Cell targeting

By | January 4, 2016

Cancer is certainly a dreaded condition. And this approach – targeting cancer cells with intelligent nanobots that recognize protein signatures and release the right drug in response – could certainly help provide a more beneficial treatment alternative. But what does the payload actually contain, and how accurate is the targeting mechanism? Creating an auto immune condition certainly wouldn't be nice.

Or more importantly, how certain are we that the bots are safe, robust enough to avoid self destruction and remaining non manipulated during therapy, and exiting the body after therapy?

/via +IdeaFaktory

DNA nanobots will target cancer cells in the first human trial using a terminally ill patient

13 thoughts on “Cell targeting

  1. Artie Richard

    We're approaching the age of trans-humanism. Personally, I look forward to it. Technology could make us so much more than human.

    Reply
  2. Sophie Wrobel

    +Frank Nestel The problem of where to draw the line is such a common question, that there's actually a tick-the-checkbox-and-sign-the-form legally recognized template (at least in Germany) available for you to set your own line in case you happen to fall in a state in which you are unable to communicate your own will (e.g. a coma) – just to make it very clear what you will and will not accept: http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Patientenverfuegung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7

    It's actually quite an interesting document, if you go around to thinking about all the conditions and situations in which you would and would not want which technological assistance. And thinking towards the future, it's only going to get more complicated, when we someday will also start seeing clauses like 'Do not allow my brain to succeed my physical body'.

    Reply
  3. Frank Nestel

    +Alexandra Preston must be hard to get something to eat these days. And, seriously, where to draw the line, earrings, piercings, fillings in your teeth, nails to fix a broken bone, ruptured ligament, pacemaker? Of course there is an security aspect, but when things can help, I'd rather use it.

    Reply
  4. Alexandra Preston

    I don't want anything artificial inside me. It is my right to choose and that is final, because I say so 🙂 I am going into natural antiaging because that is my choice.

    Reply
  5. Sophie Wrobel

    On the plus side: hackable hardware means that making your own bots will be a reality. And that means a relatively inexpensive, diy longevity (or cancer cure) kit!

    That said, we all have individual choices to make concerning our own treatments. And when technology can safely help us, it is fair to include it in the list of possible cures – together with the open risks.

    Reply
  6. Haseeb Akram

    The way they introduced, nanobots are medicines not machines & the way you dislike machines indicates that a cancer cure is a choice between a you & a not you

    Reply
  7. Alexandra Preston

    I am interested in immunotherapy….nanobots can be hacked, immunotherapy drugs and natural medicines that it can work with are hack-proof. I'm not putting machinery inside me, it's not me, it can be hijacked by anyone willing to learn how. I could learn to hack, even.

    Reply
  8. Haseeb Akram

    i think that cancers need a special cure & a very much concentrated to affected cells. The concept of nanobots & similar approaches need to be investigated as a right response for cure instead of treating. Any single property (other than rapid multiplication) needs to be established & it should be with such a sensitizer which operates only in rapid multiplication to assist immunity to combat it. Common sense suggests this cure but tremendous research is required for success.

    Reply
  9. Artie Richard

    I think the day will come when we'll all have nanobots in our bloodstream. They'll repair cells and do all sorts of things and life expectancy will be quite long. Any research of this type is a step in that direction. So even if this study proves flawed it is still necessary.

    Reply
  10. Sophie Wrobel

    The first trial is on a terminal patient, yes. But the goal is to have non-terminal trials, and ultimately a cure, in the future decades. And sooner or later we will get technology to work as designed – and hopefully clean up after itself too. That's what I hope comes out of this small beginning in the long run!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.