Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nanotechnology in biomedical field
Nanotechnology in biomedical field
Essay on chemical nano technology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nanotechnology in biomedical field
Nanotechnology, as described by Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2014) is, “ the science of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices”. In recognizing the complexity associated with this definition, it is safe to say that many different achievements as well as controversies have come along with it. Although the category of nanotechnology is extremely broad the research attached to it is growing at a rapid pace as well . There are many unexplored areas that have caused researchers as well as the public to question what types of positive or negative affects it might have on our world as a whole. Because of its strong presences in our society today, it is beneficial to become educated on this innovative form of technology to shape critical opinions of its purpose.
History of Nanotechnology
Surprisingly enough, nanotechnology has an older history than one might infer. The name makes it seem more modern than its historical ties might argue. The History of Nanotechnology (2009) article reads, “ There is evidence that gold nanoparticles were used in coloring glass in medieval times and possibly even during the days of the ancient Romans; here the size of the particle is related to color” (p.39). There is also early evidence from the “History of Nano Timeline”, (2005) that the development of photography was an early form of nanotechnology without even knowing it at the time. This evidence is not, however, widely recognized in the beginning of nanotechnology’s history. Within the same article it is also introduced that the true history of nanotechnology can be linked to a physicist, Richard Feynman in the year of 1959. Although he never actually referred to his theories as nanotechnology,...
... middle of paper ...
...
References
Aseev, A. L. (2008). Nanotechnologies: Yesterday, today, tomorrow. (Cover Story). Science First Hand, 21(3), 12-29.
Basavaraj, K.H. (2012). Nanotechnology in medicine and relevance to dermatology: Present concepts. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 57(3), 169-174.
Glenn, L., & Boyce, J. S. (2008). Nanotechnology: Considering the complex ethical legal and societal issues with the parameters of human performance. Nanoethics, 2(3), 265-275.
History of nano timeline. (2005). - History of Nano. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from http://discovernano.org/whatis/History/
History of nanotechnology. (2009). Chemical Engineering, 116(2), 39.
Nanotechnology. (2014). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nanotechnology
New, W. (2003). Nanotech nation. National Journal, 35(24), 1857.
The fact that there have been many advancements in biomedical technology over the years have given us the ability to cure and prevent diseases that have once devastated the human population. These breakthroughs have allowed people to live longer and healthier lives, yet others believe that it runs the risk of “playing God” and that such matters should be left into the hands of a higher power. Today, this ethical debate still continues to raise questions on whether these scientific breakthroughs are morally acceptable. While I support the use of scientific breakthroughs, I believe that it should only be used for human benefit to cure those who are suffering from cancer. This approach seems more reasonable than using this technology to choose one’s eye color or keep someone on life support just because it is something that can be done, whether or not that is acceptable or not.
Smithsonian. This 1,600 Year Old Goblet Show the Romans Were Nanotechnology Pioneers. n.d. Web. 2 May 2014.
The use of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that bioengineering improves one’s self through boosting confidence and self-respect.
In the article “Pinpointing Cancer Fight,” Liz Szabo states the uses of nanotechnology and how researchers are attempting to use this advancement to fight cancer. She defines that nanotechnology is a type of technology that creates devices on an atomic level; this equipment can allow people such as researchers to use its ability to detect cancerous cells as well as treat them. Szabo remains a neutral tone as she states that while some are against the idea of using nanotechnology since there are many risks, others are optimistic that it may lead to transformational results. She presents a list of some products developed through nanotechnology and explains its usage in addition to mentioning the failure of those nanotech products. Szabo provides
With a consequentialist tone of approach, he describes human society having an imbalance between two ideals: the acceptance of oneself as a gift and the strive for perfection. The usage of technology for enhancement purposes pushes us away from the first and more towards the latter. Bioethics’ main principle revolves around the concept of morality, defined by beliefs regarding actions that are often split between being right or wrong in interpretation and character (Vaughn). Sandel upholds to this stance, confronting it with our own ideology that through the pronouncement of terms of biotechnology, we seem to accept more than reject what is brought up in the culture of society, this type of thinking reaffirming our current beliefs of the nature of controversial
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
It is clear that nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize health care and even transport
United States. President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics. New York: Dana Press, 2003. Print.
K. Eric Drexler is known to be “the founding father of nanotechnology,” and theorized the creation of mechanical nanoscale systems that would revolutionize the world of manufacturing and technology. However, many opponents of his theory feared the implications and applications of such nanotechnology, and therefore began to spread panic through the concept of the menacing “grey goo.” “Prey” by Michael Crichton delves into the concepts Drexler proposed concerning nanorobotics computation and artificial intelligence through an interesting and insightful science fiction novel. Crichton delves in to the ethical implications of the unpredictability of evolutionary and machine learning programs, inability of technologists to learn from past mistakes,
The advancement of progress in the fields of biology and technology and, by extension, the scion of these two fields – biotechnology – is generally being lauded by experts and laymen alike. Genetically modified foods, Dolly the sheep, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are but some of the achievements in this field that have changed the scientific landscape, drawing attention to the past, present and also potential future exploits of men and women involved in biotechnology. Mainly because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the field may, in the near future, extend beyond therapy into human enhancement. With the possibility of such expansion looming ahead, it may be prudent to question whether or not such enhancement is morally and ethically desirable within the context of human nature and also nature itself. And although transhumanists, advocates of enhancement, themselves agree that there are concerns such as potential danger to health, technological difficulty or the impact on the environment tied to human enhancement, their opposite numbers from the bioconservative side of the divide feel that there is much more to be concerned about. Some even argue that the idea of human enhancement beyond therapy, or in other words makign ourselves “better than well”1 is inherently flawed. In any case, should human enhancement in its many forms become commonplace, it is surely going to “affect the rate of human intellectual, material and political progress”2. This essay will focus on illustrating the conviction of the bioconservatives about the detrimental nature of human enhancement in relation to two hypothetical but nonetheless very controversial forms of it – expansion of human cognitive abilities using nanotechnology and ...
It concerns all specialties of medecine, from pathology and oncology to cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.Currently, nanomedicine applications have been approved and are currently used for diagnostic procedures, body and organ imaging, surgical tools, drug delivery systems and gene therapies. [5,6]
"When they are finally attempted…genetic manipulations will…be done to change a death sentence into a life verdict." In agreeing with this quote by James D. Watson, director of the Human Genome Project, I affirm today’s resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified." I will now present a few definitions. Human genetic engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through genetic processes. Moral is "pertaining to right conduct; ethical." Justified is to be "proper; well-deserved." Therefore, something that is morally justified is ethically beneficial. My value today will be cost-benefit justice. When we examine the benefits that human genetic engineering provides to society, these benefits will outweigh any costs and will thus affirming the resolution will provide for justice. I will now present one observation—the existence of human genetic engineering will not be without limits. Patrick Ferreira, the director of medical genetics at the University of Alabama Hospitals, notes that a "technological imperative [states] that the development of extraordinary powers does not automatically authorize their use." In other words, the point of technology is to be careful, and as with any technology, a society will be meticulous in its understanding of human genetic engineering. I will now present 3 contentions that uphold my value of cost benefit justice.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of structures at nano levels. It uses incredibly small materials, devices, and systems to manipulate matter. These structures are measured in nanometers, or one billionth of a meter, and can be used by themselves or as part of larg...
20 Feb. 2014. Nardo, Don. A. Biomedical Ethics.
Nanotechnology is science, technology and engineering that is conducted at the nanoscale. The nanoscale is about 1 to 100 nanometres.