Talk:Molecular self-assembly

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of nanotech navbox

I do believe that including molecular self-assembly as one of the nanotechnology fields is justified. Nanotechnology follows two routes to control of matter on the nanoscale: one is a materials-based viewpoint which centers around nanoparticles, the other is a chemistry-based viewpoint which relies upon molecular recognition to control the arrangement of individual molecules. DNA nanotechnology [1] is probably the most relevant example of this. See also Nanotechnology#Simple to complex: a molecular perspective and Top-down_and_bottom-up_design#Nanotechnology.

Additionally, this article itself says, "Many biological systems use self-assembly to assemble various molecules and structures. Imitating these strategies and creating novel molecules with the ability to self-assemble into supramolecular assemblies is an important technique in nanotechnology."

I want to hear your views first, but I do think that the nanotech navbox should be restored.

Antony-22 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that molecular self-assembly is an important concept in nanotechnology. However, I don't think that molecular self-assembly is itself molecular nanotechnology despite the fact that structures formed by the process may be. However if you would like to include it I will not change it back.

On a separate note I don't like the format for the navbox "Part of the article series on Nanotechnology" that you used. I find that such boxes are very useful, but prefer the kind located at the bottom of the article, such as "Major Fields of Nanotechnology" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Technology for example. Placing navboxes at the bottom keeps it from disrupting the images in the article. The format also allows the boxes to be readily viewed independently, discussed, and edited. Perhaps such a navbox could be created for nanotechnology. Happy to continue the conversation at my talk page. M stone 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To understand molecular self-assembly the biotechnologist and the scientist involved in the Gene Program can shed intiial light on the behaviour of proteins when they combine with other proteins in the chains. The behaviour of this molecules does not necessarily indicate that there is an existence of molecular self-assembly just because the protein chains exhibit it. The premise of molecular self-assembly is that the unguided transformation and modification of the molecule into a "new" assembled component is a result of an "intentional" or "willed" outcome introduced by some technological force or "item" that will internally direct the assembly of the molecule into the desired structure by building "itself" into that form.

Nanotechnology can only be possible after the satisfactory understanding of the multi-disciplinary technology required. Unless the trigger mechanism of molecules in a reaction within a specific environment (electro-chemical is understood, the direction of the outcome can only be based on presumptions and conclusions from observations and not an indication of the mechanism under which a specific molecule/s is directed. ( Toto T) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.11.67 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]