“Good things come in small packages.”

As a short person, that saying has always haunted me. People, usually tall people who don’t need a chair to get to the top shelf in the pantry, are always quoting it to soothe ruffled feelings of frustration. So, in this era of miniaturisation, is smaller better?

Nanobes

Nanobes are mysterious particles, right on the border of the definition of life. They get their name from their size, as they are measured in nanometres (one American billionth of a metre). They are roughly the same size as viruses. Viruses are also hard to define as ‘life as we know it’, as they need a host to reproduce. Nanobes appear to differ from viruses in their reproductive ability; it may be that they can proliferate without the need of a host. To date, there has been no real evidence of nanobes having a metabolism or a proper reproductive process. But they do ‘grow’.

Nanobes were discovered in sandstone deposits in Western Australia, by Philippa J.R. Uwins and her associates. Uwins was working at the University of Queensland, St Lucia, when she announced her discovery in 1998. The announcement generated a great deal of excitement, as the fossilised egg-shaped bacteria from the Mars’ meteorite were also considered too small to be ‘life’. The existence of terrestrial nanobes would go a long way in supporting the theory of life on other planets.

American Geologist Robert Folk and a small group of Finnish doctors have supported the concept of nanobes, even before the Australian contribution to the neonatal science. The doctors believe the nanobes are responsible a great many diseases that are chalked up to the patients’ bad luck.

It is hard to study particles that are even too small for an electron microscope to focus upon. But as determined research progresses, these fascinating nanobes will reveal their secrets.

Nanomachines

Nanomachines are small engines or devices built from atoms. Again, the name derives from their size, measured in nanometres. K. Eric Drexler popularized the potential of nanomachines. He visualised a future where nanomachines would build every from scratch, predicting construction on a molecular level to make anything and everything.

Personally, I think nanomachines would be of more benefit to medicine and waste management. They are so tiny; they would be able to enter and repair individual cells, or hunt down and dismantle cancers. As well, they could actively recycle waste by breaking it down into its individual molecules and sorting the molecules into their ‘piles’ for reuse.

We have yet to achieve a level of miniaturisation where we can build nanomachines. At the moment, we are limited by our own size, and the size of our machines. Still, the actual theory behind nanomachines is sound. So, one day, you may have minute machines living in your body, detecting and destroying pathogens faster than your own immune system.

In mankind’s quest for miniaturisation, nanomachines are the ultimate goal.