Should be noticed these are not nanobots in the sense of a tiny mechanical machine, but instead are based on the proteins that form the inner workings of our own cells. Science fiction and pop science has made the former popular, while biology researchers use the term to popularize the latter.
To be fair, when we do develop nanoscale machines, it's quite likely that they will partially or entirely consist of proteins or similarly produced complex molecules.
Not mechanical, but chemical. At that level, brownian motion, molecular charges, and other forces we can't see at our scale are much more powerful than mechanical motion. All of the enzymes, ribozyes, etc. in your body rely on these forces as well as their own arrangement to produce chemical reactions which in turn drive their 'machinery'.
The original idea of nanobots argued that with enough effort mechanical machines could work at that level, even if it would be difficult. It'd allow for these machines to work outside of water and for them to be built out of materials like diamond. We're still not there yet, and may never be.
I understand why researchers use the term 'nanotechnology' to describe their work with molecular biology, but it gives entirely the wrong impression. Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world.
>Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world.
it would take a serious lack of imagination on my part to look at something like a custom protein and not think about the possible disastrous consequences that follow -- let alone something being described to me as a 'molecular robot', even without a lot of pop-culture influence.
> Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world.
History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes… and so do peoples fears. Many times they are misinformed and misplaced, but usually right to be concerned in the first place.
My dumb take: what could go wrong? Interrupting normal proteins to become prions, that’s what.
A lot of these designer proteins being bad medications or good poisons is a valid concern. At least with that in mind we can better reason about the risks and rewards.
I suppose so, but biological. Like another commenter pointed out “nanocules” could be a more fitting name (I don’t know if it’s used to refer to anything else)
