Talk:Nanomedicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jayshome, Ernst.ch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
There is a nanomedicine section in the molecular nanotechnology article. Perhaps this article should be merged into that one?>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.113.201 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2005‎ (UTC)
 * I disagree, nanomedicine does not require medical nanorobots. The ESF definition of nanomedicine is "ensuring the comprehensive monitoring, control, construction, repair, defence and improvement of all human biological systems, working from the molecular level using engineered devices and nanostructures, ultimately to achieve medical benefit." Average Earthman 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old section but it looks like nobodies been here for some time. Anyway I have done some work on 'nanorobots' - way back around 1990, the name I generally used was 'assemblers'. The author above is right that assemblers are basically science fiction, they were '10 years' in the future in 1990 and they are still at least '10 years' in the future today in 2012. The problem with assemblers is that it would cost billions -and a vast amount of intensive research- to develop them- and even then they would be almost useless without a lot more work. Possibly I would expect to see them naturally in the evolution of technology in around 60 to 100 years, but I can see them never performing much more than a niche role. The thing that the common SF model really has wrong is that assemblers will be very slow to do almost everything, especially reproduction. And assemblers will probably also require complex difficult environments - like super clean feed-stocks, high vacuum, cryogenic environments, suitable power supply vectors, sufficient cooling capability, and so on. - Solving these problems and creating assemblers that can function say in the human body will probably be at least as difficult as creating the first assemblers themselves.


 * As for medicine, if the other problems can be solved it is one of the few areas where these machines could excel. Obviously all living cells are living machines but assemblers would be quite different. For instance one simple application would be hunting down tumour cells and destroying them one by one. Perhaps the most ambitious ideas are- using assemblers to rewrite and repair the neural system directly, or as a partial or complete replacement for the natural immune system, or to completely halt the ageing process. If we had working assemblers that could function in the body most of these would not be impossible or even very difficult.


 * An actual (theoretical) application I worked on was a nano-computer that could theoretically replicate an entire human brains neural function directly. The design sketch that I came up with would have had a volume roughly 10,000 times smaller that an average human brain 100 mm^2. Power was the exact opposite, -the calculations for power consumption and heat output were extremely rough but came to about 10 - 40Kw. - In the human brain another rough calculation puts average power consumption and heat output at about 120w, the difference between the two mostly comes from the energy required to keep the simulations elements connected together in real time. The design had 1 million CPU's linked together in an extremely complex network and most of the actual work was in transmitting data from one node to another.


 * Lucien86 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

research?
Is there any research currently being conducted in this area? Maybe mentioning some of it, if it exists, would be good for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.26.254 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2005‎ (UTC)
 * I've added a bit on that, and linked to a Nature Materials article for those lucky enough to be able to read it as the citation. I've also added a link to a European Science Foundation report. Average Earthman 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Any nanomedicine experts out there?
The article Transfersome concerns an example of medical nanotechnology. It is currently up for deletion, and a rewrite for readability by any editors interested in medical research or nantechnology would help. Plus comments at the deletion debate would be good as well. Carcharoth 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement?
Is it me or does the Cell repair machines section read like a pamphlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.66.212 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The  nanorobots part suffers from the same problem as cell repair machines - it is pure speculation. Most "facts" are at some distant point (undefined) in the future. Almost all of the nanorobotic stuff is "could" or "may". If you are looking for verified facts, they are a minor proportion of these sections, as the objects described do not exist, although extensive "calculations" and computer-rendered images are not in short supply. The only reason this could be in an encyclopedia is because it is so widespread that it has become part of a scientific myth/fiction. But being as Star Trek and particular episodes such as The Trouble With Tribbles have their own wikipedia pages, then I guess we cannot complain about nanobots being in here either.Judge Nutmeg 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
The entire nanorobot section is basically science fiction, not the work that should be in an encyclopedia. The article fails to point out the molecular machines already exist in the form of protein/RNA molecules capable of enzymatic activity. This article also fails to show how a synthesized device would be superior to the ones that already exist within biology. The idea that something synthetic and small 'nano-sized' machine imparts magical properties and enhanced capabilities does not follow the scientific literature. Rather, a reduction in size typically results in limited capabilities. Additionally the claim that molecular nanotechnology 'machines' will have capabilities beyond those of a virus is somewhat absurd given the extreme amount of selective evolution that has designed viruses with multiple overlapping reading frames within a small set of DNA. See Adeno-associated virus which synthesizes 7+ unique proteins from a 4.7 kb genome.

Perhaps most tragically the article is also written as if the statements within are already accepted fact rather than fantasies of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.7 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Research
I was under the impression that the University of Michigan has been experimenting with nanorobots for the past two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.166.122 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Surgery source
I found a source for the surgery section, but I'm not so knowledgeable in marking citations, so perhaps someone else can do it for me. It's http://www.nanomedicinecenter.com/article/surgery-and-nanomedicine/. It looks like it was pretty much copied... ZAD-Man (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Applications and reported research studies
Is there a specific reason why there are two seperate sections called "applications and reported research studies" or can they be merged?Bucknastay (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Revamp
I've done a significant amount of tightening on this article&mdash;in fact, less than half of it is left. There was a lot of text that was repetitive, or overly wordy while lacking any technical detail, or that discussed specific primary research articles without establishing their context or notability. This article will still need a lot of work to reorient it around reliable medical sources, but hopefully I've cleared out the thicket enough that some seeds can be planted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 11:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

History of nanomedicine
Hey User:Alexbrn would you please explain why you have removed my addition history to this page when medical journal Pub med the one recommended by wikipedia for verification of medical information clearly states so that bhasma is nanomedicine? And if anyone else objects to the addition of this section(history) then please make sure to state your reasons and perspectives for why it shouldn't be added to this page within this section titled history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazearon21 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that some authors of a poor source say that ayurveda "may be considered as nanomedicine" does not have sufficient weight for Wikipedia to agree, or even to include this fancy at all. Alexbrn (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 points to clarify. 1) PubMed is not a source itself, but an archive of publications at the US National Library of Medicine. It simply lists publications and republishes abstracts/articles, giving no weight about their quality or acceptance by the scientific community. Listing of bhasma articles on PubMed gives no validity about its historical use in nanomedicine. 2) your wish to include bhasma as a historical source of nanomedicine has no precedent in the medical science literature. It is a fringe idea, WP:FRINGE, with no scientific weight, WP:DUE, or possibly your original idea, WP:OR, discouraged at Wikipedia; see WP:5P2 and WP:V. 3) as a topic in medical science, nanomedicine content is governed for sourcing by WP:MEDRS – you should read this guideline. Your claim that bhasma is relevant to nanomedicine history is not supported by an objective, thorough systematic review presenting such a concept as totality of evidence by nanomedicine scientists. Further orientation on this is here. By this collective assessment, bhasma and ayurveda are in no way related to nanomedicine. Please do not persist in trying to include this concept in the article. --Zefr (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Antibiotic applications of nanomedicine
I've done a reasonable amount of research into the uses of nanotechnology for antibiotic applications and would like to add it as a section to the existing article. The addition I'd like to make is sitting in my sandbox. Thoughts and opinions on this?

Adel Attari (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this discussion to the Talk page. Although the potential for nanomedical use as antibiotics is promising, the research cited is conjectural and very preliminary as defined by WP:PRIMARY, i.e., it is not ready as encyclopedic content, in my opinion. The discussion on ROS is highly speculative and will be impossible to prove in vivo mechanistically. I recommend trimming the content and references considerably under a new section to be entitled "Research". This is analogous to drugs in development which are "research" until confirmed by sufficient totality of clinical evidence that then leads to regulatory approval at which time the drug's efficacy and specificity are defined. See WP:MEDASSESS for the level of evidence quality needed for the encyclopedia on medical topics. It would be helpful if you could write a draft for discussion here first. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zefr, thank you very much for your feedback. I understand what you mean by your drug analogy - there is no present clinical application of nanoparticles as antibiotics and therefore has no clinical evidence to be discussed as fact. I've re-worked and trimmed what I've written to the heading of "Research" with "Antimicrobial Properties" and "Speculative Applications" as new subheadings. The "Drug Synergies" section has been removed and "Metal Nanoparticles" and "Carbon Structures" have been combined under "Speculative Applications". The content itself has also been worked up. A draft is below for discussion.

Antimicrobial Properties
Nano particles have been studied extensively for their promising antimicrobial properties to fight super bug bacteria. Several characteristics in particular make nano particles strong candidates as a traditional antibiotic drug alternative: The key to nanoparticle efficacy against antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria lies in their small size. On the nano scale, particles can behave as molecules when interacting with a cell which allows them to easily penetrate the cell membrane and interfere in vital molecular pathways if the chemistry is possible.
 * A high surface area to volume ratio which increases contact area on an organism
 * May be synthesized from polymers, lipids, and metals
 * A multitude of chemical structures, such as fullerenes or metal oxides, allow for a diverse set of chemical functionalizations

Speculative Applications
A strong focus has been placed on triggering excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS) production using nanoparticles injected in bacterial cells. The presence of excessive ROS can stress the cell structure leading to damaged DNA/RNA, decreased membrane activity, disrupted metabolic activity, and harmful side reactions generating chemicals such as peroxides. ROS production has been induced generally through the introduction of both metal oxide and positively charged metal nano particles in the cell, such as iron oxides and silver. The positive charge of the metal is attracted to the negative charge of the cell membrane which it may then easily penetrate. Carbon nano structures such as graphene oxide (GO) sheets, nano tubes, and fullerenes also have plausible antimicrobial properties when used synergistically with other methods. UV radiation directed at GO sheets, for example, disrupts bacterial cell activity and colony growth via ROS production. Doping nano tubes or fullerenes with silver or copper nano particles may also harm the cells ability to grow and replicate DNA. The exact mechanism which promotes this synergy is not clearly understood but it is believe to be linked to the unique surface chemistry of carbon nanostrctures (i.e. the large aspect ratio of carbon nanotubes, high surface energy in GO sheets). Human applications of carbon nano materials have not been tested due to the potential hazards they pose as carcinogens.

(Draft)

Adel Attari (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is all too speculative to be included, in my opinion. You might seek other opinions at WT:MED. --Zefr (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is "too speculative" when I'm citing multiple peer reviewed, published sources. Certain nanoparticles such as silver already have undeniable efficacy against certain bacterial strains, for example. My proposed heading is literally titled "Speculative Applications" to make it clear to readers of the article that this is not clinical practice. If there's something else I'm missing here then I'd be happy to have it explained to me and amend this section as such but otherwise I don't see how this piece is incompatible with the article.

Adel Attari (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is already too much speculation in the Nanomedicine article, in my opinion. An encyclopedia is not intended to be a report of research-in-progress, but rather should state actual uses and facts having the highest quality evidence. Please review WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-8. Both the antimicrobial and ROS inhibition properties are speculative and insufficiently examined in lab animals, let alone humans. I want to try revising the article to cull as much speculation as possible, then will seek WT:MED input for the review by other medical editors. --Zefr (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Cancer section

 * Why did you revert all my formatting changes?

This edit with the edit summary copyedit to trim excessive content and speculation per WP:CRYSTAL; subtitle change: this is only preliminary research; WP:MEDRS reviews needed; rv outdated sources There are a number of problems with your edit summary. A quick review of the deleted material showed that it included many recent review articles. Also you are misusing WP:CRYSTAL. That is not is what is being done here. On going research, as long as it is supported by reliable secondary sources and as long as no medical claims are being made is fair game to include.

I suggest that you work any disagreements out on this talk page and please leave my formatting edits in place. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The additions by read more like a jargon-filled, speculative discussion for a grant application, book, or journal article. They needed encyclopedic trimming as guided by WP:NOTJOURNAL. The speculation about possible cellular mechanisms or future clinical applications needs trimming or removal per WP:CRYSTAL. --Zefr (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Zefr, Thank you for your interest in our work. We believe that previously existed section Cancer removed by you is important for “Nanomedicine” article on Wikipedia. That is why we have recovered old and added modern preclinical nanotechnology research in this section citing publications as well as review.
 * The added information was not encyclopedic, but contained content and preliminary sources as one would read in a journal article or grant application; see what WP is not at WP:NOTJOURNAL. MEDRS-quality reviews are needed as described in WP:MEDASSESS. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)