🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3278@soma.bcm.tmc.edu>, kent@soma.bcm.tmc.edu (Kent Hutson) writes:
> In article <2783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> >In some respects, the AIDS viruses look like engineered nanomachines.
> 
>   Forgive me, but I don't quite understand that statement.  Could you 
> explain in more detail.  When you talk of nanotechnology, does that
> include genetic engineering?  
>
>   There is very promising research being done in the area of DNA repair
> This sounds like what you consider to be a problem with nanotechnology.
> I still don't understand the difference between "nanotechnology"
> and present-day genetic engineering.
> 
> Kent
> -- 

I've edited Kent's words somewhat.  Here's what I propose as the
significant difference:

The most significant difference between nanoengineering and genetic 
engineering is that genetic engineering is based on organic chemistry, 
while nanoengineering is not.  The nanomachines may be made entirely 
of inorganic materials.  

Some of what falls under genetic engineering could be included in 
the wider category of genetic engineering.

The latest Scientific American has an article on nanomachines.

Norm Andrews
AT&T Information Systems
Room MT-2C402
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, New Jersey 07748
(201)957-5786
vax135!mtuxo!mtgzy!norm