Slashdot Log In
Nanotech and the Blind
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:46 AM
from the waiting-for-my-HUD dept.
from the waiting-for-my-HUD dept.
tomsastroblog writes "In a BBC report scientists injected blind hamsters with a solution containing nanoparticles. The result? Nerves re-grew and sight returned. The researchers injected the blind hamsters with a solution of synthetically made peptides; within 24 hours the brain started to heal itself. The peptides were later broken down by the body into a harmless substance and was excreted three to four weeks later. From the article: 'We are looking at this as a step process. If this can be used while operating on humans to mitigate damage during neurosurgery, that would be the first step,'"
Related Stories
[+]
Nano Tech. Spurs Continued Health Concerns 20 comments
* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Yahoo is reporting that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is working hard to develop guidelines for working with nanomaterials. There have been no proven health risks due to nanomaterials but Pat Roy Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group (an Ottawa-based non-profit that studies the impact of technology on people and the environment) was quoted saying that "No one knows, and that's the problem." Some feel that continued research and testing is needed to understand the nano-age before continuing to jump with both feet.
[+]
Technology: Responsible Nanotechnology Interview 65 comments
cynical writes "WorldChanging has a lengthy interview with Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, a non-profit group helping to make sure molecular manufacturing is developed as safely as possible. In the article they talk about their policy task force (which includes folks like Ray Kurzweil, David Brin, and Jaron Lanier), the risks and benefits of nanofactories, and why open source is so important to the responsible development of nanotechnology."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
iPod NanoBots (Score:5, Interesting)
After injecting the hamsters with a solution containing nanoparticles, the nerves re-grew and sight returned
This is pretty advanced. So why did Jordy have to wear that stupid visor?In order to try to restore quality of life to those individuals you can try to reconnect some disconnected parts to try to give some functionality
I guess John Bobbit could've used this as wellOn a serious note though, this seems really amazing. It's basically neuro-knitting a damaged brain back in place.
I wonder if this can somehow treat brain defects due to developmental problems. Disorders such as Schitzophrenia [schizophrenia.com] can be treated with a frontol lobotomy (although this is only done in extreme circumstances) where they disconnect nerves the front part of the brain. I wonder if they can use this technology to reconnect it in a way that will act as a treatment (sort of "rewiring").
They will no doubt look to see if it can heal the lesions from myelin deteriation caused by diseases like Multiple Sclerosis [nmss.org]. I think the fact that brain tissue regenerated in adult hamsters that weren't supposed to grow new brain tissue gives some promise to that. I know that Parkinson's disease also affects the nervous system, but I believe its caused by some kind of cellular failure. Nevertheless, this looks like some very promising research!
--
"Man Bits Dog
Then Bites Self"
Re:iPod NanoBots (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this is an old fallacy. Research over the past decade has indicated that adult brains do actually continue to grow [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re:iPod NanoBots (Score:3, Interesting)
Geordi was, I think, blind from birth. This wasn't fixed early on, and so his visual cortex therefore never developed to process input. Even if they had fixed his eyes, he still would not have been able to "see" images like the rest of us (this really happens). His air filter (okay, fine, VISOR) was designed to interface with the central sensory processing center of his brain (I forget what this region is called), providing additional input which
Re:iPod NanoBots (Score:5, Funny)
The prop guys probably had a bet going to see if that guy from Reading Rainbow would wear a banana clip on his face.
Parent
Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
Funding? Claim they're eliminating the need to use embryonic stem cells.
Both? Claim it's due to the power of prayer, and everyone should send in five dollars.
Parent
Scientific progress is amazing (Score:5, Funny)
I hope these cures can be adapted for humans too.
Re:Scientific progress is amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting point, and I certainly think the parent is worth some mod points...
The common joke I hear when I talk to oncologists is "I can cure cancer in any mouse," and there's a point to that: plenty of treatments show a lot of promise in the mouse model, only to not pan out when tried in humans. The mouse model is a good starting point for research, but it's not always a great predictor of human response. -- Paul
Parent
Re:Scientific progress is amazing (Score:5, Funny)
My hypothesis is that the responses would be the same. To test this, go to Disneyland and kick Mickey Mouse in the crotch. Then, kick a comparably-sized human male in the crotch. Note the similarities in the response.
Parent
Re:Scientific progress is amazing (Score:3, Funny)
I tried, but I couldn't find any human males with such gigantic heads...
Re:Scientific progress is amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
The next question: Why are we starting with mice if we can't always use promising developments on humans? Wouldn't that be a huge waste of initial effort and expectations?
That's a great question. In part, it's a matter of ethics: you can't try out new ideas on human beings. Also, mice breed and grow quickly, which makes them faster to try new ideas on. But as stated, they aren't a great predictor. Another interesting thought (and one I don't have much insight on) is that perhaps some ideas that don't work out for mice might actually work in humans but are prematurely rejected. (i.e., if false positives are possible, shouldn't false negatives also be possible?)
This touches on my work, in part; I'm a mathematician working on increasingly detailed computer models of cancer to see if we can eventually get a better and faster model than the mouse model. It's also a lot easier to control the experimental conditions on a computer. :)
If you're interested in these kinds of questions, I'd recommend also checking out some BusinessWeek articles from about a year ago, where they talked about the state of cancer research. Their conclusion was that the biggest roadblock today is the mouse model. I don't remember the exact citation, but I could dig for it if you are interested. -- Paul
Parent
Re:Scientific progress is amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Mouseus
Eat the Blue cheese and see just how deep the mousehole goes.
Welcome to the mouseterix....
Parent
paralysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Chicks dig scars, but nerves don't (Score:5, Informative)
Much of the permanence of nerve damage is due to scarring, which creates a barrier that nerves can't heal across. If you cut the nerve and put this gel into the wound within 45 minutes, it apparently helps the healing process. The reason? Minimizing scarring: [guardian.co.uk] Of course, this doesn't mean it's a useless discovery. If you have to perform surgery, say tumor removal, injecting this gel may promote growth in any nerves you may have just cut.
Re:Chicks dig scars, but nerves don't (Score:3, Insightful)
The clock's ticking (Score:4, Interesting)
The good news is that there's lots of research going into nerve regeneration and repair. Things like nerve growth factors, removing mylein-induced inhibition, and stem cells are all promising fields.
It'll be interesting when people's brains can be kept alive for long periods of time by replacing or modifying large chucks of it. When do I stop being really me?
Parent
Beyond sight (Score:5, Interesting)
"The first thing we saw was that the brain had started to heal itself in the first 24 hours. We had never seen that before - so that was very surprising."
Hopefully this means this it could be used in the peripheral nervous system as well, to heal severed sensory neurons, or perhaps even spinal cord injuries. Too bad Christopher Reeve won't be around to see that.
Neat but not quite there yet... (Score:5, Informative)
1.) Such procedures are useless for fixing old damage, scar tissue build up physically prevents nerves from "having a place to grow into". Additionally, large gaps are still impossible, so for big lesions or paternally using a surgical procedure to prep a site to regenerate will not fly. You cant just cut out the chunk of "damaged goods" and let it regrow fresh. So unless you use this trick as the article suggests at the time of injury ( surgery time perhaps), before scar forms you have ) chance of help.
2.) The other problem is one of myelination, the insulation around the axon on each motor nerve. Adult tissue lacks the ability to produce significant amounts of myelin to sheath nerves. Fetal stem cells cant, but not adult tissue. So it is likely that any nerves grown this way will be de-myelinated and not at all good for good signal transmission. Incidentally, one common type of de-myelinated nerve is the sensory nerve. just imagine, fix a arm amputation this way and i bet you will get VERY weal motor control, and potentially full or malformed sensory information due to the very good regrowth of random sensory nerves (think life long chronic pain). This side effect has been seen in a number of spinal injury patients given experimental stem cell treatment in china (right location I think).
3.) Of course proteins are small, nano even, but how is this "Nanotech". This would be more like "Biotech", ahh well the rain of buzz words to sell ideas shall continue unabated.
Medicine absolutely amazes me sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
The REAL story (Score:3, Funny)
We're doomed! Borg mice, who'd'a'thought it!
Sam
not nanotech! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not nanotechnology.
The scientists injected peptides. Short strings of amino acids. The same stuff that comprises every protein in our bodies. So how is that nanotech? Simply because molecules are on the nanometer scale? Then I guess that makes all electronics pico- or femtotechnology.
Don't listen to the bullshit article's vocabulary--there's a more appropriate word for what they're doing, and it's called MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
My first thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like how "No Child Left Behind" can be true, so long as everyone is held back equally.
Great science... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to play the thinker's advocate, though. It is important to understand the other side of this... blind culture, much like deaf culture, is a distinct means of life - one that doesn't think that blind (or deaf) people are "broken" in some way. Yes, folks with all five of their senses tend to look at those with less-than-five as though something is "wrong" with them. But, from the perspective of a great many blind and deaf people, they're not "broken" or "impaired" at all. Indeed, in some places, the deaf and the blind communities celebrate their different-ness and have wonderful, productive lives. You can see a few starting points here at this simple Wikipedia article: Wikipedia article on deaf culture [wikipedia.org].
With all that said... if indeed this technology leads to folks (that want to see (or see again)) having new or regained sight, then I'm really interested in this. I'd like to see this technology extended to nerve damage, spinal repairs (particularly spinal injury repair).
Better description (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually what happened is this: the tracks in the visual cortex were severed and then a biodegradable peptide solution was injected into the damaged area in the brain, which created a 3d matrix of that allowed new cells to the edges in the matrix thus reconstructing the actual cell connections rather than producing scarring tissue.
This process can be applied to damaged areas of the brain or nerves in the spinal cord.
I think this brings the humans one step closer to immortality - imagine using stem cellls and these peptides to reconstruct damage of the brain and the nerve system that is caused by aging and/or trauma.
Re:Aerosol isn't all that great (Score:3, Insightful)
Hrm... Wouldn't it be easier to cultivate Anthrax or make Nerve Gas for military applications?
Well truth be told aerosol attacks are highly ineffective for military applications.