The Future of Nanobiotech Predicted 130
Quadraginta writes "Aharon Hauptman and Yair Sharan of the Interdisciplinary Center for Technology Analysis and Forecasting (ICTAF) at Tel Aviv University recently presented the results of a survey of 139 researchers on the future of nanobiotech. The presentation itself is only available as a PDF file, but there is a brief news announcement from the ICTAF. Interestingly, Hauptman and Sharan asked for -- and got -- specific predictions from the experts of the year in which various nanotech marvels will appear. For example, the experts say we can look forward to biosensors capable of detecting a single molecule by 2015, the direct construction of artificial human organs by 2020, and the use of nanomachines inside the body for diagnosis and therapy by 2025."
It will have small beginings.. (Score:3, Funny)
10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, that was a good analogy.
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:3, Interesting)
Artificial intelligence, i.e. thinking machines, are always about 10 years away. They have been for years.
That's not quite true. AI used to be always 50 years away. Not that that means much, of course. I believe we still have no idea what it is we're actually looking for, and keep redefining it (people used to think that a computer playing chess would be AI).
The speed of innovation is increasing all the time, so our feeling of "some time in the future" is getting shorter. In ten years AI will probably b
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
That's one of the theories behind how the human brain works, and it's the "randomness" in it that I feel is sorely lacking from current static neural network thinking.
More info: link [quantumconsciousness.org]
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree at all. Human brains work by neurons firing in specific patterns, in specific ways, in extremely huge numbers and with complicated interneuron connections. There is no quick fix to knowing how the brain works, since it's not a simple thing.
That said, even if the brain relied on some quantum effect, I find the idea that just building something completely different that also relies on a quantum effect (a quantum computer) and just letting it run (doing what?) to be pretty bizarre.
The main problem to solving "true AI" remains _defining true AI_. You can't solve a problem if nobody can say what the actual problem is.
It is about processor power too. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup, we have to understand better how minds work. Or at least enough to make a copy of them.
And then we also need the processor power equal to that of the brain too. It could well be argued that the Internet crossed that line quite some time ago. But the structure of the Internet is not even close to mind-like. Though there are possibilities...
At any rate, what gets interesting is that we've just recently crossed that same line with "single" entities like the IBM BlueGene supercomputer cluster.
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:2, Interesting)
If they succeed, they hope to create a Singularity, a point at which we have no ability to predict what lay beyond, sheerly due to the intelligences involved.
Defining AI (Score:1)
Re:Defining AI (Score:1)
Artificial intelligence already exists. It will become *actual* intelligence when it can program and reprogram itself.
~Trajik
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
Well said. Most attempts to achieve true machine intelligence boil down to "we don't know how this works, but if we throw enough processing power/memory/neural net nodes at it, maybe it'll start to think". These brute force attempts are not particularly elegant, but in some cases they do teach us some things (much like particle accellerators do) to better define t
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:2)
The only reason the main character discovers that the computer he is dealing with might be sentient is because it asks questions that it should have no business asking - like, "What's funny?". Sentience by acci
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:2)
I think I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
As a "nano" researcher myself, I have started to almost think the tide is turning the other way. We have lots of momentum, but I no longer think we are accelerating.
Of course, it all depends on your measure. If you just count number of journal pages printed, or number of scientists researching, things seem hunky-dory. However, if you multiply that by the value of that information, it shrinks substantially. Science has become exceptionally incremental, and we are advancing via zerg-style attack rather than leaps and bounds.
At least from my position here on the inside, I feel that these estimates are quite optimistic.
Re:I think I disagree (Score:2)
I thought that was the point. :)
Naah, I am a chemist (Score:2)
Darned engineers got it all backwards.
Re:I think I disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I think I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest holding onto your ass, as pharmaceutical companies are about to start blasting new useful products. You need to remember that what we see in a lot of industries is on a time lag. It takes a bare minimum of 10-15 years to create a drug from scratch and get it through the FDA. Think about that for a moment. The drugs being released today come from before the Internet was being widely used. The fruits of these efforts are already starting to become clear. My father for instance probably just tacked an extra 10-20 years onto his life with new cholesterol lowering drug. Things are only going to get better.
Everything is shrinking at an accelerated rate. The amount of information that we have access to is expanding exponentially. As a culture, we are so used to change that we are utterly blind to it when it happens. 5 years ago I knew only one or two people with cell phones, and those people rarely used them. I recall having friends who swore they would never own one of those damn things.
Just the other day I ran into the first person I have met in the past year under the age of 50 who doesn't own a cell phone. This guy came to a gathering of about a dozen people that I was throwing. We were crowded in my living room when someone asked what his cell phone number was so they could coordinate meeting up the next day. The guy said he didn't own a cell phone. That statement brought conversation in the room to a dead stop. The group then spent a few minutes trying to figure out how in the hell you coordinate meeting at a park if you can't use a cell phone. In this group, there were people that just 5 years ago swore they would never use a cell phone. Now, they have to struggle to remember how meet up with someone without using a cell phone.
As a culture we are desensitized to change. We don't suffer from 'future shock' as some futurist thought we would. As new things come we roll with it very well. Show a guy from 1990 the year 2006, and he would be awed. True, we don't have floating cars or cool looking buildings. A city street today looks roughly like a city street from 15 years ago. What a person from 1990 WOULD notice right away is the fact that everyone owns a cell phone. They would be blown away by how trivial it is to get knowledge simply by using the Internet. The speed and power of our computers, or games, and our MP3 players would be unlike anything they could have imagined possible. They would recognize that socially technology is changing how we interact at a blistering rate.
Things are accelerating very quickly. There might be a limit or a set of breaks out there somewhere, but it sure as hell isn't in sight right now. The best is without a doubt yet to come.
Re:I think I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
In the field of nanotechnology there are many barriers to progress. One of the main ones as mentioned above is accurate measurement (metrology) of the substances and products which are being manufactured. The recent advances
Re:I think I disagree - war on cancer, etc (Score:2)
Nanotech, that is, real molecular, bottom-up technology, will make real medicine possible for the first time ever. But not in 20 years. 50 maybe.
Re:I think I disagree (Score:1)
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
>> 10 years away. They have been for years.
>
> That's not quite true. AI used to be always 50 years away. Not that
> that means much, of course. I believe we still have no idea what
> it is we're actually looking for, and keep redefining it (people
> used to think that a computer playing chess would be AI).
For god's sake, according to science fiction, by 2006 I should have long since been taking my flying car home fro
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:1)
Re:10, 15, 20 years away? (Score:2)
Flat-screen TVs are just 10 years away! (Score:1)
I've always wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems pointless to make specific predictions, such as Technology X in Year Y. Might it not be better to simply steer our unwieldy technology, as well as we can, in a generally sensible direction?
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:5, Insightful)
Funding.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
Exactly.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect this is because they research rather than speculate, and they believe in their predictions enough that they flesh them out by writing detailed descriptions of what life would be like after their predictions come true.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. However they do not seem at all good at predicting the when as well as the what. They have 'tech X' but not the 'year Y' part.
Self-fulfilling prophecy? (Score:2)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
It's because their loyal followers with super-huge brains have nothing better to do than try and create the tools of the future. Think about a little kid recreating a fight scene they saw on TV. They think it's cool and want to reenact so they can be cool.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2, Insightful)
Predictions are ideas so they affect people's thinking; they give us new ideas, new perspectives and insights.
The gap between ideas and technology is continuously narrowing and that makes predictions about our technological future more and more like inventions.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2, Interesting)
However, so far I've seen two 'predictions' that are worthwhile:
- The
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
It's a precise combination of slow news days and journalistic deadlines.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Because it's fun, and usually our best educated guesses are wrong a good chuck of the time.
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
I would suggest reading Alvin Toffler's _Future_Shock_ (1970) and _The_Third_Wave_ (1980). Still the best two texts that I've ever read for understanding how technology is affecting how society changes. The overall view represented by these two books is fairly accurate. Naturally, he didn't get all the details right. Still, well worth a read.
Future Shock (Score:2)
We need a new Future Shock for this new century, which can be snapshot periodically (for posterity) and updated regularly as technology allows.
Er, maybe that's now called a wiki.
Re:Future Shock (Score:2)
Re:Future Shock (Score:2)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Japanese technology foresight project [wikicities.com] run by NISTEP has the average accuracy rate of around 60-70% for its 1st, 2nd and 3rd reports (1970, 1975, 1980). The reports predict technological developments for the next 30 years.
Now it would be insanely great if every illiterate luddite posting right now on Slashdot about how predictions are worthless and always wrong would just familiarise himself with actual work being done in
Re:I've always wondered (Score:1)
Re:I've always wondered (Score:3, Insightful)
In particular, it talks about the Delphi method, [wikicities.com] and shows how Japan predicted, in the 1970's:
Re:I've always wondered (Score:2)
Because it is better than accepting the status quo.
If we don't dream of a better world than what is the point? We might as well go back to caves if we aren't going to better our world.
I'd love to see a discussion of futurists' predictions that HAVE been surprisingly accurate.
You mean Moore's law? Or Kurzweil's accelerating returns... If you haven't read The Singularity is Near [wikipedia.org] then you should take a read.
Yes it is a bit optimistic, but he does
Replacing medicines (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Replacing medicines (Score:2)
What about the gray death? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about the gray death? (Score:2)
Re:Gray death? Exclusive tech. (Score:1)
Well, I've only played Deus Ex but basically the scenario in the game wouldn't have happened if the nano-tech wasn't available to merely a single corporation in the entire world. Something which is unlikely to happen in the real world.
Or is it?....
No idea what we're talking about? (Score:1)
Shame on you for never having played Deus Ex [wikipedia.org]! Tsskt tsskt!
Re:No idea what we're talking about? (Score:2)
Re:No idea what we're talking about? (Score:2)
It's somehow kind of scarily believeable, in a kind of nu
Re:No idea what we're talking about? (Score:2)
Re:No idea what we're talking about? (Score:1)
No, that was Gray Goo [wikipedia.org], which, in fact, was only referred to in the game's intro. The game's plot itself was meager and was more about the factions and/or JC & Paul.
Gray Death [wikipedia.org] was Deus Ex (1).
Re:What about the gray death? (Score:2)
It is unclear whether the hypothetical molecular nanotechnology, if ever realized, would be capable of creating grey goo at all. Among other common refutations, theorists suggest that the very size of nanoparticles inhibits them from moving very quickly. While the biological matter that composes life releases significant amounts of energy when oxidised, and other sources of energy such as sunlight are avai
Looks like you're mixing things up (Score:1)
Spoiler (Score:2)
I predict... (Score:5, Interesting)
Take that, biotech! Hahahaha!
On a serious note, I remember that episode of Ray Bradbury's Theater where a guy lied to have travelled in the future and saw all ecological issues solved, no wars, and no poverty.
And it indeed happened like this, because people believed themselves they could do it. And his time machine turned out to be just a mirror trick for the press.
We all need a shot of sci-fi in our blood to keep us motivated.
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
Telling "It will work out in the future, somehow" is the best motivation-killer.
Re:I predict... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yea, but telling them "no matter what you do, somehow, you'll end up in a nuclear holocaust and highly toxic environment with lots of deadly mutation and deseases, the last surviving human societies will be a bunch of ruthless scavengers forced to canibalize their fellow buddies for survival, in the hope of slowing the their imminent doom"
Plus everytime someone predicts flying car
Re:I predict... (Score:1)
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
How about a magnet city that keeps my regular size car in the air. Hmm...
** PATENT PENDING **
Re:I predict... (Score:1)
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
Well that's a phenomenon that is most obvious in USA. Over here (Bulgaria), I can say I never had the need for a car. The public transport is strong, the taxi is very cheap, and I can even walk (!!!) to reach some of the places I need to reach
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
So is end of the world scenarios, destroyed environment, and doomsday predictions in which we might as well just fuck up everything anyways so we might as well sit around and indulge in the last few years of life.
It can go both ways.
Re:I predict... (Score:2)
It doesn't work out completely as planned. ;-)
You can check it out and download a free e-book (the paper version is on Amazon) version at smartalix.com/cyberchild.
Artificial human organs by 2020 (Score:5, Funny)
Ok dudes, we got 14 years until the replacements. With the right dosage of obesity, alcohol abuse and smoking, the replacements will be just in time for some of us.
Re:Artificial human organs by 2020 (Score:1)
Just how much will the first organs cost for the first 5-10 years though? $250,000 a piece?
I don't think the technology will be widely available for some time after it's initial implementation.
Re:Artificial human organs by 2020 (Score:2)
And a complete digital TV mandate by Congress set to go into effect in 2025...
Re:Artificial human organs by 2020 (Score:2)
Re:Artificial human organs by 2020 (Score:2)
Can't wait for the spam...
Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I am for new technology and I am hoping nano-tech will be used in a responsible manner.
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
One of the predictions is that we'll be able to detect single molecules in solution. That seems like pretty good tracking to me.
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:2)
Yes they are monitored, but what is the cost of cleaning them up? Huge.
It has been found that MTBE additives to gasoline have been leeching into water supplies all over the US, but they aren't too concerned about cleaning it up. (see epa.gov)
If a company creates a harm to the environment and noone fines them or shames them into cleaning it up, they most likely never will. Why do you think Google has a motto
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
> nano-tech will be used in a responsible manner.
Just like we used all the other dangerous technologies we have
discovered recently ?
My concern is mostly about the humans that will end up controlling
it , we could use it safely but given humanities track record of
using technology to abuse each other this could be a bad move.
Whats the harm in going a little slower and making sure things are
safe and well thought out. I'm happy to wait
Toodle-pip
Am
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:1)
Regards,
Steve
Re:Breathing-in NanoTech (Score:2)
Now your questions doesn't seem new. In fact, it could boil down to the ongoing questions: what do we do with pollution? Who is responsible if pollution harms people?
HTML version of report (Score:1)
Add +25 years for Regulatory Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said - some countries may see this tech before others. I'm betting Singapore comes up with this type of technology first. If the regs are such that its more open to widespread use in that country or others, then maybe the timelines will only be 10-15 years off.
Outer Limits Episode (Score:1)
Alien Dice (Score:2)
This is a small world, indeed.
Obligatory Wayne's World quote (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure that it's just a matter of designing nanotechnology monkeys.
The Future is Always Unpredictible (Score:3, Interesting)
I predict that, while some of these things may happen, and may even happen 'on schedule', the most important developments in nanobiotech will be impossible to know until it gets here.
time predictions, don't get yer hopes up... (Score:1)
Re:oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
Congrats on the semi-relevant FP but what's your point? This is about technology, not natural processes. The word "Nanobiotech" is to distinguish from tradit
Re:oxymoron (Score:2)
Re:oxymoron (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, not all science is about funding and buzzwords. To be honest, I am getting somewhat tired about this argument, which seems to be constantly reiterated on Slashdot. Molecular biology, as I experience it, is a very dynamic field full of people pursuing topics out o
Re:oxymoron (Score:1)
Re:oxymoron (Score:2)
Re:oxymoron (Score:3, Funny)
We're all composed of atoms, so clearly all matter interaction should be studied as quantum physics, but clearly that's wrong too, since matter is just condensed energy.
We all of life - from going to the drive-through at McDonalds to contemplating the meaning of life - is just energy interacting with energy. Clearly, we must always keep this in mind. Anyone who is not considering that all of their activities are actually quantum-mechanical energy interactions is missing what's Reall