A few days ago, I wrote a brief sketch of the status and paths forward in the molecular approach to atomically precise fabrication. It offers a sampling, not a full picture:
The status of the key technologies
The technologies of biomolecular and chemical synthesis are now capable of fabricating a substantial range of complex, atomically precise structures. The most important of these are compact, polymeric structures (foldamers) and larger molecular scaffolds.
- Synthetic foldamers are now approaching the complexity of protein molecules, and can contain monomeric components with a wider range of functional properties.
- Protein engineering has recently reached the milestone of engineering new catalytic structures modeled on natural enzymes.
- Engineering molecular components that self-assemble to form new, complex crystalline materials has become routine.
- Structural DNA nanotechnology now enables the design and assembly of molecular scaffolds on a scale of millions of atoms and hundreds of nanometers.
- A rapidly developing design toolkit for self-assembly of diverse molecules and materials enables the construction of increasingly complex molecular systems.
Current research opportunities
These and related developments now make a range of experimental advances accessible. Some short-term goals and potential applications of the resulting technologies include the following:
- Demonstrate robust artificial foldamers that bind and stabilize complementary proteins.
– Enables development of enzymatic catalysts for use in relatively harsh industrial process conditions. - Demonstrate enzyme-like foldamers that bind and determine the activity of synthetic transition metal catalysts.
– Enables development of highly stable and selective catalysts for the fine chemicals industry. - Demonstrate self-assembled scaffolding structures that bind diverse components.
– Enables the organization of nanoscale electronic. optoelectronic, and plasmonic components to form nanoscale sensors and electronic circuits. - Demonstrate self-assembled scaffolds that promote and direct the growth of inorganic nanocrystals.
– Enables production of atomically precise nanostructures with diverse materials and shapes for diverse applications in nanomaterials and nanosystems.
Middle-range objectives
Research opportunities today can open the door to the development of a next-generation technology platform that will, in turn, bring a new range of objectives into reach.
- The use of molecular scaffolds to bind and organize diverse components could be developed and elaborated to provide nanoelectronic fabrication methods for the post-Moore’s-law era.
- Devices that link multiple catalytic centers (analogous to polyketide and polypeptide synthases) could be developed and elaborated to provide “molecular assembly lines” that convert small feedstock molecules into high-value macromolecular products in a single, integrated process.
- A capacity for directing the growth of nanocrystals and other non-polymeric structures could be developed and elaborated to provide a capacity for building entirely new classes of complex, high-performance, atomically precise nanoscale components and systems.
Accelerators
Progress toward these objectives can be accelerated by increasing the capacity for innovative design, and for reducing innovations to routine practice. The greatest needs today comprise:
- Design-oriented software that integrates levels of description and physical analysis that range from quantum chemistry through molecular mechanics to the continuum mechanics of materials.
- Design-oriented data repositories that describe available nanoscale and molecular components and fabrication methods.
See also:
- Toward Integrated Nanosystems:
Fundamental Issues in Design and Modeling [pdf] - The Molecular Machine Path to Molecular Manufacturing (1):
Foldamers and Brownian Assembly - Modular Molecular Composite Nanosystems
- The Physical Basis of High-Throughput Atomically Precise Manufacturing
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Its amazing just watching the advances of the last 12 months, one of the most significant of which would have to be Jason Chin’s work from the University of Cambridge – redesigning cellular machinery to work on quadruplet instead of triplet codons. The promises of advanced molecular manufacturing are becoming less imaginary and more real, and based on development pathways such as those you outline above almost seem within reach.
Your second mid-range objective concerning multiple catalytic centers for converting simple feedstocks into high-value macromolecular products is something that I consider a “killer app”. The first “product” would probably begin life in a lab, cheaply and reliably producing some previously expensive material. The first company to achieve this would have a platform technology that would easily lend itself to continual improvement, and so release updated versions able to produce a larger and larger selection of specialty chemicals and other materials.
Molecular manufacturing would then be just around the corner.
I like the tone of this article, how can you help us to reach the robust molecular manufacturing?
Thats how I viewed the last two “tasks”, design software to do X, or create database for X, those are such tasks most Computer Science students could get started, with guidance of course.
There are probably lot of students, especially within Computer Sciences that has capability to help on such tasks, but they should first be introduced on these “tasks” by someone in the field.
Probably more interdisciplinary “guides” would be helpful.
@ Mark Bruce — Yes. I did a post on two classes of devices that link multiple catalytic centers, the polyketide and non-ribosomal polypeptide synthases: “Molecular Assembly Lines”.
What is missing from currently available software packages? There are lots of quantum chemistry programs, lots of molecular dynamics programs and lots of finite element and multi-physics programs. True, I am not aware of one that reaches across the whole spectrum of scales, but what does that matter?
Dr Drexler:
1) I think there are many ways to successfully create the first fully functional inorganic molecular manufacturing device (such as a ‘desktop nanofacotry’) I’m wondering which route do you think will most likely be the fastest/best? for example is using some kind of organic structure (some kind of protein, perhaps) to build the parts and others to link them up the best way?
2) In your opinion, (a)when will the first fully integrated molecular manufacturing device be made? and (b) when will it be readily available (like how computers are today)?
3) In order to demonstrate the excellence and contribute towards this great vision, I think it is important to have both (1) fundamental scientific knowledge [i.e. what is possible, what is achievable, etc] and (2) the ‘thinking of an engineer [i.e. the ability to apply the fundamentals to design -> eliminate false creations -> re-design until you get what you know is possible but more importantly what you want. The fundamentals can be learnt from university and other resources [books, blogs, journals etc]
But how do you learn how to become an engineer? I realize this is a weird question and in some respects probably stupid, because the best and only way is probably see how engineers design (e.g. investigate how the model-T was made, what the engineer thought about when he worked on the design etc) and try to design yourself, is this correct?
Hope your would be able to input, as I realise you are a very busy person, and I wish you the best with whatever you are doing!
Many Thanks in Advance,
Thomas
@ Thomas —
About paths, yes, I see biomolecular and related developments as the most promising directions at present, but they fit together with developments in other areas of nanotechnology, both organic and inorganic. I go into this further in “The Molecular Machine Path to Molecular Manufacturing (1): Foldamers and Brownian Assembly” and links from there.
Regarding time scales for development, the critical question is how long it will take to assemble an effective engineering development program. And the critical question in assembling that development program is how long it will take for the task to be recognized as being both necessary and practical. Science alone is inadequate, because it solves different problems. (As I’ve described, science and engineering are antiparallel.)
Regarding engineering, I think you have the right idea. The best ways to learn the design aspect involve some combination of studying engineering design and solving engineering design problems. The modes of thinking that this develops often apply to a surprising range of activities.
A large part of a typical engineering curriculum, however, might better be described as applied science specialized to a particular field. Even here, the generality may be larger than it seems. The importance of defects, toughness, and cracking won’t come up in a physics class, nor will the nature of manufacturing, though both are remarkably pervasive concerns in technology.
I’d be inclined to bias study toward the more fundamental areas of science, but engineering, too, has fundamental aspects that aren’t part of science at all.
@ Tom Moore —
Yes, there’s already modeling and simulation software at all the relevant scales, so a lot of the heavy lifting has been done. For many purposes, existing codes give a good enough description of the relevant physics. What is missing in most areas is appropropriate system-oriented molecular engineering software that builds on this modeling and simulation capability.
The purposes, the model-building and testing operations, the representations, and even the approximations made in the physical models — all can be, and often must be, very different. Good multiscale modeling is important, and relatively weak today, but that’s only part of the story.
I’ve written more here: “Macromolecular Modeling for Molecular Systems Engineering”.
This method by proteins seems like the same old methods used by chemistry. Predict the reaction, then use a liquid medium and let the chemicals assemble. For you to make an active and precise control of atoms, you need to understand that electrodynamics is predominant at such a small scale. Using electrodynamic forces to control atoms would be the most efficient way to control atoms. You could use lightwaves and charged atoms to position them. There already exists optical-tweezers that can manipulate micrometer scale objects at nanometer precision.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm
Ah, but how to connect the atoms together?
Activation energy of course.
Fire high energy photons at the junction of the atoms to give the required activation energy for them to bond.
Why be so limited to making biological processes do molecular assembly? With electrodynamic forces, any atom can be manipulated not just organic elements.
@ James — Optical traps can’t direct chemical interactions at a molecular length scale. One reason is that the amplitude of thermal fluctuations is too large.
No, not currently indeed. The idea of electrodynamics as atomic control is most interesting. Maybe not optical traps, but using some more creativity, progress becomes closer.
The more capabilities we have and intertwine, the more possible it seems to make dreams reality. I see each new proven method discovered as possibilities to combine with other methods. There is a new method whereby light drives nanomachines, so electrodynamics is not far-fetched. http://www.physorg.com/news146924474.html
I could even see the protein approach creating self-assembled nanolasers that interface into computer circuity.
Creativity appears to be a major factor in technological progress. We use what’s possible to make what was thought to be impossible.
Good luck with your research. It’s very fascinating!
{ 1 trackback }