What would you do with a matter compiler?

My thanks to everyone who has contributed to this blog so far. Here, I would like to ask people a more specific question that follows on from David Bott’s post below. If you had a “matter compiler” – some device or scheme that could arrange atoms or molecules according to an arbitrary, user-defined blueprint – what would you do with it? What new materials would you make, what new devices do you think it would make possible?

I’ve given some of my own thoughts about this on a post on my own blog – It’s all about metamaterials – but what do you think? In the spirit of Jeremy Baumberg’s comment below, it would be interesting to hear thoughts not only about what might be possible in the future, but what we might aspire to on a much closer timescale, given the sort of limited capability we might hope to achieve in a year or two.

Richard Jones


19 Responses to “What would you do with a matter compiler?”

  1. 1 Phillip Huggan January 4, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    One specific capability I would like to have, would be to remove a hydrogen atom from the surface of a Higher Diamondoid molecule, while the molecule is housed within a carbon nanotube.

    Would sweeping an STM perpendicularly over the open CNT ending, remove a hydrogen atom from the exposed diamantane molecule? Could a hydrogen abstraction tool-tip be contained entirely within a (7,7) CNT? Has anyone tried to position a diadamantane molecule inside an open (7,7) CNT like has already been successfully simulated?

    I’m wondering if this discussion wouldn’t benefit from someone within the “SPM industrial design” community, if there is such a thing. Is there anyway to forecast what next decade’s SPMs will be capable of, rather than working backwards from mature MNT systems?

  2. 2 Zenith January 4, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    From a hobbyist viewpoint, I would love to design my own products (electronics, robotics, testing tools) from the ground up. Our current industry holds us back, with price and ability to produce. I love low level things, and to be able to work at this level would be amazing. Though I wouldn’t be able to trust my own designs without some sort of guide to check over my work. (Making sure I don’t create grey-goo, huh? ) I just hope some day we’ll have our tools. 🙂
    I can imagine also, a recycling tool that converts old products back into the building blocks for new products, this would enable you to lower the material costs even more. Though I have no idea how plausible that is.
    I’m sorry if I don’t have the same education as most of you here, but I’ve been following it as best I can. 🙂

  3. 3 Chris Phoenix January 4, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    Assuming Drexler’s projections in Nanosystems (especially chapter 10-13) are approximately right, I would build a library of nanoblocks.

    A nanoblock is a 100-500 nanometer structure full of nanoscale functional components. By analogy with computer hardware, an atom is a gate, and a nanoblock is a CPU instruction. A library of just a few dozen nanoblock types should be enough to build a huge range of products.

    A nanoblock is:
    – Small enough to be built by a single nanoblock-sized scanning probe mechanochemistry system in a reasonable time;
    – Large enough to contain an integrated, general-purpose piece of functionality, such as a million-gate circuit, a microwatt motor, a robot arm (driven externally) to do mechanochemistry, etc.
    – Small enough that the MTBF from background radiation is low (years)
    – Large enough to be firmly in the classical regime (even its nanoscale components can be treated classically for many purposes)
    – Small enough to be interesting for medical tools
    – The right size for very convenient handling by surface forces (not with current MEMS, but precisely formed contact pads with nanoscale standoffs and alignment features should make it easy to grab and release with 1DOF manipulators)
    – Large enough for efficient planar assembly. When depositing blocks onto a growing surface, the linear deposition speed is independent of the block size, as long as the block-depositing mechanism scales with the block size. That allows the mechanisms to be more closely packed, and their operation frequency increases.

    Nanoblocks could contain small strong mechanical joints and standard functional contacts on their surfaces–snap them together and build a structure of any size you like.

    If we have a 1-nm feature size, then there are 40,000 features on each face of a 200-nm cube, and almost ten million features internally. That should be enough to put a lot of special-purpose functionality into a block, and some basic general-purpose functionality (small configurable power and communication lines) into every block.

    This isn’t modular robotics–the blocks wouldn’t necessarily move relative to each other once assembled. It’s just a way to encapsulate lots of nanoscale functionality into bacteria-sized units.

    Once I had a library of nanoblocks, I’d start designing virtual materials with programmable properties. And with strong material properties, I’d start looking at ways of building shell-formed products–for example, put nanoblocks in thin layers, with sub-micron tension stays to form a shape vs. inflation pressure.

    (As a designer, I’d open-source the nanoblock designs. I’d expect to make a lot more money designing products if everyone could use nanoblocks without worrying about royalties at that level, and if new nanoblocks could easily be added to the set. “Give away the razor, sell the blades.”) (But as a security person, I’d be sweating bullets at the thought of this technology getting into private hands. I’d *at least* want accountability and education. No anonymous dangerous constructions; no script kiddies.)


  4. 4 NanoEnthusiast January 5, 2007 at 12:12 am

    To comment on Philip Huggan’s last point, I wonder about that too. It seems to me that SPMs are a rather small market with narrow applications compared to computers. Growth in computing horse power has been fueled greatly by general business and personal use. It is the more mundane and frivolous tasks that have fueled Moore’s law and has given us the power to model complex scientific phenomena. Without resource heavy computer games and business applications I don’t think we would see as much growth in our understanding in science.

    I would like to see, in the short-term, projects like IBM’s Millipede succeed. Any growth in the use of SPM or SPM-like technologies, whether it is in consumer electronics or bio-sensors, would be very beneficial to future researchers. A physicist who used computer models in his work 30 years ago has more computing power in his home PC than he did at work in the beginning of his career. Imagine what nanoscience will look like when you can say the same thing about scanning probe microscopes.

    I would imagine if there was a large enough market for these tools you would see roadmaps as detailed and accurate as what we see for microchips.

  5. 5 jim moore January 5, 2007 at 1:27 am

    “It would be interesting to hear thoughts not only about what might be possible in the future, but what we might aspire to on a much closer time-scale, given the sort of limited capability we might hope to achieve in a year or two.”

    Rapid Prototype an Organism

    Simple forms at first, things like sponges or a sea grass, later incorporate movement in the “organisms”. The “organisms” are made by the controlled deposition of bio-compatible materials and living cells. These “organisms” should be able to live on their own for a while.

    You can think of it as Architecture for Cells

    Meets the criteria of
    – software control of matter (at the micron scale)
    – is doable in two years,
    – combines many branches of science, engineering, and design
    – potential to create very useful products

    It does not:
    – Have anything to do with building objects molecule by molecule.

  6. 6 Brian Wang January 5, 2007 at 8:25 am

    things to make with a matter compiler

    Make the phonon-mediated room temperature superconductor

    Better quantum computers. More robust, larger scale. Millions, billions of qubits. Extend the ion trap versions and the superconducting quantum computer (but now using the room temperature superconductor instead of nobium). The more you have the better you can simulate molecules and improve your matter compiler.

    Better regular computers. Molecular electronics. Plasmonic or optical computers.

    A better matter compiler. Faster, more efficient.

    Hyperefficient solar cells. Mass produced and built to cover first all rooftops and pavement and then the earth’s deserts and then the deep oceans and then off into space to start creating a dyson shell of solar cells.


    Space elevators. Better space vehicles. Make better solar sails.
    A lot of room temperature superconducting wire would be great for magsails, better batteries, magnetically inflate massive structures in space, perhaps ground launchable magsails.

    Make the better metamaterial wires. Improve the Los Alamos Z-pinch so that it achieve fusion. Make mini-mag Orion rocket propulsion based on the Z-pinch fusion.

    Use control of matter to achieve more control of information, more control of electromagnetic properties, better lasers and optical control. Use those improvements to drive more control of matter. Achieve radical improvement in transportation, health etc…

    In the 1-2 year time frame we do not have a matter compiler. We have more of what we already have. Better nanoparticles, nanostructured materials, better DNA nanotechnology, better synthetic biology, some utilization of viruses and bacteria for engineering purposes, better lithography OR you could try to take two or four current capabilities and try to integrate them into systems that are more than the individual pieces. We can work out better plans using detailed computational chemistry. Do the grinding work to actually get us further along the path to more general purpose matter compilers. Trying for things that are too short term does not get us to a matter compiler. Climbing Everest properly may take say a 15-20 day expedition (includes acclimitization etc…). Saying what can I climb in 1-2 days is not Everest it is some hill/small mountain. In 1-2 days you want to get to a base camp or move towards some higher point that you may arrive at in 3-5 days on Everest.

    In 1-2 years the biggest bang is in Gene sequencing/synthetic biology, carbon nanotubes and graphene, but all of that work is happening already and $3 million or more small projects will probably not have major impact.

  7. 7 jim moore January 5, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Let me try again, this time for something both near term and molecular.

    The focus could be on designing a platform for the controlled deposition of functionalized molecules / nano-particles from water based systems onto a construction platform.

    You would have various raw materials predispersed in water and able to be ink jetted so that you can programmably add a few cubic microns of a specific material to the construction site. Each construction site is a well (~1 cubic millimeter) with a small needle like deposition platform in the center (the tip has an area of ~1 square micron and is coated with gold). It would be very useful to have the bottom of the well made of a filter that allows water to pass through but not much else. The filter would allow you to increase the concentration of the reactants in the well and increase the rate at which you add materials to the well. (This is important because you may have to dilute raw materials in order to ink jet them out.)

    In the simplest configuration the system use a series of well timed, staged, self-assembly steps to create your object. But it should be possible to add things like:
    – Fine temperature control to the well
    – Shine lasers or light into the well
    – Add electromagnets around the well to control magnetic particles
    – Add controllable probes to the inside of the well
    – Some probes can be simply mechanical and others capable of creating an electrical potential

  8. 8 Tom Craver January 5, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    I think a couple of the more interesting things to attempt (not that I could necessarily personally implement these) would be:

    – An “ultimate camping” outfit – a backpack and/or suit that makes an individual essentially long-term self-sufficient – collecting energy and raw materials from the natural environment, able to provide clean water (or air if necessary), food, warmth/cooling, waste recycling, as well as entertainment/education/communication. Possibly with full VR capabilities, if someone wishes to simulating a “normal” home full of stuff.

    – Mechanical catalysts – perhaps a nanoscale “clamshell” that has two (or more) surfaces structured and charged to mate with two (or more) molecules, and bring them together through brownian motion in a manner that encourages a specific reaction to take place. I’m guessing that bulk chemical processing with such catalysts, followed by molecular sorting, may be much more energy efficient than using a matter compiler to directly and in a controlled fashion cause such reactions.

    – Nano-fusion – if there’s anything at all to cold fusion – or even if there isn’t – it seems likely that precisely structured materials might enable very compact solid state fusion power units using reactions that give off essentially zero neutrons, and providing a precisely controllable amount of electric power.

  9. 9 Zenith January 5, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    If the price of said matter compiler is “realistic” to its value, I’m having a feeling I’d start making matter compilers with it. Would be neat to see an open-source matter compiler. (Sorry for the quick rant!)
    I worry that I’d never see or be able to use one, Haha.

  10. 10 Howard Wild January 5, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Of course everyone who visits this website is interested on what can be done with a matter converter/ nano factory whatever the manufacturers will decide to call it but I’m concerned as to what the manufacturers and software designers will do to limit our ability to use it in the fashion we want.

    For the device to manufacture what we want we need a schematic/ blue print. How is the average user going to get the initial blue print, write it themselves? Buy it from a large company or from a small time designer? Will the manufacturer program the device to restrict us from making certain things, such as explosives, medicines, matter compliers etc.

    From a nano beginner’s point of view and someone who dislikes greedy unscrupulous companies I believe that the following is has a good chance of happening. One or more large companies will eventually figure out how to produce a matter compiler and put huge restrictions on what it can make and, like apple, make the software propriety so you can only purchase blueprints from them. Purchasers of the device will not be able to program the device themselves so will be dependant on the company that built it in the first place to provide blue prints, at a reasonably high price that is. Either at the same time or shortly after governments will start to slap restrictions on what can be made, for national security reasons of course. Later governments they will force companies to open up the ability to create blue prints, then we could well see an influx of creative designers allowing matter compiler owners to specify exactly what they want; for a price. Around the same time or shortly after that there will be a nice bunch of people who hack the programming allowing the average user to specify products without the aid of designers or the original manufacturer.

    Ok, I’m a bit of a sceptic but let’s look at basic business facts and some recent history. Everyone knows companies are out to make as much profit as possible so why should a company manufacture a device that can replicate itself, you’d lose potential profit. Why let users design their own blue prints if you can get more revenue out of them, a quick example is the introduction Apple’s I-pod and only being able to play music purchased from Apple.

    As for government restrictions it is only too right that users shouldn’t be able to get blue prints for gold or explosives or even nuclear devices and certain medicines ect. Unless the user has been given rights (but copyrights and permission is a different discussion e.g. how does you doctor authorise you to manufacture your own medication). You only have to look at how much governments are noticing and attempting to regulate nano development to realise they will be playing catch up. Not only that you have to take into account many governments may not have regulations and laws for many years, look at Russia and allofmp3.com there are very little laws restricting the sale of material that is copyrighted in most other countries.

    Looking at blue prints, again lets look at some companies who are very protective of their code, Apple is being forced to open up in France and Microsoft is being made to make available source code in Europe; so eventually I believe governments will eventually do the same for matter compliers, which will open the floodgates for smart designers with computing skills to make a killing on the designing market. And of course as soon as you open on code you get the professional hackers allowing the standard user to bypass any encryption or blocks and provide a basic GUI which will allow users to start making their own things, however faulty they are.

    You may or may not agree with what I have to say but I do think that it raises food for thought, Are users going to be restricted? How will governments govern us from abusing this new ability and bringing down economies with an influx of gold and diamonds and stop us from happily manufacture explosives for terrorist reasons or making our own medicines and bringing pharmaceuticals to their knees and stop us from helping 3rd world countries get the medicine they badly need for the price of a few thousand matter compilers. How are users going to get blue prints? How much will they cost?

    So many questions so few answers, unless people start asking these kinds of questions and try and manipulate in the users favour the whole matter compiler issue will be in the favour of the manufacture from day one.

    Any thoughts anyone?

  11. 11 Zenith January 5, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    I agree fully with you Howard, as long as the world is not ready for it, there’s no telling what will come of all of this. I think there’s a great need to educate the world in what can and will happen. It’s actually encouraging to know that other people are worried about this.

    I’d like to copy a post I wrote in Soft Machines on this subject last night (Delete it if it does not coincide):

    “What are the thoughts on the upcoming information market, the commercialization of the software to control the matter? Ofcoarse this is ahead of time, but being as I feel it’s plausible, and only a matter of time — What are the thoughts on how the information that creates these products will be sold? What of open-source foundations and reverse engineering? What about the security and safety of development of these products?
    Eventually we will have a position where the materials to create these products will infact cost pennies, especially if you consider recycling or breaking down old products. I think the world will have to prepare for it all soon or later, here’s hoping it won’t come as a surprise.”

  12. 12 Nato Welch January 6, 2007 at 1:02 am

    Three molecular manufacturing system designs:

    1) DRM-restricted personal nanofactories. Risky, dangerous. The kids (or rival nations) will break the security. The stakes are too high. Music movies and software never killed anyone. Brittle. Fails badly.

    2) centralized industrial licensed fab facilities. Only a few high-security fab plants are licensed to large government agencies or (more likely) corporations. The company then manufactures and delivers products on demand. Industrial plutocracy is maintained, capabilities are controlled. No open hardware or free hardware movements. All production is centralized. The poor stay poor. The rich get richer. You know the story.

    3) A compromise point: micro/nano/blocks. personal nanofactories (or, at first, microfactories) are sold that assemble carefully designed pre fabbed blocks. The first factories can’t assemble copies of themselves, nor refine raw materials to make blocks. Hobbyists and an open/free hardware movement can arise, trading and improving designs online, within the parameters offered by the blocks. blocks that enable too-dangerous applications can be revised or taken off the market in realtime. as the technology becomes more familiar and certain, additional features, block designs, and capabilities can be released gradually.

    Balances needing to be struck:

    Intellectual property (patents) and free/open hardware movements. the free/open software and culture (movies,music,text, etc) movements are already here to stay, and we will build something along these lines with molecular manufacturing technologies unless stopped by a too-broad patent suite or a draconian national security culture. Democratizing the technology is critical to address the widening class and wealth gaps on our planet.

    Physical (and political) Security vs Openness. Our current industrial plutocracy is likely to join forces with the states they already have unwarranted influence over in order to scare us into thinking we cannot afford to empower common people with molecular manufacturing technologies because they might make bombs or worse. Unlike in the modern case, where most neoconservative terrorist fearmongering has proven unwarranted, unethical, and even criminal, those concerned about democratized exponential molecular manufacturing capabilities are probably right to be (although I’d think that unintended problems – like pollution and garbage accumulation – will still be bigger problems). A balance needs to be struck between being too afraid of small problems to allow people to solve bigger ones, and being too careless with deployments that empower antisocial malcontents.

  13. 13 Guy January 6, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    What would I make with an assembler? Too many things to list!
    just a few right off the top of my head:

    A perfect cheap water filter. Perfect toothpaste, toothbrush and floss combination that would completely repair any damage to teeth. Sorry dentists, you’re out of a job.

    A nanoloom that lets me weave cloth from carbon nanotubes directly not just nanotube yarns. Also a nano “cotton-gin” that would sort nanotubes by type, size, chirality etc. Diamond strength bulletproof armor would put a serious dent in most violent conflict in the world.

    A paint on video output device so all my walls could be programmable video screens.

    Once someone got good with the thing, respiracytes would be really cool too.

    I could just keep listing things but it would get boring. I think the main thing would be to focus on filling immediate common sense needs or replacing materials and services which are currently in place but that have harmful environmental side-effects.

  14. 14 Tom Craver January 8, 2007 at 8:27 am

    While I gave some answers above, I had a couple of practical problems answering.

    Are we thinking of an early, very limited matter compiler? Or a hypothetical ultimate version that might be able to put together just about any elements into any substances – perhaps even subtle enough to construct living tissue? Will matter compilers have been available to the military for years before escaping or being released to the general public – so they’re much more capable, but perhaps limited to nanoblocks when we first get our hands on them?

    What revolutionary capabilities will we already have by the time a matter compiler finally arrives? Cheap solar collectors? Cures for cancer? Plants genetically altered to be ideal for biofuel? We might use nanotechnology from a matter compiler to change how we do those things, but it wouldn’t be as revolutionary.

  15. 15 Daniel Barlow January 9, 2007 at 1:32 pm

    Tom Craver suggests an “ultimate camping” outfit. In a similar vein, I would guess that the possibilities for performance-enhancing sportswear (compression, muscle excitation, active temperature regulation, perspiration management, fabrics with particular textures to enhance aero/hydrodynamics, shoes soled with stuff that can vary grip according to what’s underfoot, all the way down the road to bionic exoskeletons) are immense. I wonder how far down this road we’ll get before sports governing bodies ban it in competition – and what exactly they’re going to ban.

  16. 16 Marcus D. Hanwell January 9, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    It would be a great shame if matter compilers were the preserve of the privileged few. I think we must remember that most people already have access to dangerous chemicals and machines. In the wrong hands petrol can be very dangerous, a car can easily become a dangerous weapon as can kitchen knives. I think that matter compilers will follow a similar course to many other technologies – to try to control what can be done with it is to limit its positive benefits.

    I think there is a need for caution as removing control from the individuals, just in case bad people do bad things with it, is not the way to go. This logic has not worked for the media industry who are employing DRM techniques making consumer electronic devices more expensive and/or fragile whilst the very people the DRM is intended to stop can crack the protection before release day in many cases. The stakes are higher with matter compilers (depending upon their capabilities) but openness is more important now than ever in my opinion.

    Depending upon the capabilities of such a device it could improve recycling efficiency massively. Right now when your TV gets too old or breaks you throw it away, whereas with a matter compiler you should be able to decompile the matter of the device and compile a new up to date version with little to no waste. This would also translate to manufacturing where far less waste would be produced in the mass manufacture of goods. The idea of open designs that could be customised by individuals is also very exciting.

    I think what interests many of us is the medical potential – could it one day compile a new heart, lungs or kidney? In the shorter term it would also be very useful for research purposes to be able to easily create custom devices for different areas of research. This would depend upon an open matter compiler with open designs that could be modified. I could imagine a library of components one might pick out, customise and put together into the ideal device for a particular task. Many possessions may become more transitory as a result.

    I look forward to seeing what comes out of this week and the research it funds. Good luck!

  17. 17 Daniel Barlow January 9, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    On the subject of corporate monopolies restricting what we can/cannot
    build (Howard and Zenith), I’m actually quite positive. The picture
    painted by Howard is that the advantage will be with the MC vendor from
    day one – probably true – but he then goes on to explain that that
    position is not sustainable: governments, hackers, even disgruntled
    employees will ensure that the unrestricted machines leak out sooner
    or later.

    So if that’s your concern, then the goal is to make it “sooner”.
    Here’s a few thoughts based on existing digital media

    * what happens if you design hardware that’s crippled to work only
    with your own software? The answer mostly is that it flops, unless
    you’re selling into a ‘black box’ end user appliance market, or there
    are barriers of entry that make independent reinvention very costly
    (for example, a hobbyist mobile phone is possible given the right
    hobbyist, but a hobbyist network of base stations for it is less
    likely). Absent a significant intrinsic barrier to competition, the
    hardware vendor doesn’t stand much of a chance of controlling anything longterm, and most of them know this.

    * the software vendors, on the other hand … what happens currently?
    I see three basic models for recouping the cost of software
    (1) “shrinkwrap”: money spent up front, in the expectation of
    recouping it through sales. Technological measures (DRM, copy
    protection, shareware nag screens) may be used to encourage
    people to pay
    (2) “contract”: the software is commissioned and paid for upfront.
    Ownership may pass to the receiving entity. DRM may still be
    desirable (e.g. support contracts which prevent the client from
    “fiddling” with stuff)
    (3) “loss leaders” and “freeware”: development is undertaken with
    no strong expectation of recouping costs. Other activities
    performed by the producer (e.g. support contracts) may
    subsidise it. Finished work is given away.

    On this basis I predict strong pressure from software vendors to put
    some form of digital rights stuff in matter compilers (and I
    haven’t thought about a mechanism for how this is possible), but it
    shouldn’t actually restrict you from doing your own thing if you dont’ want to use their software. The Ipod analogy is an interesting one, because it
    plays ordinary MP3s just fine. Apple aren’t restricting you to using
    only their software – it’s the software vendors that are (trying to)
    restrict you from using Apple hardware. Nothing stops you from
    writing and recording your own music.

  18. 18 Chris Phoenix January 9, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    A matter compiler isn’t the same as a matter decompiler. The latter is considerably more difficult to do efficiently, and would require a whole different set of technologies.

    Medical researchers are already “compiling” organs–learning to use inkjet printers and rapid prototyping machines to print cells into useful shapes. I don’t know how far away we are from a heart or lung. Bionanotech will at some point be able to reprogram cells to form the various organ tissues. So, echoing Brian Wang’s very valuable comments, this is something that may happen even without the matter compiler, and that other money is already being spent on.

    On dangerous uses of technologies: There are several ways things can go wrong. Crazy people are few and far between. Criminals are more common, and high-tech crime can leave a government playing catch-up. Then there’s warlords, which can exist even in Western democracies (gang leaders). And saboteurs, including terrorists. All these are asymmetrical situations, and the list is probably not complete. Then there are symmetrical conflicts–wars at various levels. And all of these can be fueled by arms races. An arms race enabled by rapid prototyping of complete products (which is what a matter compiler implies) looks quite unstable.

    If a new technology can be kept extremely secret or inaccessible, then it may be available only to large national militaries. Otherwise, it’ll certainly be available to bad actors at various levels, in which case it seems good to make it available to civilians as well, to help with developing and deploying defenses.

    Of course, this is a very shallow and incomplete analysis. For example, it doesn’t consider the effects of weapons manufacturers fostering wars. If everyone could build weapons that were better than what was sold, then some wars would fizzle… and others would start, as new opportunities attracted new opportunists…

    Bottom line is that I’m concerned that molecular manufacturing will be powerful enough to destabilize and/or disempower the global political infrastructure. This may happen with or without civilian or paramilitary access. By comparison, the question of various forms of non-military harm (e.g. nano-enabled crime) appears minor and secondary.


  19. 19 M C January 20, 2007 at 10:41 am

    A couple of “holy grail” applications for a matter compiler:

    – Components for another matter compiler. A primitive matter compiler should be able to streamline the creation of a copy of itself. Ideally, you would be able to bootstrap better and better compilers, moving up along the capability/maturity curve. This would also get on the road to exponential manufacturing. Of course, initially some fabrication steps will probably require “outside” processing steps.

    – Create a device that can penetrate a cell, check the DNA of the cell and induce apoptosis (cell death) if mutations are found. Configurable with a checksum of the person’s DNA. By taking mutated cells out of circulation, such a device would eliminate cancer and a eliminate major mechanism of aging.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: