DARPA calls for antibiotic replacement

[Tank]

DARPA calls for antibiotic replacement

(Medical Xpress) -- Most everyone that has been keeping abreast of world events knows that the clock is ticking on antibiotics; bacteria have been slowly developing a resistance and development of new antibiotics has slowed to a crawl, thus the day will soon come that all of the tools were are currently using to fight bacterial infections will be lost, leaving everyone at their mercy. This problem has not gone unnoticed by those at the upper reaches of the military establishment in the United States, thus it should not come as a surprise to anyone that DARPA, via the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to completely replace antibiotics with something new and better.

...Instead of working to develop new antibiotics, DARPA proposes the development and use of so-called nanoparticles to deliver gene altering chemicals directly to the cells of bacteria to kill them. In addition, they are hoping that someone will be able to come up with a way to make it so that the nanoparticles and chemicals they carry can be reprogrammed on-the-fly so as to combat newly evolved or created bacteria as soon as they appear. The idea is that the nanoparticles would carry something called small interfering RNA (siRNA) which are groups of molecules that would actually do the work of shutting down the genes inside the cells of the bacteria...

An interesting concept, slightly amusing that the military solution is a 'smart bomb'  

[Squid]

I know that RNAi is thought to have popped up as a mutation that counteracted viral insertions and since it's discovery have been examined as useful against viruses and other disease-causing biological agents.  The research is still fairly new in that RNAi wasn't really "discovered" until the late 90s.

[xSilverPhinx]

Didn't the Russians use bacteriophage viruses to do that? It does look like the smart solution, the plus side to nanobots being that if bacterial evolve to hide from them, the bots can be tweaked in some way to compensate.

[Squid]

Hmm, I'm not sure, haven't read anything on it.  I do know that HIV is being utilized to combat forms of cancer and has shown much promise.  It wouldn't be a wild leap to think that the same can be done to phages to target particular bacteria.

[xSilverPhinx]

Hmm, I'm not sure, haven't read anything on it.  I do know that HIV is being utilized to combat forms of cancer and has shown much promise.  It wouldn't be a wild leap to think that the same can be done to phages to target particular bacteria.

Found the Wiki article on the subject. Weird thing that they're not being as researched in other places other than the ex-Soviet Union. Especially if they're cheaper than nanobots and could be used to target more common drug-resistant bacteria which could be infected...

Is the risk that they could mutate and a resulting type start infecting human cells high?

[Pharaoh Cat]

As usual, I'm thankful the military is out there to conceive and fund science no one else will.

Another paragraph from the same article:

On its face, the project seems rather simple, after all, this is not science fiction, DARPA points out that just last year a research group used siRNA delivered by nanoparticles to kill the Ebola virus in four primates. Unfortunately, the problem is, it's not as easy as it looks, all of this science is still in its infancy and if a way can be found to do what is being asked, it likely will take years, if not decades to fully develop. The success against the Ebola virus was one agent against just one virus in a structured environment. To do what DARPA wants would mean using one technique to kill any and all bad bacteria and/or viruses. Also, if it can be done, no one really knows if the procedure would be reprogrammable, much less whether it could be done on-the-fly, so it's not really clear if anyone will be able to achieve what DARPA is asking for; though it seems for the sake of all of us, we better hope so. Turning back the clock to a time when we were helpless against the onslaught of bacterial infections would be difficult to swallow, to say the least.

[xSilverPhinx]

Nothing like war to give these leaps in technology I don't glorify war, but without it, we wouldn't have the internet, at least not now perhaps.

One thing that worries me about nanobots is that if they can be programmed, could they be reprogrammed while in a person's body? What if maliciously?

[Crow]

Here are a few articles that are related to the DARPA proposed concept that are already under research and some cases development, though none are as advanced in terms of adaptability but show some of the existing groundwork that has been done to possibly allow the idea to be realized.

Future bio-nanotechnology will use computer chips inside living cells
DNA wrappers for carbon nanotubes
Cell surface engineering with DNA nanotechnology
New DNA test uses nanotechnology to find early signs of cancer
Nanoparticulate Drug Delivery Systems

[Ecurb Noselrub]

One thing that worries me about nanobots is that if they can be programmed, could they be reprogrammed while in a person's body? What if maliciously?

This, and your previous question about whether they could start to mutate and attack human cells. Given the rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence, one wonders if we aren't creating things that will intentionally wipe us out one day. But, all progress carries risk. It's important to stay one step ahead of evil, whether it be natural evil or intentional evil.

[Crow]

One thing that worries me about nanobots is that if they can be programmed, could they be reprogrammed while in a person's body? What if maliciously?

This, and your previous question about whether they could start to mutate and attack human cells. Given the rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence, one wonders if we aren't creating things that will intentionally wipe us out one day. But, all progress carries risk. It's important to stay one step ahead of evil, whether it be natural evil or intentional evil.

Well unless nanobots are programmed to be harmful then there is not much of a problem unless programed incorrectly, nor is there a problem with intelligence as they are created to do a specific job. Though there is the potential for people to create them to be harmful and was calculated (I cant remember who but may find the reference later) that a suitcase filled with harmful nanobots in theory could wipe out all life on earth i.e grey goo scenario. However the positives of nanotechnology by far out ways the negatives especially if the technology can progress to large scale molecular manufacturing.