Artery Clearing Micro-bot Demonstrated
South Korean researchers at Chonnam National University have created a tiny robot that is capable of traveling through the bloodstream to clear arteries.
This is not a nanobot. It operates at a much larger scale - it is slightly less than a millimeter in size.
Perhaps it should be called a micro-cyborg. The bot's locomotion is powered by heart tissue cultivated from the patient. This means that there is no need for a cumbersome battery pack. It runs on the same ATP -> ADP chemical reaction that the rest of the body relies on.
Phil and I discussed how practical it would be to power in-body bots this way in our last FastForward Radio show.
This bot can move 55 yards a week and dispense artery clearing meds where they are most needed.
Faster, please.
Comments
For once, I am in full agreement with Stephen. Yes, please faster with this. My father died of a CVA (stroke) earlier this month, and such technology might have saved his life and his mind.
-JIm
Posted by: Jim Strickland![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 23, 2007 04:32 PM
Do we have any kind of security framework or minimal failsafe? Is there a protocol for eliminating them? Or for preventing conflicts between bots used for different purposes or from different companies? Will GSK bots actively kill Pfizer bots? Of course not today - but what about next generation inter-arterial bots? After all, their primary mission is to eliminate threats to health, right?
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for the advancement of science and technology, especially if it can be used for good. I am just wary of the 'go faster' attitude when we don't have clearly stated procedures for not just reasonable safety, but to guarantee safety.
Posted by: MikeD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 24, 2007 09:34 PM
I'm completely in the "go faster" camp. MikeD's questions are good ones, but you never get answers unless you push research and development.
In my view , the future will not be a Utopia nor an apocolypse. It's going to be a lot like the present, but faster and more complicated.
Posted by: Acrinoe![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 25, 2007 11:12 AM
Mike:
Medicine has never been about guaranteeing safety. It's always been about improving the odds.
Yes, I imagine that there will be significant risks associated with in-body bots. The question is whether the benefit they confer is worth the risk.
Acrinoe:
Good philosophy. You don't have to be a Utopian to be an optimist. Which is good, because Utopians always get it wrong. Sometimes dangerously wrong.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blog.speculist.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 25, 2007 11:59 AM