Science is the poetry of Nature.
Contributing Authors
Posts tagged "Tech"
neuromorphogenesis: Disruptions: Brain Computer Interfaces Inch Closer to Mainstream Last week, engineers sniffing around the programming code for Google Glass found hidden examples of ways that people might interact with the wearable computers without having to say a word. Among them, a user could nod to turn the glasses on or off. A single wink might tell the glasses to take a picture. But don’t expect these gestures to be necessary for long. Soon, we might interact with our smartphones and computers simply by using our minds. In a couple of years, we could be turning on the lights at home just by thinking about it, or sending an e-mail from our smartphone without even pulling the device from our pocket. Farther into the future, your robot assistant will appear by your side with a glass of lemonade simply because it knows you are thirsty. Researchers in Samsung’s Emerging Technology Lab are testing tablets that can be controlled by your brain, using a cap that resembles a ski hat studded with monitoring electrodes, the MIT Technology Review, the science and technology journal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported this month. The technology, often called a brain computer interface, was conceived to enable people with paralysis and other disabilities to interact with computers or control robotic arms, all by simply thinking about such actions. Before long, these technologies could well be in consumer electronics, too. Some crude brain-reading products already exist, letting people play easy games or move a mouse around a screen. NeuroSky, a company based in San Jose, Calif., recently released a Bluetooth-enabled headset that can monitor slight changes in brain waves and allow people to play concentration-based games on computers and smartphones. These include a zombie-chasing game, archery and a game where you dodge bullets — all these apps use your mind as the joystick. Another company, Emotiv, sells a headset that looks like a large alien hand and can read brain waves associated with thoughts, feelings and expressions. The device can be used to play Tetris-like games or search through Flickr photos by thinking about an emotion the person is feeling — like happy, or excited — rather than searching by keywords. Muse, a lightweight, wireless headband, can engage with an app that “exercises the brain” by forcing people to concentrate on aspects of a screen, almost like taking your mind to the gym. Car manufacturers are exploring technologies packed into the back of the seat that detect when people fall asleep while driving and rattle the steering wheel to awaken them. But the products commercially available today will soon look archaic. “The current brain technologies are like trying to listen to a conversation in a football stadium from a blimp,” said John Donoghue, a neuroscientist and director of the Brown Institute for Brain Science. “To really be able to understand what is going on with the brain today you need to surgically implant an array of sensors into the brain.” In other words, to gain access to the brain, for now you still need a chip in your head. Last year, a project called BrainGate pioneered by Dr. Donoghue, enabled two people with full paralysis to use a robotic arm with a computer responding to their brain activity. One woman, who had not used her arms in 15 years, could grasp a bottle of coffee, serve herself a drink and then return the bottle to a table. All done by imagining the robotic arm’s movements. But that chip inside the head could soon vanish as scientists say we are poised to gain a much greater understanding of the brain, and, in turn, technologies that empower brain computer interfaces. An initiative by the Obama administration this year called the Brain Activity Map project, a decade-long research project, aims to build a comprehensive map of the brain. Miyoung Chun, a molecular biologist and vice president for science programs at the Kavli Foundation, is working on the project and although she said it would take a decade to completely map the brain, companies would be able to build new kinds of brain computer interface products within two years. “The Brain Activity Map will give hardware companies a lot of new tools that will change how we use smartphones and tablets,” Dr. Chun said. “It will revolutionize everything from robotic implants and neural prosthetics, to remote controls, which could be history in the foreseeable future when you can change your television channel by thinking about it.” There are some fears to be addressed. On the Muse Web site, an F.A.Q. is devoted to convincing customers that the device cannot siphon thoughts from people’s minds. These brain-reading technologies have been the stuff of science fiction for decades. In the 1982 movie “Firefox,” Clint Eastwood plays a fighter pilot on a mission to the Soviet Union to steal a prototype fighter jet that can be controlled by a brain neurolink. But Mr. Eastwood has to think in Russian for the plane to work, and he almost dies when he cannot get the missiles to fire during a dogfight. (Don’t worry, he survives.) Although we won’t be flying planes with our minds anytime soon, surfing the Web on our smartphones might be closer. Dr. Donoghue of Brown said one of the current techniques used to read people’s brains is called P300, in which a computer can determine which letter of the alphabet someone is thinking about based on the area of the brain that is activated when she sees a screen full of letters. But even when advances in brain-reading technologies speed up, there will be new challenges, as scientists will have to determine if the person wants to search the Web for something in particular, or if he is just thinking about a random topic. “Just because I’m thinking about a steak medium-rare at a restaurant doesn’t mean I actually want that for dinner,” Dr. Donoghue said. “Just like Google glasses, which will have to know if you’re blinking because there is something in your eye or if you actually want to take a picture,” brain computer interfaces will need to know if you’re just thinking about that steak or really want to order it.

neuromorphogenesis:

Disruptions: Brain Computer Interfaces Inch Closer to Mainstream

Last week, engineers sniffing around the programming code for Google Glass found hidden examples of ways that people might interact with the wearable computers without having to say a word. Among them, a user could nod to turn the glasses on or off. A single wink might tell the glasses to take a picture.

But don’t expect these gestures to be necessary for long. Soon, we might interact with our smartphones and computers simply by using our minds. In a couple of years, we could be turning on the lights at home just by thinking about it, or sending an e-mail from our smartphone without even pulling the device from our pocket. Farther into the future, your robot assistant will appear by your side with a glass of lemonade simply because it knows you are thirsty.

Researchers in Samsung’s Emerging Technology Lab are testing tablets that can be controlled by your brain, using a cap that resembles a ski hat studded with monitoring electrodes, the MIT Technology Review, the science and technology journal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported this month.

The technology, often called a brain computer interface, was conceived to enable people with paralysis and other disabilities to interact with computers or control robotic arms, all by simply thinking about such actions. Before long, these technologies could well be in consumer electronics, too.

Some crude brain-reading products already exist, letting people play easy games or move a mouse around a screen.

NeuroSky, a company based in San Jose, Calif., recently released a Bluetooth-enabled headset that can monitor slight changes in brain waves and allow people to play concentration-based games on computers and smartphones. These include a zombie-chasing game, archery and a game where you dodge bullets — all these apps use your mind as the joystick. Another company, Emotiv, sells a headset that looks like a large alien hand and can read brain waves associated with thoughts, feelings and expressions. The device can be used to play Tetris-like games or search through Flickr photos by thinking about an emotion the person is feeling — like happy, or excited — rather than searching by keywords. Muse, a lightweight, wireless headband, can engage with an app that “exercises the brain” by forcing people to concentrate on aspects of a screen, almost like taking your mind to the gym.

Car manufacturers are exploring technologies packed into the back of the seat that detect when people fall asleep while driving and rattle the steering wheel to awaken them.

But the products commercially available today will soon look archaic. “The current brain technologies are like trying to listen to a conversation in a football stadium from a blimp,” said John Donoghue, a neuroscientist and director of the Brown Institute for Brain Science. “To really be able to understand what is going on with the brain today you need to surgically implant an array of sensors into the brain.” In other words, to gain access to the brain, for now you still need a chip in your head.

Last year, a project called BrainGate pioneered by Dr. Donoghue, enabled two people with full paralysis to use a robotic arm with a computer responding to their brain activity. One woman, who had not used her arms in 15 years, could grasp a bottle of coffee, serve herself a drink and then return the bottle to a table. All done by imagining the robotic arm’s movements.

But that chip inside the head could soon vanish as scientists say we are poised to gain a much greater understanding of the brain, and, in turn, technologies that empower brain computer interfaces. An initiative by the Obama administration this year called the Brain Activity Map project, a decade-long research project, aims to build a comprehensive map of the brain.

Miyoung Chun, a molecular biologist and vice president for science programs at the Kavli Foundation, is working on the project and although she said it would take a decade to completely map the brain, companies would be able to build new kinds of brain computer interface products within two years.

“The Brain Activity Map will give hardware companies a lot of new tools that will change how we use smartphones and tablets,” Dr. Chun said. “It will revolutionize everything from robotic implants and neural prosthetics, to remote controls, which could be history in the foreseeable future when you can change your television channel by thinking about it.”

There are some fears to be addressed. On the Muse Web site, an F.A.Q. is devoted to convincing customers that the device cannot siphon thoughts from people’s minds.

These brain-reading technologies have been the stuff of science fiction for decades.

In the 1982 movie “Firefox,” Clint Eastwood plays a fighter pilot on a mission to the Soviet Union to steal a prototype fighter jet that can be controlled by a brain neurolink. But Mr. Eastwood has to think in Russian for the plane to work, and he almost dies when he cannot get the missiles to fire during a dogfight. (Don’t worry, he survives.)

Although we won’t be flying planes with our minds anytime soon, surfing the Web on our smartphones might be closer.

Dr. Donoghue of Brown said one of the current techniques used to read people’s brains is called P300, in which a computer can determine which letter of the alphabet someone is thinking about based on the area of the brain that is activated when she sees a screen full of letters. But even when advances in brain-reading technologies speed up, there will be new challenges, as scientists will have to determine if the person wants to search the Web for something in particular, or if he is just thinking about a random topic.

“Just because I’m thinking about a steak medium-rare at a restaurant doesn’t mean I actually want that for dinner,” Dr. Donoghue said. “Just like Google glasses, which will have to know if you’re blinking because there is something in your eye or if you actually want to take a picture,” brain computer interfaces will need to know if you’re just thinking about that steak or really want to order it.

Photo
neuromorphogenesis: How Would You Like Your Assistant - Human or Robotic? Roboticists are currently developing machines that have the potential to help patients with caregiving tasks, such as housework, feeding and walking. But before they reach the care recipients, assistive robots will first have to be accepted by healthcare providers such as nurses and nursing assistants. Based on a Georgia Institute of Technology study, it appears that they may be welcomed with open arms depending on the tasks at hand. More than half of healthcare providers interviewed said that if they were offered an assistant, they preferred it to be a robotic helper rather than a human. However, they don’t want robots to help with everything. They were very particular about what they wanted a robot to do, and not do. Instrumental activities of daily living (IDALs), such as helping with housework and reminding patients when to take medication, were acceptable. But activities daily living (ADL) tasks, especially those involving direct, physical interactions such as bathing, getting dressed and feeding people, were considered better for human assistants.    The findings will be presented April 27- May 2 at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Paris, France. “One open question was whether healthcare providers would reject the idea of robotic assistants out of fear that the robots would replace them in the workplace,” said Tracy Mitzner, one of the study’s leaders and the associate director of Georgia Tech’s Human Factors and Aging Laboratory. “This doesn’t appear to be a significant concern. In fact, the professional caregivers we interviewed viewed robots as a way to improve their jobs and the care they’re able to give patients.” For instance, nurses preferred a robot assistant that could help them lift patients from a bed to a chair.  They also indicated that robotic assistants could be helpful with some medical tasks such as checking vitals.   “Robots aren’t being designed to eliminate people. Instead, they can help reduce physical demands and workloads,” Mitzner said. “Hopefully, our study helps create guidelines for developers and facilitates deployment into the healthcare industry. It doesn’t make sense to build robots that won’t be accepted by the end user.” This study complements the lab’s prior research that found older people are generally willing to accept help from robots. Much like the current research, their preferences depended on the task. Participants said they preferred robotic help over human help for chores such as cleaning the kitchen and doing laundry. Getting dressed and suggesting medication were tasks viewed as better suited for human assistants.

neuromorphogenesis:

How Would You Like Your Assistant - Human or Robotic?

Roboticists are currently developing machines that have the potential to help patients with caregiving tasks, such as housework, feeding and walking. But before they reach the care recipients, assistive robots will first have to be accepted by healthcare providers such as nurses and nursing assistants. Based on a Georgia Institute of Technology study, it appears that they may be welcomed with open arms depending on the tasks at hand.

More than half of healthcare providers interviewed said that if they were offered an assistant, they preferred it to be a robotic helper rather than a human. However, they don’t want robots to help with everything. They were very particular about what they wanted a robot to do, and not do. Instrumental activities of daily living (IDALs), such as helping with housework and reminding patients when to take medication, were acceptable. But activities daily living (ADL) tasks, especially those involving direct, physical interactions such as bathing, getting dressed and feeding people, were considered better for human assistants.   

The findings will be presented April 27- May 2 at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Paris, France.

“One open question was whether healthcare providers would reject the idea of robotic assistants out of fear that the robots would replace them in the workplace,” said Tracy Mitzner, one of the study’s leaders and the associate director of Georgia Tech’s Human Factors and Aging Laboratory. “This doesn’t appear to be a significant concern. In fact, the professional caregivers we interviewed viewed robots as a way to improve their jobs and the care they’re able to give patients.”

For instance, nurses preferred a robot assistant that could help them lift patients from a bed to a chair.  They also indicated that robotic assistants could be helpful with some medical tasks such as checking vitals.  

“Robots aren’t being designed to eliminate people. Instead, they can help reduce physical demands and workloads,” Mitzner said. “Hopefully, our study helps create guidelines for developers and facilitates deployment into the healthcare industry. It doesn’t make sense to build robots that won’t be accepted by the end user.”

This study complements the lab’s prior research that found older people are generally willing to accept help from robots. Much like the current research, their preferences depended on the task. Participants said they preferred robotic help over human help for chores such as cleaning the kitchen and doing laundry. Getting dressed and suggesting medication were tasks viewed as better suited for human assistants.

Photo
neuromorphogenesis: Neural codes for memory implants The ability to short-circuit debilitating tremors in disease states with implantable stimulators is nothing short of remarkable. The same can be said for cochlear prosthetics which restore hearing, and more recently, retinal implants which give some rudimentary light-sensing capability to the blind. The logical extension of these sensorimotor restorative devices converges upon something a bit more extravagant—a purely cognitive implant—namely, the memory prosthetic. At the present time, there is only one researcher that has consistently demonstrated command of the technologies which would make such a device possible. Ted Berger, and his group from the University of Southern California, have recently extended their initial efforts to develop hippocampal memory devices in mice, to create full frontal cortex implants for primates. Berger published the initial results of these studies last September, in the Journal of Neural Engineering. This June, he will be a featured speaker at the Global Futures 2045 International Congress in New York, which will spot several visionaries in neuroscience and AI. Before he runs away with the show, it important to take a closer look at the exact methods he is using, and also the assumptions about possible neural codes upon which they are built. Efforts to restore memory loss due to Alzheimer’s disease have led to implantation of pacemaker-like stimulators in the fornix of patients. The fornix is the major output tract of the hippocampus, which is in turn just one among several components that must be counted among mammalian memory systems. In primates, the relative expansion of cortical structures, and hence their importance, has led Berger to develop a device which could work within this structure. The general strategy is to “decode” neuron activity in the superficial layers of the cortex, which presumably make essential functional connections to the deeper layer neurons, and stimulate those deeper neurons in a way that mimics how they would normally respond to superficial layer input in the healthy state. While that scheme certainly does not capture all the essential behavior of a given region of cortex, it is as good a place to start as any. The deep layer neurons are the ones that project out of the cortex to parts beyond. Their activity therefore represents, at least in theory, a summary of what is going on within that particular region. The approach has been to simultaneously record the activity of both the upper and lower layer neurons to build up a data set of their activity. Mathematical methods are then used to “decode” not only the activity of the upper layers, but also represent the responses of the deeper layer neurons to that activity. These decoding algorithms come from a field of mathematics known as nonlinear systems analysis. They were originally developed, or at least refined, during the Cold War era to track and target incoming missiles by extracting signals from noisy radar data. For the above mentioned prosthesis for the blind, these methods were simplified so that they could be used in a more practical way to represent the activity of a large group of cells in the retina. Berger’s collaborator at USC, Vasilis Marmarelis, is a pioneer in the application of these kinds of signal processing techniques to biological systems. When it comes to implementing these methods compactly in silicon VLSI chips, USC has also proven to be a place of ample resource for Berger.Although these signal processing techniques have been called “decoding” algorithms, in actuality, they do not represent any kind of a neural code. They basically treat the system they are modeling as a “black box’ composed only of inputs and outputs. They do not attempt to include any of the underlying physiology of the neurons. The idea of the “neural code” itself is a bit of a misnomer. Berger begins with assumption that the spikes of neurons accurately reflect either sensory input, motor output, or something in between. Depending on the function of the particular cell, spikes assume contextual meaning external to the neurons themselves, and can therefore be cast as the medium of memory.In reality, spikes also reflect a lot about what is going on inside each neuron—they are the energetic end result of the activity inside the cell. In addition to integrating inputs from each its of neighbors, the output of neurons in the form of spikes bears testimony to the efforts of thousands of mitochondria in the cell competing for every molecule of oxygen and glucose metabolite in their domain. Without that energy, there are no spikes. Neurons do their best to keep things running smoothly, but much of the flexibility and responsiveness comes from this sensitivity to conditions inside and outside the cell. Any attempt to describe a code for a neuron needs to account for the fact that the cell that is doing the coding is a different animal from moment to moment.Replacing the function of a small patch of cortex is a good start. It may however, be a bit premature to call such a device an actual memory implant. Berger plans to condense all the hardware required to emulate, and stimulate, neurons into a small package that can fit inside the skull, free of any external tethers. He is also looking ahead to work with surgeons who have already implanted hardware in the hippocampus of patients with epilepsy, and apply his techniques there. Thus far, most of the experimental studies have focused on restoring some kind of memory ability to animals that have been challenged with a drug that reduces performance. For the monkey experiments, cocaine was the agent given to degrade cortical processing. Using cocaine to proxy an effect you hope to restore by localized and layer-specific cortical simulation is obviously not a perfect experiment. Unambiguously measuring the restoration of performance in a specific task for repetitively trained animals is quite a challenge in-and-of itself. Berger and his collaborator, Sam Deadwyler, demonstrated that their device could be used to bring the performance of cocaine intoxicated monkeys in line with normal performance in a delayed matching memory test. Another interpretation of the experiments might just as well be that the device might also make a handy cocaine antidote. Restoring performance is one thing, but augmenting normal performance to a higher level would be a far greater trick.Journal reference: Journal of Neural Engineering

neuromorphogenesis:

Neural codes for memory implants

The ability to short-circuit debilitating tremors in disease states with implantable stimulators is nothing short of remarkable. The same can be said for cochlear prosthetics which restore hearing, and more recently, retinal implants which give some rudimentary light-sensing capability to the blind. The logical extension of these sensorimotor restorative devices converges upon something a bit more extravagant—a purely cognitive implant—namely, the memory prosthetic. At the present time, there is only one researcher that has consistently demonstrated command of the technologies which would make such a device possible. Ted Berger, and his group from the University of Southern California, have recently extended their initial efforts to develop hippocampal memory devices in mice, to create full frontal cortex implants for primates. Berger published the initial results of these studies last September, in the Journal of Neural Engineering. This June, he will be a featured speaker at the Global Futures 2045 International Congress in New York, which will spot several visionaries in neuroscience and AI. Before he runs away with the show, it important to take a closer look at the exact methods he is using, and also the assumptions about possible neural codes upon which they are built.


Efforts to restore memory loss due to Alzheimer’s disease have led to implantation of pacemaker-like stimulators in the fornix of patients. The fornix is the major output tract of the hippocampus, which is in turn just one among several components that must be counted among mammalian memory systems. In primates, the relative expansion of cortical structures, and hence their importance, has led Berger to develop a device which could work within this structure. The general strategy is to “decode” neuron activity in the superficial layers of the cortex, which presumably make essential functional connections to the deeper layer neurons, and stimulate those deeper neurons in a way that mimics how they would normally respond to superficial layer input in the healthy state.

While that scheme certainly does not capture all the essential behavior of a given region of cortex, it is as good a place to start as any. The deep layer neurons are the ones that project out of the cortex to parts beyond. Their activity therefore represents, at least in theory, a summary of what is going on within that particular region. The approach has been to simultaneously record the activity of both the upper and lower layer neurons to build up a data set of their activity. Mathematical methods are then used to “decode” not only the activity of the upper layers, but also represent the responses of the deeper layer neurons to that activity.

These decoding algorithms come from a field of mathematics known as nonlinear systems analysis. They were originally developed, or at least refined, during the Cold War era to track and target incoming missiles by extracting signals from noisy radar data. For the above mentioned prosthesis for the blind, these methods were simplified so that they could be used in a more practical way to represent the activity of a large group of cells in the retina. Berger’s collaborator at USC, Vasilis Marmarelis, is a pioneer in the application of these kinds of signal processing techniques to biological systems. When it comes to implementing these methods compactly in silicon VLSI chips, USC has also proven to be a place of ample resource for Berger.

Although these signal processing techniques have been called “decoding” algorithms, in actuality, they do not represent any kind of a neural code. They basically treat the system they are modeling as a “black box’ composed only of inputs and outputs. They do not attempt to include any of the underlying physiology of the neurons. The idea of the “neural code” itself is a bit of a misnomer. Berger begins with assumption that the spikes of neurons accurately reflect either sensory input, motor output, or something in between. Depending on the function of the particular cell, spikes assume contextual meaning external to the neurons themselves, and can therefore be cast as the medium of memory.

In reality, spikes also reflect a lot about what is going on inside each neuron—they are the energetic end result of the activity inside the cell. In addition to integrating inputs from each its of neighbors, the output of neurons in the form of spikes bears testimony to the efforts of thousands of mitochondria in the cell competing for every molecule of oxygen and glucose metabolite in their domain. Without that energy, there are no spikes. Neurons do their best to keep things running smoothly, but much of the flexibility and responsiveness comes from this sensitivity to conditions inside and outside the cell. Any attempt to describe a code for a neuron needs to account for the fact that the cell that is doing the coding is a different animal from moment to moment.

Replacing the function of a small patch of cortex is a good start. It may however, be a bit premature to call such a device an actual memory implant. Berger plans to condense all the hardware required to emulate, and stimulate, neurons into a small package that can fit inside the skull, free of any external tethers. He is also looking ahead to work with surgeons who have already implanted hardware in the hippocampus of patients with epilepsy, and apply his techniques there. Thus far, most of the experimental studies have focused on restoring some kind of memory ability to animals that have been challenged with a drug that reduces performance.

For the monkey experiments, cocaine was the agent given to degrade cortical processing. Using cocaine to proxy an effect you hope to restore by localized and layer-specific cortical simulation is obviously not a perfect experiment. Unambiguously measuring the restoration of performance in a specific task for repetitively trained animals is quite a challenge in-and-of itself. Berger and his collaborator, Sam Deadwyler, demonstrated that their device could be used to bring the performance of cocaine intoxicated monkeys in line with normal performance in a delayed matching memory test. Another interpretation of the experiments might just as well be that the device might also make a handy cocaine antidote. Restoring performance is one thing, but augmenting normal performance to a higher level would be a far greater trick.

Journal reference: Journal of Neural Engineering

Photo
E. coli is capable of producing a diesel substitute  Strains of E. coli bacteria are capable of producing a biofuel almost identical to diesel. The importance of the discovery hinges around the idea of “drop-in” fuels — that existing technology which runs on diesel would not need to be modified in order to utilize the biofuel meaning the costs to business of switching energy sources would be minimal. “Producing a commercial biofuel that can be used without needing to modify vehicles has been the goal of this project from the outset,” said Professor John Love from the University of Exeter’s Biosciences department. “Replacing conventional diesel with a carbon neutral biofuel in commercial volumes would be a tremendous step towards meeting our target of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Global demand for energy is rising and a fuel that is independent of both global oil price fluctuations and political instability is an increasingly attractive prospect.” The E. coli uses a natural oil production process to convert sugars into fats which are then used in the bacteria’s cell membrane. By genetically altering the E. coli the researchers were able to convert the sugars to the imitation fossil fuel (perhaps faux-sil fuel?) instead. Unfortunately the process only yields tiny amounts of biodiesel at present meaning that before we can switch energy sources bioscientists will need to find a way to refine the process and produce industrial quantities of fuel. The team at the University of Exeter received support for their project from multinational oil company, Shell. According to Rob Lee from Shell projects & technology: “While the technology still faces several hurdles to commercialisation, by exploring this new method of creating biofuel, along with other intelligent technologies, we hope they could help us to meet the challenges of limiting the rise in carbon dioxide emissions while responding to the growing global requirement for transport fuel.”

E. coli is capable of producing a diesel substitute

 Strains of E. coli bacteria are capable of producing a biofuel almost identical to diesel.

The importance of the discovery hinges around the idea of “drop-in” fuels — that existing technology which runs on diesel would not need to be modified in order to utilize the biofuel meaning the costs to business of switching energy sources would be minimal.

“Producing a commercial biofuel that can be used without needing to modify vehicles has been the goal of this project from the outset,” said Professor John Love from the University of Exeter’s Biosciences department.

“Replacing conventional diesel with a carbon neutral biofuel in commercial volumes would be a tremendous step towards meeting our target of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Global demand for energy is rising and a fuel that is independent of both global oil price fluctuations and political instability is an increasingly attractive prospect.”

The E. coli uses a natural oil production process to convert sugars into fats which are then used in the bacteria’s cell membrane. By genetically altering the E. coli the researchers were able to convert the sugars to the imitation fossil fuel (perhaps faux-sil fuel?) instead.

Unfortunately the process only yields tiny amounts of biodiesel at present meaning that before we can switch energy sources bioscientists will need to find a way to refine the process and produce industrial quantities of fuel.

The team at the University of Exeter received support for their project from multinational oil company, Shell. According to Rob Lee from Shell projects & technology: “While the technology still faces several hurdles to commercialisation, by exploring this new method of creating biofuel, along with other intelligent technologies, we hope they could help us to meet the challenges of limiting the rise in carbon dioxide emissions while responding to the growing global requirement for transport fuel.”

Photo
Gynecologists Question Use Of Robotic Surgery For Hysterectomies Bolstered by a recent study that found doctors performing hysterectomies performed using a pricey robot didn’t produce better results for patients than ordinary — and cheaper — procedures, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently threw down a latex gauntlet against the use of robots. “There is no good data proving that robotic hysterectomy is even as good as—let alone better—than existing, and far less costly, minimally invasive alternatives,” said a March statement by ACOG President James T. Breeden. One in nine women will undergo a hysterectomy during her lifetime, making it one of the most common surgical procedures for women. In recent years, more women have opted for a robot-assisted procedure, rather than surgery through a large abdominal incision or traditional laparoscopic surgery, in which a doctor manipulates surgical instruments through small incisions in the abdomen. A study published in February in JAMA, the Journal Of The American Medical Association, and reports of problems have raised questions about robotic surgery. The Food and Drug Administration has been looking at the popular DaVinci robot system. Health insurers generally pay for robotic surgery just as they would any other surgical procedure, and for patients, out-of-pocket costs are typically the same as they would be for other options. Robot-assisted hysterectomy surgery is similar to the conventional laparascopic technique. But the procedure is performed by a surgeon sitting at a console some distance from the operating table who uses hand and foot controls to manipulate surgical tools that are attached to a robot’s arms. Proponents of robot-assisted surgery say that it can be a good minimally invasive option when surgeries are complex and can result in less blood loss, pain and a quicker return to normal life than traditional open surgery. But it’s also more costly. The JAMA study of more than 260,000 hysterectomy patients found that the median hospital cost for robot-assisted surgery was $8,868, compared with $6,679 for a laparoscopic hysterectomy. It also found that although patients who got robotic hysterectomy were less likely than laparoscopic patients to be hospitalized for more than two days, there was no significant difference between the two groups on other measures such as complications and blood transfusion rates. When hospitals have a robot, use of the $1 million-plus metal assistant tends to rise rapidly. The JAMA study found that between 2007 and 2010 robotically assisted hysterectomy grew from 0.5 percent to 9.5 percent overall. But the growth was even faster when looking at numbers from just those hospitals with the robots. The researchers said robotic surgeries accounted for 22.4 percent of all hysterectomies at those hospitals three years after the robot arrived. “As a tool, robotic surgery helps surgeons overcome the limitations of traditional [minimally invasive surgical] techniques to provide patients with a less invasive option and prevent the downstream costs and complications of an open procedure,” says Angela Wonson, a spokeswoman for Intuitive Surgical, the manufacturer of the da Vinci system. Women who have already had multiple abdominal procedures or those with larger uteruses, “anything that might make the surgery technically difficult,” may be good candidates for robotic hysterectomies, says Jason Wright, an assistant professor of women’s health at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the lead author of the study. Wright uses a robot to perform some gynecologic procedures. But the choice isn’t always obvious. “One of the things we struggle most with is to figure out which patient will benefit most with robotic surgery,” he says.

Gynecologists Question Use Of Robotic Surgery For Hysterectomies

Bolstered by a recent study that found doctors performing hysterectomies performed using a pricey robot didn’t produce better results for patients than ordinary — and cheaper — procedures, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently threw down a latex gauntlet against the use of robots.

“There is no good data proving that robotic hysterectomy is even as good as—let alone better—than existing, and far less costly, minimally invasive alternatives,” said a March statement by ACOG President James T. Breeden.

One in nine women will undergo a hysterectomy during her lifetime, making it one of the most common surgical procedures for women.

In recent years, more women have opted for a robot-assisted procedure, rather than surgery through a large abdominal incision or traditional laparoscopic surgery, in which a doctor manipulates surgical instruments through small incisions in the abdomen.

A study published in February in JAMA, the Journal Of The American Medical Association, and reports of problems have raised questions about robotic surgery. The Food and Drug Administration has been looking at the popular DaVinci robot system.

Health insurers generally pay for robotic surgery just as they would any other surgical procedure, and for patients, out-of-pocket costs are typically the same as they would be for other options.

Robot-assisted hysterectomy surgery is similar to the conventional laparascopic technique. But the procedure is performed by a surgeon sitting at a console some distance from the operating table who uses hand and foot controls to manipulate surgical tools that are attached to a robot’s arms.

Proponents of robot-assisted surgery say that it can be a good minimally invasive option when surgeries are complex and can result in less blood loss, pain and a quicker return to normal life than traditional open surgery.

But it’s also more costly. The JAMA study of more than 260,000 hysterectomy patients found that the median hospital cost for robot-assisted surgery was $8,868, compared with $6,679 for a laparoscopic hysterectomy.

It also found that although patients who got robotic hysterectomy were less likely than laparoscopic patients to be hospitalized for more than two days, there was no significant difference between the two groups on other measures such as complications and blood transfusion rates.

When hospitals have a robot, use of the $1 million-plus metal assistant tends to rise rapidly. The JAMA study found that between 2007 and 2010 robotically assisted hysterectomy grew from 0.5 percent to 9.5 percent overall.

But the growth was even faster when looking at numbers from just those hospitals with the robots. The researchers said robotic surgeries accounted for 22.4 percent of all hysterectomies at those hospitals three years after the robot arrived.

“As a tool, robotic surgery helps surgeons overcome the limitations of traditional [minimally invasive surgical] techniques to provide patients with a less invasive option and prevent the downstream costs and complications of an open procedure,” says Angela Wonson, a spokeswoman for Intuitive Surgical, the manufacturer of the da Vinci system.

Women who have already had multiple abdominal procedures or those with larger uteruses, “anything that might make the surgery technically difficult,” may be good candidates for robotic hysterectomies, says Jason Wright, an assistant professor of women’s health at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and the lead author of the study.

Wright uses a robot to perform some gynecologic procedures.

But the choice isn’t always obvious. “One of the things we struggle most with is to figure out which patient will benefit most with robotic surgery,” he says.

Photo
neuromorphogenesis: Man or machine? The age of the robot blurs sci-fi and cutting-edge science No sci-fi plot is as reliable as that of the rebelling robot. It’s a story as old as digital time: the once promising but ultimately impetuous computer/child, realizing its mortal creators are at best obsolete and at worst a plight, tries to eradicate humanity/father. The first play to feature automatons, Czech playwright Karel Capek’s 1920 piece Rossum’s Universal Robots (R.U.R.), provided the template for the rotten robot, one used in movies, in books, on television and even music, as on The Flaming Lips 2002 album Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots. And of course comic books have mined the robot-versus-man myth, as in the latest Marvel Comics limited series, The Age of Ultron, a tale in which villain Ultron, terrorizing heroes since 1968, returns once again to kill his creator, which is halfway through a run that culminates in June. The series’ writer, Brian Michael Bendis, says: “If you take out the homicidal robot aspect of it, it’s the son who can’t live up his father’s expectations and the father who can’t control his son.” It’s all very Oedipal, dramatic and sometimes even funny: back in 1985, at the height of primetime soap trend, one of Ultron’s victims likened the robot’s patricidal obsession to the convoluted plots of Dynasty: “You all sound like a soap opera. Are you sure you don’t want Blake Carrington too?!” The pop culture references have changed since then, but so too has technology, and the punchline’s looking to some like something of the past. Autonomous robots are no longer the far-off, far-out fantasies they were in 1920 or 1968 or 1985. The latest generation of computerized creations appear to be pulling us closer to the fearsome sounding Singularity, the theoretical point when, according to futurist Ray Kurzweil, artificial intelligence will surpass our own. Jeopardy-winning supercomputer Watson was only the beginning. To alarmists, the rise of the machines must stoke inhuman levels of anxiety. And why not? Technology can be truly discomforting. The US government’s top secret Darpa labs are currently improving robots’ behavioral learning and anomaly detection programs, both of which will make them “smarter” and more efficient killing machines, literally; auto manufacturers are working on self-driving cars like those that run us down in Daniel H Wilson’s predictably plotted thriller Robopocalypse; and just this month word spread that European researchers turned on Raputya, an “internet for computers” that bears an uncanny resemblance to Skynet, the fictional super-computer that launched Terminator into our pop culture landscape. But to those who embrace technology, these upgrades aren’t harbingers hellbent on destroying human life. They’re portals into a brighter human future. Such technoptimists believe that as computers evolve, so will we.Google Glass is but the beginning of how technology will be meshed onto our bodies. Researchers are already hyping “e-memory” implants that could make Total Recall a reality; and the US Food and Drug Administration recently approved artificial retinas that use video processors and electrodes give partial sight to the blind, just one of the many examples of how “you”, the human, can merge with “them”, the machines. Futurist Kurzweil believes that nanotechnology will be able to rebuild injured humans. “It’s not us versus them,” he told the New York Times. “We’ve created these tools to overcome our limitations.” If that’s the case, the most transcendental merger between man and machine will be between silicon chips and our own motherboard, the brain, a long misunderstood organ that’s suddenly getting fresh attention. The US National Institutes of Health hopes $3bn will help lay out the Brain Activity Map, a cartographical layout announced by Barack Obama this month that will dwarf the Human Genome Project in scope and size. The European Union is putting up over $1bn for a similar, 10-year undertaking unimaginatively called the Human Brain Project, and the NIH”s other expedition into gray matter, the Human Connectome Project, recently released two terabytes of data, a sliver of the amount of data the brain could hold: 100 terabytes by some estimates. That’s 104,857,600 megabytes. To give you an idea of how far away we are from finish: doctors have yet to completely map a mouse brain, or even a fruit fly’s. This is all very exciting for advocates of “mind uploading”, a fantastical, as-of-now hypothetical process by which we would transfer our organic brains, including memories, personalities, tastes and proclivities into artificial bodies, or at least disk drives. According to them, once we have a clearer map of the brain and its memory drives, we can use existing technology to freeze or otherwise preserve our brains, wait 100, 200 or even 1,000 years for science to take its course and be awakened in a future, our experiences uploaded into an artificial body. Dr Ken Hayworth, a neuroscientist who maps fruit fly brains by day and advocates for the independent Brain Preservation Foundation by night, says such a process is the final frontier in breaking the barrier between man and machine. “Mind uploading technology is just breaking the barrier,” he says. “If you’re really jealous of what your avatar is doing, if you’re really jealous of your computer’s memory, then mind uploading is the logical conclusion; it’s saying: ‘Okay, I won’t beat them, I’ll join them.’” But if we join them, are we still human? Or will we become the creatures we have for so long feared and so far only fictionalized: superior beings who see organic, naturally born humans as ill-equipped competition? And, more importantly how expensive will analysis be?

neuromorphogenesis:

Man or machine? The age of the robot blurs sci-fi and cutting-edge science

No sci-fi plot is as reliable as that of the rebelling robot. It’s a story as old as digital time: the once promising but ultimately impetuous computer/child, realizing its mortal creators are at best obsolete and at worst a plight, tries to eradicate humanity/father.

The first play to feature automatons, Czech playwright Karel Capek’s 1920 piece Rossum’s Universal Robots (R.U.R.), provided the template for the rotten robot, one used in movies, in books, on television and even music, as on The Flaming Lips 2002 album Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.

And of course comic books have mined the robot-versus-man myth, as in the latest Marvel Comics limited series, The Age of Ultron, a tale in which villain Ultron, terrorizing heroes since 1968, returns once again to kill his creator, which is halfway through a run that culminates in June. The series’ writer, Brian Michael Bendis, says: “If you take out the homicidal robot aspect of it, it’s the son who can’t live up his father’s expectations and the father who can’t control his son.”

It’s all very Oedipal, dramatic and sometimes even funny: back in 1985, at the height of primetime soap trend, one of Ultron’s victims likened the robot’s patricidal obsession to the convoluted plots of Dynasty: “You all sound like a soap opera. Are you sure you don’t want Blake Carrington too?!” The pop culture references have changed since then, but so too has technology, and the punchline’s looking to some like something of the past.

Autonomous robots are no longer the far-off, far-out fantasies they were in 1920 or 1968 or 1985. The latest generation of computerized creations appear to be pulling us closer to the fearsome sounding Singularity, the theoretical point when, according to futurist Ray Kurzweil, artificial intelligence will surpass our own. Jeopardy-winning supercomputer Watson was only the beginning.

To alarmists, the rise of the machines must stoke inhuman levels of anxiety. And why not? Technology can be truly discomforting. The US government’s top secret Darpa labs are currently improving robots’ behavioral learning and anomaly detection programs, both of which will make them “smarter” and more efficient killing machines, literally; auto manufacturers are working on self-driving cars like those that run us down in Daniel H Wilson’s predictably plotted thriller Robopocalypse; and just this month word spread that European researchers turned on Raputya, an “internet for computers” that bears an uncanny resemblance to Skynet, the fictional super-computer that launched Terminator into our pop culture landscape.

But to those who embrace technology, these upgrades aren’t harbingers hellbent on destroying human life. They’re portals into a brighter human future. Such technoptimists believe that as computers evolve, so will we.Google Glass is but the beginning of how technology will be meshed onto our bodies. Researchers are already hyping “e-memory” implants that could make Total Recall a reality; and the US Food and Drug Administration recently approved artificial retinas that use video processors and electrodes give partial sight to the blind, just one of the many examples of how “you”, the human, can merge with “them”, the machines. Futurist Kurzweil believes that nanotechnology will be able to rebuild injured humans.

“It’s not us versus them,” he told the New York Times. “We’ve created these tools to overcome our limitations.”

If that’s the case, the most transcendental merger between man and machine will be between silicon chips and our own motherboard, the brain, a long misunderstood organ that’s suddenly getting fresh attention. The US National Institutes of Health hopes $3bn will help lay out the Brain Activity Map, a cartographical layout announced by Barack Obama this month that will dwarf the Human Genome Project in scope and size. The European Union is putting up over $1bn for a similar, 10-year undertaking unimaginatively called the Human Brain Project, and the NIH”s other expedition into gray matter, the Human Connectome Project, recently released two terabytes of data, a sliver of the amount of data the brain could hold: 100 terabytes by some estimates. That’s 104,857,600 megabytes. To give you an idea of how far away we are from finish: doctors have yet to completely map a mouse brain, or even a fruit fly’s.

This is all very exciting for advocates of “mind uploading”, a fantastical, as-of-now hypothetical process by which we would transfer our organic brains, including memories, personalities, tastes and proclivities into artificial bodies, or at least disk drives. According to them, once we have a clearer map of the brain and its memory drives, we can use existing technology to freeze or otherwise preserve our brains, wait 100, 200 or even 1,000 years for science to take its course and be awakened in a future, our experiences uploaded into an artificial body.

Dr Ken Hayworth, a neuroscientist who maps fruit fly brains by day and advocates for the independent Brain Preservation Foundation by night, says such a process is the final frontier in breaking the barrier between man and machine. “Mind uploading technology is just breaking the barrier,” he says. “If you’re really jealous of what your avatar is doing, if you’re really jealous of your computer’s memory, then mind uploading is the logical conclusion; it’s saying: ‘Okay, I won’t beat them, I’ll join them.’”

But if we join them, are we still human? Or will we become the creatures we have for so long feared and so far only fictionalized: superior beings who see organic, naturally born humans as ill-equipped competition? And, more importantly how expensive will analysis be?

Photo
neuromorphogenesis: Humans feel empathy for robots fMRI scans show similar brain function when robots are treated the same as humans From the T-101 to Data from Star Trek, humans have been presented with the fictional dilemma of how we empathize with robots. Robots now infiltrate our lives, toys like Furbies or robot vacuum cleaners bring us closer, but how do we really feel about these non-sentient objects on a human level? A recent study by researchers at the University of Duisburg Essen in Germany found that humans have similar brain function when shown images of affection and violence being inflicted on robots and humans. Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Nicole Krämer, and Matthias Brand of the University of Duisburg Essen, will present their findings at the 63rd Annual International Communication Association conference in London. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Krämer and Brand conducted two studies. In the first study, 40 participants watched videos of a small dinosaur-shaped robot that was treated in an affectionate or a violent way and measured their level of physiological arousal and asked for their emotional state directly after the videos. Participants reported to feel more negative watching the robot being abused and showed higher arousal during the negative video. The second study conducted in collaboration with the Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Essen, used functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI), to investigate potential brain correlations of human-robot interaction in contrast to human-human interaction. The 14 participants were presented videos showing a human, a robot and an inanimate object, again being treated in either an affectionate or in a violent way. Affectionate interaction towards both, the robot and the human, resulted in similar neural activation patterns in classic limbic structures, indicating that they elicit similar emotional reactions. However, when comparing only the videos showing abusive behavior differences in neural activity suggested that participants show more negative empathetic concern for the human in the abuse condition. A great deal of research in the field of human-robot interaction concentrates on the implementation of emotion models in robotic systems. These studies test implementations with regard to their believability and naturalness, their positive influence on participants, or enjoyment of the interaction. But there is little known on how people perceive “robotic” emotion and whether they react emotionally towards robots. People often have problems verbalizing their emotional state or find it strange to report on their emotions in human-robot interactions. Rosenthal-von der Pütten and Krämer’s study utilized more objective measures linked to emotion like physiological arousal and brain activity associated with emotional processing. “One goal of current robotics research is to develop robotic companions that establish a long-term relationship with a human user, because robot companions can be useful and beneficial tools. They could assist elderly people in daily tasks and enable them to live longer autonomously in their homes, help disabled people in their environments, or keep patients engaged during the rehabilitation process,” said Rosenthal-von der Pütten. “A common problem is that a new technology is exciting at the beginning, but this effect wears off especially when it comes to tasks like boring and repetitive exercise in rehabilitation. The development and implementation of uniquely humanlike abilities in robots like theory of mind, emotion and empathy is considered to have the potential to solve this dilemma.” “Investigation on Empathy Towards Humans and Robots Using Psychophysiological Measures and fMRI,” by Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten and Nicole Krämer; To be presented at the 63rd Annual International Communication Association Conference, London, England 17-21 June

neuromorphogenesis:

Humans feel empathy for robots

fMRI scans show similar brain function when robots are treated the same as humans

From the T-101 to Data from Star Trek, humans have been presented with the fictional dilemma of how we empathize with robots. Robots now infiltrate our lives, toys like Furbies or robot vacuum cleaners bring us closer, but how do we really feel about these non-sentient objects on a human level? A recent study by researchers at the University of Duisburg Essen in Germany found that humans have similar brain function when shown images of affection and violence being inflicted on robots and humans.

Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Nicole Krämer, and Matthias Brand of the University of Duisburg Essen, will present their findings at the 63rd Annual International Communication Association conference in London. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Krämer and Brand conducted two studies. In the first study, 40 participants watched videos of a small dinosaur-shaped robot that was treated in an affectionate or a violent way and measured their level of physiological arousal and asked for their emotional state directly after the videos. Participants reported to feel more negative watching the robot being abused and showed higher arousal during the negative video.

The second study conducted in collaboration with the Erwin L. Hahn Institute for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Essen, used functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI), to investigate potential brain correlations of human-robot interaction in contrast to human-human interaction. The 14 participants were presented videos showing a human, a robot and an inanimate object, again being treated in either an affectionate or in a violent way. Affectionate interaction towards both, the robot and the human, resulted in similar neural activation patterns in classic limbic structures, indicating that they elicit similar emotional reactions. However, when comparing only the videos showing abusive behavior differences in neural activity suggested that participants show more negative empathetic concern for the human in the abuse condition.

A great deal of research in the field of human-robot interaction concentrates on the implementation of emotion models in robotic systems. These studies test implementations with regard to their believability and naturalness, their positive influence on participants, or enjoyment of the interaction. But there is little known on how people perceive “robotic” emotion and whether they react emotionally towards robots. People often have problems verbalizing their emotional state or find it strange to report on their emotions in human-robot interactions. Rosenthal-von der Pütten and Krämer’s study utilized more objective measures linked to emotion like physiological arousal and brain activity associated with emotional processing.

“One goal of current robotics research is to develop robotic companions that establish a long-term relationship with a human user, because robot companions can be useful and beneficial tools. They could assist elderly people in daily tasks and enable them to live longer autonomously in their homes, help disabled people in their environments, or keep patients engaged during the rehabilitation process,” said Rosenthal-von der Pütten. “A common problem is that a new technology is exciting at the beginning, but this effect wears off especially when it comes to tasks like boring and repetitive exercise in rehabilitation. The development and implementation of uniquely humanlike abilities in robots like theory of mind, emotion and empathy is considered to have the potential to solve this dilemma.”

“Investigation on Empathy Towards Humans and Robots Using Psychophysiological Measures and fMRI,” by Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten and Nicole Krämer; To be presented at the 63rd Annual International Communication Association Conference, London, England 17-21 June

Photo
smarterplanet: New Plasma Device Considered The ‘Holy Grail’ Of Energy Generation And Storage Scientists at the University of Missouri have devised a new way to create and control plasma that could transform American energy generation and storage. Randy Curry, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri’s College of Engineering, and his team developed a device that launches a ring of plasma at distances of up to two feet. Although the plasma reaches a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun, it doesn’t emit radiation and is completely safe in proximity to humans. While most of us are familiar with three states of matter – liquid, gas and solid – there is also a fourth state known as plasma, which includes things such as fire and lightning. Life on Earth depends on the energy emitted by plasma produced during fusion reactions within the sun. The secret to Curry’s success was developing a way to make plasma form its own self-magnetic field, which holds it together as it travels through the air. “Launching plasma in open air is the ‘Holy Grail’ in the field of physics,” said Curry. more

smarterplanet:

New Plasma Device Considered The ‘Holy Grail’ Of Energy Generation And Storage

Scientists at the University of Missouri have devised a new way to create and control plasma that could transform American energy generation and storage.

Randy Curry, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri’s College of Engineering, and his team developed a device that launches a ring of plasma at distances of up to two feet. Although the plasma reaches a temperature hotter than the surface of the sun, it doesn’t emit radiation and is completely safe in proximity to humans.

While most of us are familiar with three states of matter – liquid, gas and solid – there is also a fourth state known as plasma, which includes things such as fire and lightning. Life on Earth depends on the energy emitted by plasma produced during fusion reactions within the sun.

The secret to Curry’s success was developing a way to make plasma form its own self-magnetic field, which holds it together as it travels through the air.

“Launching plasma in open air is the ‘Holy Grail’ in the field of physics,” said Curry.

more

(via wildcat2030)

Photo
This is a surgical amputation kit from the 19th century. That is all. It looks beautiful and elegant — until you imagine someone performing an actual amputation using these tools. Probably with not terribly great anesthetic or antibiotics. What do you think the curved one is for? These implements are on display at Drexel University as part of an exhibition called “A Legacy of Art, Science & Industry: Highlights from the Collections of Drexel University.” Just don’t try and borrow them or use them at home, please.

This is a surgical amputation kit from the 19th century. That is all.

It looks beautiful and elegant — until you imagine someone performing an actual amputation using these tools. Probably with not terribly great anesthetic or antibiotics. What do you think the curved one is for?

These implements are on display at Drexel University as part of an exhibition called “A Legacy of Art, Science & Industry: Highlights from the Collections of Drexel University.” Just don’t try and borrow them or use them at home, please.

Photo
Electronic zippers control DNA strands A research team from NPL and the University of Edinburgh have invented a new way to zip and unzip DNA strands using electrochemistry. The DNA double helix has been one of the most recognisable structures in science ever since it was first described by Watson and Crick almost 60 years ago (paper published in Nature in 25 April 1953). The binding and unbinding mechanism of DNA strands is vital to natural biological processes and to the polymerase chain reactions used in biotechnology to copy DNA for sequencing and cloning. The improved understanding of this process, and the discovery of new ways to control it, would accelerate the development of new technologies such as biosensors and DNA microarrays that could make medical diagnostics cheaper, faster and simpler to use. The most common way of controlling the binding of DNA is by raising and lowering temperature in a process known as heat cycling. While this method is effective, it requires bulky equipment, which is often only suitable for use in laboratories. Medicine is moving towards personalised treatment and diagnostics which require portable devices to quickly carry out testing at the point of care, i.e. in hospitals rather than laboratories. The development of alternative methods to control the DNA binding process, for example with changes in acidity or the use of chemical agents, would be a significant step towards lab-on-a-chip devices that can rapidly detect disease. However, until now, no method has been shown to enable fast, electrochemical control at constant temperatures without the need for dramatic changes in solution conditions or modifying the nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. A research team from NPL and the University of Edinburgh have invented a new way of controlling DNA using electrochemistry. The team used a class of molecules called DNA intercalators which bind differently to DNA, depending on whether they are in a reduced or oxidised state, altering its stability. These molecules are also electroactive, meaning that their chemical state can be controlled with an electric current. A paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society explains how the process works. Electrodes apply a voltage across a sample containing double strands of DNA which are bonded to the electroactive chemicals. This reduces the chemicals (they gain electrons), decreasing the stability of the DNA and unzipping the double helix into single strands. Removing the voltage leads to the oxidisation of the chemicals and the DNA strands zip back up to re-form the familiar double helix structure. Put simply, with the flick of a switch, the oxidation state of the molecules can be changed and the DNA strands are zipped together or pulled apart.

Electronic zippers control DNA strands

A research team from NPL and the University of Edinburgh have invented a new way to zip and unzip DNA strands using electrochemistry.

The DNA double helix has been one of the most recognisable structures in science ever since it was first described by Watson and Crick almost 60 years ago (paper published in Nature in 25 April 1953). The binding and unbinding mechanism of DNA strands is vital to natural biological processes and to the polymerase chain reactions used in biotechnology to copy DNA for sequencing and cloning.

The improved understanding of this process, and the discovery of new ways to control it, would accelerate the development of new technologies such as biosensors and DNA microarrays that could make medical diagnostics cheaper, faster and simpler to use.

The most common way of controlling the binding of DNA is by raising and lowering temperature in a process known as heat cycling. While this method is effective, it requires bulky equipment, which is often only suitable for use in laboratories. Medicine is moving towards personalised treatment and diagnostics which require portable devices to quickly carry out testing at the point of care, i.e. in hospitals rather than laboratories. The development of alternative methods to control the DNA binding process, for example with changes in acidity or the use of chemical agents, would be a significant step towards lab-on-a-chip devices that can rapidly detect disease.

However, until now, no method has been shown to enable fast, electrochemical control at constant temperatures without the need for dramatic changes in solution conditions or modifying the nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA.

A research team from NPL and the University of Edinburgh have invented a new way of controlling DNA using electrochemistry. The team used a class of molecules called DNA intercalators which bind differently to DNA, depending on whether they are in a reduced or oxidised state, altering its stability. These molecules are also electroactive, meaning that their chemical state can be controlled with an electric current.

A paper published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society explains how the process works. Electrodes apply a voltage across a sample containing double strands of DNA which are bonded to the electroactive chemicals. This reduces the chemicals (they gain electrons), decreasing the stability of the DNA and unzipping the double helix into single strands. Removing the voltage leads to the oxidisation of the chemicals and the DNA strands zip back up to re-form the familiar double helix structure. Put simply, with the flick of a switch, the oxidation state of the molecules can be changed and the DNA strands are zipped together or pulled apart.

Photo
neuromorphogenesis: How to Build an Artificial Womb Artificial wombs are a staple of science fiction, but could we really build one? As time passes, we’re inching closer and closer to the day when it will finally become possible to grow a baby entirely outside the human body. Here’s what we’ll need to do to pull it off. More than just an incubator A fully functional artificial uterus will be substantially more complex than a modern incubator, a clunky (and somewhat obtrusive) device that provides a preemie with oxygen, protection from cold, hydration and nutrition (via intravenous catheter or NG tube), and adequate levels of humidity. Even in the best of cases, the current state-of-the-art doesn’t allow for viability outside of the womb until mid to late second trimester. Prior to that, a mother’s womb is the only option. Quite obviously, future incubators, or a full-blown artificial uterus, will push the limits of viability further and further until the entire gestational cycle can happen external to the body. We’re still several decades away, but the two primary areas that need to be developed include biotechnology (for things like personalized genomics and tissue engineering) and nanotechnology (to facilitate micro-scale interactions and growth through artificial means). Smartcomputer systems and monitoring devices should also be developed to track the progress of the fetus’s growth, while automatically adjusting for changing conditions. In terms of specifics, these are the broad components that will be required: Artificial endometrium The inner lining of the artificial uterus should resemble the real thing as much as possible. Actually, for the first generation of artificial wombs, it would be prudent to mimic everygestational process as much as possible (we are producing a biological organism, after all). Later versions can then build upon what nature designed, and be optimized accordingly. To that end, an artificial endometrium should not be made from glass or metal, but instead consist of a glandular layer made of real tissue. A blastocyst conceived via in vitro fertilization could then be implanted about 3 to 4 mm into the endometrium where it would take root and proceed to grow. Work in this area has already been conducted by Cornell University’s Hung-Ching Liu. Many years ago, she prepared a co-culture system that combined epithelial and stromal cells (for ethical reasons these experiments weren’t extended beyond six days). Hung-Ching’s work is considered the first real attempt towards the development of an a-womb. In addition to providing a physical starting point and enclosed space for the fetus, the artificial endometrium could also spawn and host a real placenta (e.g. by coaxing the growth of pluripotent stem cells), though it doesn’t necessarily have to come about this way. Artificial placenta And indeed, the growing fetus will also need a placenta, the organ which connects it to the uterine wall (via umbilicus) allowing for the delivery of nutrients, the elimination of waste, and gas exchange through the mother’s blood supply. Depending on the technologies available, the a-placenta could either develop “naturally” on the endometrial wall, or it could take the form an external device (or devices) that performs the same function. For example, a dialysis machine could actually help with waste disposal. But a fully functional placenta will be crucial to the baby’s development and eventual good health. For example, the placenta is responsible for transferring the mother’s igG antibodies to the fetus — an important mechanism that provides protection to the infant while its immune system develops. Placental hormones also control fetal growth. During the early stages of pregnancy, the placenta provides the fetus with serotonin, which helps with brain development. And as noted, the placenta also regulates the way nutrients are delivered to the fetus, including the delivery of amino acids, fatty acids, and glucose. The delivery of nutrients to the fetus should also reflect the way a mother would normally eat during the course of the pregnancy, both in terms of timing and composition of food. If not designed and managed correctly, the fetus could experience problems, both in terms of growth restriction or overgrowth. Getting an a-placenta to perform all these functions won’t be easy, but advances in personalized genetics and regenerative medicine will go a long way to make it happen. If our bodies can do it, so can a machine. Fascinatingly, work on an artificial placenta has already begun. Goats have been kept alive for up to 237 hours in amniotic tanks through a process called extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). It’s also a technique used in some neonatal wards to treat infants with medical problems involving gas exchange and the lungs. Synthetic amniotic fluid Dismissed as unimportant by biologists for many years, the fluid that fills the amniotic space is a complex and dynamic milieu. It changes as the pregnancy progresses (both in terms of its amount and composition) and it’s critical to fetal well-being. Producing and managing this ever-changing mixture will be just as critical as all the other gestational elements. For example, amniotic fluid contains nutrients and growth factors that facilitate fetal growth. At first it consists of water and electrolytes, but it eventually contains proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, antimicrobial agents, and urea. It also protects and cushions the fetus. Amniotic fluid is also “inhaled” and “exhaled” by the fetus, an important process that’s essential to the development of healthy lungs. A fetus will also swallow the fluid, which creates the urea and meconium. Temperature regulation The incubator, if it can be called that, will also need to operate at just the right temperature. The fetus develops 0.3 to 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than mother’s, so typically about 37 degrees Celsius. Proper stimulation The fetus will also need to be stimulated across a number of sensorial domains. And indeed, the maternal womb has been called “an optimal, stimulating, interactive environment for human development.” Ideally, the a-womb should move the unborn baby in a way reminiscent to how a mother moves, including standing, walking, and lying down positions. The incubator should be set to a 24-hour clock in which waking and sleeping hours are simulated. Basically, activity should never cease, nor should the fetus ever feel physically “isolated”. A sense of touch will also need to be simulated. Fetuses are also active listeners. This is very important from a developmental perspective, both in terms of exciting the neural areas required for hearing, and for the unborn baby to bond with its caregivers in advance. Sounds should definitely be a part of the artificial uterus, including the steady swish-swishing of a heart beat. Microbiome stimulation It will also be important to kickstart a healthy gut microbiome. During vaginal birth, a baby is exposed to cocktail of microbes. This mixture ends up inside the baby’s gut where it helps them digest food, regulate bowels, develop their immune systems, and protect against infection. To simulate this effect, biologists will have to recreate this mixture, ideally from biological samples derived from the mother (or grown externally). Final thoughts An artificial womb will likely be the result of iterative attempts to push the limits of exosomatic viability. These days, the earliest that preemies can survive is around the 21 to 22 week mark. As time passes we can expect to see this number get smaller and smaller — and eventually to the point where a fetus can survive exclusively outside the womb. This will, of course, raise some thorny issues in the U.S. abortion debate. Once in use, and after some time has passed, scientists will undoubtedly study the long term effects on babies born in an a-womb as compared to those born naturally. Initially, the health of a-womb spawned babies will likely be inferior to those grown in a real womb. Refinements will undoubtedly improve these results over time. And in fact, I wholly expect that an artificial womb will someday bring a baby to term in a way that’s even superior to the real thing. Indeed, unlike a mother, an artificial womb is not susceptible to disease or malnourishment, nor will it be prone to drinking or smoking. And with the assistance of powerful computers, advanced biotech, and even microscopic machines, the gestational process will be further optimized. It’s also interesting to consider how this technology will be received, and how many people will opt into it. It’s safe to say that many prospective parents will react negatively to it, arguing that natural will always be best. But for those who need or want it, the advent of artificial wombs will certainly herald an unprecedented stage in human history.

neuromorphogenesis:

How to Build an Artificial Womb

Artificial wombs are a staple of science fiction, but could we really build one? As time passes, we’re inching closer and closer to the day when it will finally become possible to grow a baby entirely outside the human body. Here’s what we’ll need to do to pull it off.

More than just an incubator

A fully functional artificial uterus will be substantially more complex than a modern incubator, a clunky (and somewhat obtrusive) device that provides a preemie with oxygen, protection from cold, hydration and nutrition (via intravenous catheter or NG tube), and adequate levels of humidity.

Even in the best of cases, the current state-of-the-art doesn’t allow for viability outside of the womb until mid to late second trimester. Prior to that, a mother’s womb is the only option. Quite obviously, future incubators, or a full-blown artificial uterus, will push the limits of viability further and further until the entire gestational cycle can happen external to the body.

We’re still several decades away, but the two primary areas that need to be developed include biotechnology (for things like personalized genomics and tissue engineering) and nanotechnology (to facilitate micro-scale interactions and growth through artificial means). Smartcomputer systems and monitoring devices should also be developed to track the progress of the fetus’s growth, while automatically adjusting for changing conditions.

In terms of specifics, these are the broad components that will be required:

Artificial endometrium

The inner lining of the artificial uterus should resemble the real thing as much as possible.

Actually, for the first generation of artificial wombs, it would be prudent to mimic everygestational process as much as possible (we are producing a biological organism, after all). Later versions can then build upon what nature designed, and be optimized accordingly.

To that end, an artificial endometrium should not be made from glass or metal, but instead consist of a glandular layer made of real tissue. A blastocyst conceived via in vitro fertilization could then be implanted about 3 to 4 mm into the endometrium where it would take root and proceed to grow.

Work in this area has already been conducted by Cornell University’s Hung-Ching Liu. Many years ago, she prepared a co-culture system that combined epithelial and stromal cells (for ethical reasons these experiments weren’t extended beyond six days). Hung-Ching’s work is considered the first real attempt towards the development of an a-womb.

In addition to providing a physical starting point and enclosed space for the fetus, the artificial endometrium could also spawn and host a real placenta (e.g. by coaxing the growth of pluripotent stem cells), though it doesn’t necessarily have to come about this way.

Artificial placenta

And indeed, the growing fetus will also need a placenta, the organ which connects it to the uterine wall (via umbilicus) allowing for the delivery of nutrients, the elimination of waste, and gas exchange through the mother’s blood supply. Depending on the technologies available, the a-placenta could either develop “naturally” on the endometrial wall, or it could take the form an external device (or devices) that performs the same function. For example, a dialysis machine could actually help with waste disposal.

But a fully functional placenta will be crucial to the baby’s development and eventual good health. For example, the placenta is responsible for transferring the mother’s igG antibodies to the fetus — an important mechanism that provides protection to the infant while its immune system develops. Placental hormones also control fetal growth. During the early stages of pregnancy, the placenta provides the fetus with serotonin, which helps with brain development. And as noted, the placenta also regulates the way nutrients are delivered to the fetus, including the delivery of amino acids, fatty acids, and glucose.

The delivery of nutrients to the fetus should also reflect the way a mother would normally eat during the course of the pregnancy, both in terms of timing and composition of food.

If not designed and managed correctly, the fetus could experience problems, both in terms of growth restriction or overgrowth.

Getting an a-placenta to perform all these functions won’t be easy, but advances in personalized genetics and regenerative medicine will go a long way to make it happen. If our bodies can do it, so can a machine.

Fascinatingly, work on an artificial placenta has already begun. Goats have been kept alive for up to 237 hours in amniotic tanks through a process called extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). It’s also a technique used in some neonatal wards to treat infants with medical problems involving gas exchange and the lungs.

Synthetic amniotic fluid

Dismissed as unimportant by biologists for many years, the fluid that fills the amniotic space is a complex and dynamic milieu. It changes as the pregnancy progresses (both in terms of its amount and composition) and it’s critical to fetal well-being. Producing and managing this ever-changing mixture will be just as critical as all the other gestational elements.

For example, amniotic fluid contains nutrients and growth factors that facilitate fetal growth. At first it consists of water and electrolytes, but it eventually contains proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, antimicrobial agents, and urea. It also protects and cushions the fetus.

Amniotic fluid is also “inhaled” and “exhaled” by the fetus, an important process that’s essential to the development of healthy lungs. A fetus will also swallow the fluid, which creates the urea and meconium.

Temperature regulation

The incubator, if it can be called that, will also need to operate at just the right temperature. The fetus develops 0.3 to 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than mother’s, so typically about 37 degrees Celsius.

Proper stimulation

The fetus will also need to be stimulated across a number of sensorial domains. And indeed, the maternal womb has been called “an optimal, stimulating, interactive environment for human development.”

Ideally, the a-womb should move the unborn baby in a way reminiscent to how a mother moves, including standing, walking, and lying down positions. The incubator should be set to a 24-hour clock in which waking and sleeping hours are simulated. Basically, activity should never cease, nor should the fetus ever feel physically “isolated”. A sense of touch will also need to be simulated.

Fetuses are also active listeners. This is very important from a developmental perspective, both in terms of exciting the neural areas required for hearing, and for the unborn baby to bond with its caregivers in advance. Sounds should definitely be a part of the artificial uterus, including the steady swish-swishing of a heart beat.

Microbiome stimulation

It will also be important to kickstart a healthy gut microbiome. During vaginal birth, a baby is exposed to cocktail of microbes. This mixture ends up inside the baby’s gut where it helps them digest food, regulate bowels, develop their immune systems, and protect against infection.

To simulate this effect, biologists will have to recreate this mixture, ideally from biological samples derived from the mother (or grown externally).

Final thoughts

An artificial womb will likely be the result of iterative attempts to push the limits of exosomatic viability. These days, the earliest that preemies can survive is around the 21 to 22 week mark. As time passes we can expect to see this number get smaller and smaller — and eventually to the point where a fetus can survive exclusively outside the womb. This will, of course, raise some thorny issues in the U.S. abortion debate.

Once in use, and after some time has passed, scientists will undoubtedly study the long term effects on babies born in an a-womb as compared to those born naturally. Initially, the health of a-womb spawned babies will likely be inferior to those grown in a real womb. Refinements will undoubtedly improve these results over time. And in fact, I wholly expect that an artificial womb will someday bring a baby to term in a way that’s even superior to the real thing.

Indeed, unlike a mother, an artificial womb is not susceptible to disease or malnourishment, nor will it be prone to drinking or smoking. And with the assistance of powerful computers, advanced biotech, and even microscopic machines, the gestational process will be further optimized.

It’s also interesting to consider how this technology will be received, and how many people will opt into it. It’s safe to say that many prospective parents will react negatively to it, arguing that natural will always be best. But for those who need or want it, the advent of artificial wombs will certainly herald an unprecedented stage in human history.

Photo

ucresearch:

There’s a lot of debris floating around in space, and researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab are using supercomputers, optical sensors and other technology to track even small objects that could damage important satellites.

John Henderson, a space scientist at LLNL, explains:

“Everybody uses GPS to get from here to there. We have satellite television, we have weather reports, farmers use satellite data for monitoring crops. If you have a piece of satellite debris whacking into a satellite, in the worst case you now lose that capability.  In February of 2009, that actually happened where there was an Iridium communications satellite that collided with a dead Russian Kosmos satellite and so that basically took out a $100 million dollar satellite.

There’s somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000 pieces of debris that we would like to be tracking. And so the supercomputing capabilities that we have here at Livermore are one way to keep track of that.”

Watch the video here→

Photoset
ucresearch: The Thirty Meter Telescope Above is a view of the Keck Observatory atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea volcano.  The University of California along with several other institutions use the telescope to make discoveries of exoplanets orbiting around other stars to figuring out the size and age of our universe.  Recently a permit for a $1.3 billion Thirty Meter Telescope was approved by the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources.  The telescope, a project that UC will play a part in funding, will be built near Keck on the summit of the volcano Mauna Kea.  Researchers believe the telescope will produce images three times sharper than those produced by optical telescopes today. Read more →

ucresearch:

The Thirty Meter Telescope

Above is a view of the Keck Observatory atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea volcano.  The University of California along with several other institutions use the telescope to make discoveries of exoplanets orbiting around other stars to figuring out the size and age of our universe.  Recently a permit for a $1.3 billion Thirty Meter Telescope was approved by the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources. 

The telescope, a project that UC will play a part in funding, will be built near Keck on the summit of the volcano Mauna Kea.  Researchers believe the telescope will produce images three times sharper than those produced by optical telescopes today.

Read more →

Photo

neuromorphogenesis:

ExoHand – human-machine interaction

New scope for interaction 
between humans and machines 
The ExoHand from Festo is an exoskeleton that can be worn like a glove.

The fingers can be actively moved and their strength amplified; the operator’s hand movements are registered and transmitted to the robotic hand in real time. The objectives are to enhance the strength and endurance of the human hand, to extend humans’ scope of action and to secure them an independent lifestyle even at an advanced age. 

From assembly to medical therapy
The ExoHand could provide assistance in the form of force amplification in connection with monotonous and strenuous activities in industrial assembly, for example, or in remote manipulation in hazardous environments: with force feedback, the human operator feels what the robot grasps and can thus grip and manipulate objects from a safe distance without having to touch them.

Due to the yielding capacity of its pneumatic components, the ExoHand also offers potential in the field of service robotics. In the rehabilitation of stroke patients, it could already be used today as an active manual orthosis.

A strong hand with sensitive fingers
The exoskeleton supports the human hand from the outside and reproduces the physiological degrees of freedom – the scope of movement resulting from the geometry of the joints.

Eight double-acting pneumatic actuators move the fingers so that they can be opened and closed. For this purpose, non-linear control algorithms are implemented on a CoDeSys-compliant controller, which thus allows precise orientation of the individual finger joints. The forces, angles and positions of the fingers are tracked by sensors.

Photoset

ucresearch:

thedailycal:

UC Berkeley has just installed the world’s first Dreambox 3-D printer. The Dreambox allows students to print everything from models to shot glasses in minutes.

(Source: dailycal.org)

Read more about it →

Video
Single A Theme :: Version 1.1.4 :: By Business Bullpen