to this method?
How commercially viable is it to mass produce this?

~~~
Aelinsaar
Not an expert, but #2 you bring up is pretty valid. Aside from directly
administering a drug or agent, there is a reliance on the circulatory system
to carry drugs to their targets. As for risks, any time you introduce a bunch
of little things into the blood, that are likely (or possibly might) gather
together, you have a potential risk of a stroke.

------
Gatsky
I wish these articles wouldn't turn up here. Although this sounds cool, the
chance of having an impact on actual patient care is miniscule. This is a very
complcated delivery system at the end of the day. We have enough trouble
giving one drug and managing toxicity successfully, let alone this controlled
nano infection cocktail. Also hypoxia isn't as tumour specific as you think,
off target toxicity is a problem.

I don't think anyone will be cured by this and it will no doubt cost an
absolute fortune.

~~~
Trill-I-Am
What about in 30 years?

------
hashkb
This is the cancer treatment of my childhood dreams.

~~~
nutheracc
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage)

------
amenghra
Science catching up with sci-fi?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage)

~~~
ptaipale
That was exactly my first thought as well. It was a movie that definitely
carved itself to my memory (though I saw it only on TV some time in early
1970's, no movie theatres around my place)

------
khoury
Interesting comments regarding this on reddit:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientis...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientists_have_created_nanorobots_that_can/)

~~~
ajmurmann
Yes, like linking to the original:
[https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-
nanorob...](https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-nanorobots-
target-cancerous-tumours-precision-262058)

------
CommanderData
Haven't we already had this for a long time? Targeted drug delivery using Nano
technology? A lesser complicated version and less of the sci fi but the
technology has been here and proven for a long time with some FDA approved
drugs already. Most of the drugs are still in trial but targeted drug delivery
looks promising.

------
uklenny
There's an interesting Tedex with a similar outcome but different nanobot
cancer approach -
[http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_the_fight_against_cancer?language=en)

------
wuliwong
Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? Any idea of the
increase in the effectiveness of cancer treatments using this technology? I
read the article and skimmed the paper but didn't get an idea of whether or
not this technology is on a clear path to being a medical option for cancer
patients.

~~~
valarauca1
The paper:
[http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano...](http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html)

    
    
        Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? 
    

At the earliest a decade. Effectiveness of the treatment wasn't evaluated.
Just the delivery mechanism. This things are kind of a toss up, because this
isn't a _drug_ per say, but a _delivery method_.

It's pretty cutting edge tech. But if the right $$$ is behind it potentially
see us in 5-10 years. But this would cost a load, and require a lot more
researches be involved. This is before we even get to human trials.

Generally a drug/therapy isn't going to make it _to market_ until the research
teams spins off, or joins a bio-med startup. Then its 3-5 years away. Bio-med
startups normally front the huge testing costs, then simply sell the
patent+FDA approved drug to a large phrama firm for a HUGE pay off.

------
Aaronontheweb
I remember reading Prey by Michael Crichton as a teenager and wondering if the
nanobots he described there could be used to "eat" a tumor, like leaf-cutter
ants gradually moving bits of material in a pipeline from one place to
another. Glad to see that kind of idea realized in my lifetime.

------
scottlocklin
I love how they're calling bacteria "nanorobots." Why not call them bacteria?

------
zubairq
Is this real? I hope so

