Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#11

Post by XorNot »

ramraj07 wrote: post #8
andrewl wrote: post #2

Is there anything besides ( massive ) engineering challenges standing between more advanced devices like this physically eating away at cancerous tumors in the same way physicians use special maggots for wound debridement?

It's still not a given that we have universal markers for cancers; cancers evolve in each patient in a variety of ways, making it hard to come up with a single protocol that works for everyone. Hence lots of work is needed on the biology part.

It's not clear we need universal markers though. We need that for targeting with things like drugs. Cancer in general though kills by physically impinging on or resource starving other body systems. There's a certain amount of "we know it when we see it" to that (and we're pretty good at seeing it).

If you could direct a swarm of micro-robots towards the sites of metastasized cancer growths (which kill you because we can't go in and cut them all out without killing the patient from the surgery) then the prognosis would change substantially.

The holy grail would in essence be, having a system which can get to all the places cancer can, at the same sorts of size scales cancer operates - rather then needing to be in the limited range of things we can surgically intervene on.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#12

Post by groby_b »

polishdude20 wrote: post #9
giantrobot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could be powered by little rectennas, think RFID tag. Hit the bots with a radio frequency and it indict a charge and they power on and do their thing. Turn the radio off and they go inert. So they could be injected into a tumor and powered by an external radio source. In they're only powered by light a fiber optic filament could be injected in the activation site. So long as the light passes through enough tissu…

Hard to do that when the antenna size is correlated with the frequency you can use. Tiny micro bots would need really high frequency signals

Gamma rays would work well. We can keep the existing radiation treatment equipment.

/sarcasm

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#13

Post by joe_the_user »

sxv wrote: post #5

Not the headline we need to quell the vaccine conspiracy theories..

Yeah, it's sad that this stuff has stopped being an incidental thing but rather a large factor in a lot of people's (mis)thinking. I don't know exactly what scientists should do about this.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#14

Post by ridgeguy »

willcipriano wrote: post #4
andrewl wrote: post #2

Is there anything besides ( massive ) engineering challenges standing between more advanced devices like this physically eating away at cancerous tumors in the same way physicians use special maggots for wound debridement?

Can we get batteries that are small enough and powerful enough to do it? This example is powered by lasers, it looks like they have to shoot a laser first at the front legs then again at the back legs in order to get it to walk. If we are able to shoot a laser at the robot walking on the tumor without damaging the surrounding tissue, why not just shoot it at the tumor?

Could alternate laser colors: green for front legs, red for back. Tailoring molecules for specific wavelength response is old tech.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#15

Post by gnramires »

andrewl wrote: post #2

Is there anything besides ( massive ) engineering challenges standing between more advanced devices like this physically eating away at cancerous tumors in the same way physicians use special maggots for wound debridement?

Calling those robots is a bit misleading, because they lack self-control. Control logic we know is large for very small robots. If you want a micron-scale robot you only get about 100 transistors for its "intelligence"[1]. There are certainly things it could do, but probably not autonomously navigate, map and recognize tumors.

We just don't have the expertise for those kinds of thing, at least not yet. A plethora of sensors (that can detect cancerous cells) and this sort of technology would be needed. We'd essentially be trying to create artificial cells, a monumental task nature took billions of years in refinement (even if we can find shortcuts sometimes) -- too many very complex systems (energy, better sensors, better movement inside the body, "cognition", etc.).

Maybe in 50 years of continued research? 100 years? I don't know.

[1] The state of the art is about 100 transistors per square micron. This assumes you could drive and interface with them adequately. Cells accomplish all they do without any transistors at all, it's all protein-based sensors and DNA-encoded behavior, I believe.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#16

Post by andrewl »

gnramires wrote: post #15
andrewl wrote: post #2

Is there anything besides ( massive ) engineering challenges standing between more advanced devices like this physically eating away at cancerous tumors in the same way physicians use special maggots for wound debridement?

Calling those robots is a bit misleading, because they lack self-control. Control logic we know is large for very small robots. If you want a micron-scale robot you only get about 100 transistors for its "intelligence"[1]. There are certainly things it could do, but probably not autonomously navigate, map and recognize tumors. We just don't have the expertise for those kinds of thing, at least not yet. A plethora of…

Maybe the route toward what I'm envisioning (and hoping for) is genetically engineered or enhanced cells. Modify and existing system that already does a lot instead of trying to recreate a cell from the ground up.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#19

Post by jszymborski »

andrewl wrote: post #16
gnramires wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling those robots is a bit misleading, because they lack self-control. Control logic we know is large for very small robots. If you want a micron-scale robot you only get about 100 transistors for its "intelligence"[1]. There are certainly things it could do, but probably not autonomously navigate, map and recognize tumors. We just don't have the expertise for those kinds of thing, at least not yet. A plethora of…

Maybe the route toward what I'm envisioning (and hoping for) is genetically engineered or enhanced cells. Modify and existing system that already does a lot instead of trying to recreate a cell from the ground up.

We've been making artificial cells for quite some time, but they're purpose is more of a model than anything else. A way for us to study what happens when you take away everything and just start from the very basics.

What you're talking about sounds more like artificial tissues and organs, which is an active area of study, although I don't immediately see how we might "engineer-out" cancer. There exists a world in which we develop tissues that age slower, but the more likely (not that it's happening anytime soon) scenario is very cheap organs that we can swap out for ours.

Re: Scientists build army of a million microrobots that fit inside hypodermic needle

#20

Post by jb775 »

sxv wrote: post #5

Not the headline we need to quell the vaccine conspiracy theories..

By vaccine conspiracy theories, I'm assuming you mean the aspect about microchips secretly being added to vaccines. But doesn't it actually add validity to the technological aspects of these concerns when a newly published paper details successfully adding 1 million microchips capable of injection into the human body? How wouldn't it?

Obviously this doesn't touch on the nefarious underpinnings of the vaccine debate, but in what other scenario would presentation of new research validating the technological capabilities of something be a reason to scoff at? Sounds like a classic case of cognitive dissonance where you've been presented with fresh evidence that adds support to something contrary to your beliefs but are disregarding what's actually been presented and instead are digging your heels in.

Post reply on HN