Artificial life in a bid to be more human

As mentioned in the previous blogpost, there are various crossovers between technology and biology. This merger has given rise to ‘sciences of the artificial’, such as artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial life (Alife).

You might be familiar with the Steven Spielberg movie Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001), whereby a highly advanced robotic boy longs to become "real" so that he can regain the love of his human mother.



AI scientists predict that intelligent or ‘thinking’ machines can be created- and will be in the near future. However, humanists argue that machines are programmed to calculate solutions, and this does not qualify as thinking in the traditional sense. They argue there is no thinking in a machine, “only electrical charges exchanging input and output signals”[1]. AI scientists respond by pointing out that this is exactly how neuron activity in the brain also works; and don’t we consider this thinking?

There are two forms of AI: Classical AI, and Connectionist AI. Classical AI is concerned with the imitation of human intelligence in machines. The science claims to translate ‘the language of thought’ into computer programs. Connectionist AI on the other hand is concerned with the mere creation of intelligent machines, be it resemblance of human intelligence or not. Instead of replicating human intelligence, the science simulates the functions of human organs.

Alife replicates traditional biology by recreating biological phenomena. The science simulates biological systems relating to life through computer models, robotics, and biochemistry. Hence, there are three main kinds of Alife: soft from software, hard from hardware, and wet from biochemistry. According to Alife scientist John von Neumann, "life is a process which can be abstracted away from any particular medium"[2].

From the three abovementioned sciences of artificial life it is clear that technology has had to veer towards the physical (and not away from it) in aiming to serve the human culture.

I believe that it is this fresh understanding of artificial life that will open up people to the possibilities presented by AI and Alife, instead of fearing them.

References:
[1] Lister, M (ed). 2003. New Media: A critical Introduction. Routledge.
[2] Wikipedia-Artificial Life

The thin line between biology and technology

Garlinggauge

Although technology is by definition considered artificial and biology natural, technology has been intimately linked to the possibility of creating ‘living’ things. What is it then about technology that relates it to the creation of life?

Cyborgs, clones and prosthetic devices seem to suggest that the human body is no more than an advanced ‘natural’ machine. Therefore, in the same way that human beings evolved from primates, technology has also evolved into artificial intelligence. For this reason, the line that distinguishes technology from biology has disappeared; giving rise to what is referred to as biotechnology.

This is seen in the common use of prosthetic devices, such as contact lenses, hearing aids and prosthetic limbs. The use of prosthetic devices is not merely an extension of the human body with a technological device, but rather the creation of a new physiological entity altogether.

This new physiological entity constructed from the merger of a prosthetic device and a biological organ forms an information circuit of energy exchange, which allows it to function as a single unit. This fusion of technology and biology implies that to some degree humans have become cyborgs.

According to cyberneticist Kevin Warwick, technology has the potential to impact on the relationship between human evolution and our physical transformation process. For this reason, Warwick argues, “it is no longer of advantage to either remain ‘human’ or evovle”. This implies that biological organs run the risk of being replaced by technological devices that perform the same functions. Therefore, Lister et al write, “biological entities have become components for the technological reconstruction of the bodies”.

Personally, I accept the use of prosthetic devices as necessary in medical situations. However, when you consider movies that depict supersoldiers, such as 'Universal Soldier' (1992) and 'Terminator' (1984), one has to wonder how long will these features remain solely in the medical field, before the military adopts them (if it hasn't already). We have to remember that most of our current technology (i.e. the internet) were primarily designed for and used in the military.

As mentioned in an earlier blogpost, some of these ‘cyberpunk’ science fictional movies appear farfetched, yet actually point to current developments in science technology.

Reference:
Lister, M (ed). 2003. New Media: A critical Introduction. Routledge.

Terminator hand and arm

Last night on eTV (South Africa’s independent broadcaster) there was a news report on Touch Bionics, the developer of the world’s first commercially available bionic hand. Touch Bionics’ i-LIMB Hand and ProDigits partial hand prostheses are now available to the general public.

Touch Bionics’ i-LIMB Hand looks and acts like a real human hand and is the world’s first widely available prosthetic device with five individually powered digits.

Touch Bionics’ ProDigits is adapted for patients who have a partial hand, due either to congenitally missing fingers or fingers lost through an accident.

With both products the amputee basically needs to think about what they want the hand/arm to do, and the hand/arm functions accordingly.

The following video is by Touch Bionics, and explains these products in detail.

S.A's 'Blade Runner'

Oscar Pistorius, South Africa’s paralympic athlete, has had his hopes of competing in next month’s World Championships in Japan dampened, following an unfortunate incident at the British Grand Prix.

In wet conditions Pistorius, last of those who finished, was subsequently disqualified for running outside his lane. The 20-year-old South African runs on carbon fibre blades attached to both his legs below the knee and his artificial 'limbs' are currently the subject of an investigation by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). They have previously ruled that the blades are an unfair advantage but have said they will wait before making a final ruling.

I don't understand why the IAAF would think the blades give Pistorius an unfair advantage? Surely the blades can't be that advantageous if he still finds it difficult to remain in his own lane at times. Then can you imagine how challenging it must be to win a race on those things?

Below is an interview with Pistorius on the matter.

Welcome to 'Cyberculture'

Contemporary urban lifestyle necessitates the merger of traditional culture and technology; yielding what is commonly referred to as ‘cyberculture’.

This is evidenced in our increasing dependency on machines in carrying out our daily activities, such as waking up in the morning (alarm clock), brushing your teeth (electric toothbrush), making breakfast (stove, microwave, kettle, and toaster), etc.

In the greater scheme of things ‘cyberculture’ is primarily understood in terms of communication networks, software and programming. However, ‘cyberculture’ also constitutes “artificial intelligence, virtual reality, artificial life, and the human-computer interface” (Lister et al. 2003: 287).

In addition to the above, ‘cyberculture’ explores the:
- “construction and politics of artificial life
- “complexity and technological resources of organic bodies
- and “the indissociability of biological and technological systems”
(Lister et al. 2003: 287).

To help you contextualise the above, simply consider movies such as Blade Runner (1982, 1992),Gattica (1997),The Matrix (1999), ),Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001), and i, Robot (2004).



Although some of the prospects envisioned in these ‘cyberpunk’ science fictional movies appear farfetched, some of theme actually point to current developments in science technology. As a result, ‘cyberpunk’ science fiction has been “accorded the status of a sociology of new media cultures” (Lister et al. 2003: 288).

The sciences pertaining to these facets of ‘cyberculture’ are “biotechnology, robotics and AI research, genetics and genomics” (Lister et al. 2003: 287).

Research surrounding ‘cyberculture’ often explores the relationship between culture, technology, and nature. As a result, these studies fall under what is now understood as ‘cybercultural studies’.

‘Cybercultural studies’ also explores the blurred “distinctions between science fiction, sociology and philosophy” (Lister et al. 2003: 288). This post is a first of a series of explorations into these blurred distinctions.

Click and Clone

Recently I came across a rather interesting website: Learn.Genetics- Genetic Science Learning Centre. The website is hosted by the University of Utah, and is meant to “[help] people understand how genetics affects their lives and society” (the website’s mission statement).

Learn.Genetics covers an array of issues pertaining to genetic engineering, ranging from stem implantation to cloning. What I enjoy most about this website is that it doesn't just launch you into uncharted area- it eases you into it with interactive step-by-step infographics.

If you are not familiar with the configurations of a cell or DNA molecule, then you should probably start off with the 'Tour of the Basics’. Among other options, you can choice to explore what are genes, chromosomes and DNA molecules.

My favourite interactive infographic is ‘Click and Clone’, whereby as a user, you get to clone a mouse called Mimi. You ‘literally’ (well, maybe 'virtually' is the better term) conduct the scientific procedure yourself. You have to ‘click and drag’ the nucleus and cells using the instruments provided. The audio accompanying each interaction brings some degree of life and immediacy into the animation.

Step-By-Step
Before you embark on the experiment, you are introduced to the mice and tools you will be using to clone Mimi. There is:
- Mimi: the brown mouse you will be cloning
- Megdo: the black mouse, which will be the egg cell donor
And finally
-Momi: the white mouse, which will be the surrogate mother in which the Mimi clone is grown.

Your instruments are a:
- Microscope
- Petri dish
-Sharp pipette
- Blunt pipette
And
- Chemical to stimulate cell division.

Afterwards you have to click on ‘Let’s Clone Mimi’ to proceed to the initial step. At this stage you get to examine each step in the procedure, as follows:

-Isolate donor cells from Mimi and Megdo.
-Remove and discard the nucleus from the egg cell.
-Transfer the somatic cell nucleus into the enucleated egg cell.
-Stimulate cell division.
-Implant the embryo into Momi, the surrogate mother.
-Deliver the baby mouse clone of Mimi.

I do not want to spoil the experience for you so I will not go through the steps. However, I do encourage you to do so yourself. Just a word of warning- read the instructions on each step before you start clicking and dragging.

History
This interactive infographic is based on a research protocol that was used in one of several milestone experiments on cloning. The last slide reads as follows:

In 1998, scientists at the University of Hawaii made mice genetically identical to the mouse from which the cumulus donor cell was taken. The first-born survivor was named Cumulina.

The scientists learned that allowing between one and six hours for the newly transferred nucleus to adjust to adjust to the enucleated egg cell was crucial before activating the cell to successfully develop into an embryo.

If you are still unclear with the procedure and terms described above, just go through ‘Click and Clone’.

Human cloning- the next ‘natural’ step from stem cell growth?

Graphic courtesy of Michigan State University.

There have been numerous cases of stem cell growth for therapeutic purposes, such as the regeneration of skin and heart tissue, and the pharming and transplantation of animal organs into human patients, i.e. the Robert Pennington case.

Our generation of bio-scientists has also cloned mice and sheep, i.e. the case of Dolly. Therefore, is not the cloning of humans the most ‘natural’ next step in our progression in human enhancement?

The process followed in stem cell regeneration is similar to the one followed in cloning. The only distinguishing factor is the final stage, whereby the cloned cell could either be used for stem cell regeneration or to impregnate- refer to the graphic above.

Theoretically this is possible, and to some extent practically possible as displayed in the case of Dolly, the first cloned sheep. However, some bio-scientists have gone as far as brazenly claiming to have successfully cloned humans. Dr Brigitte Boisellier of Clonaid is one of them.

In an interview with Sir David Frost on "BBC Breakfast with Frost" (November 23, 2003) Dr Boisellier claimed that her cloning company had already cloned five babies (without any defects), and the eldest was almost a year at the time of the interview (having been born in December 26, 2002).

According to Dr Boisellier it is “[e]asier to clone human beings than it is to clone any other mammals”. She also claimed that Clonaid had already been cloning humans for over 25 years.

In recent years Clonaid has been shadowed with fraud claims as Dr Boisellier has failed to provide any evidence of her clone babies. This was her argument during the interview:

DR BRIGITTE BOISSELIER: "Okay. For me it's not a problem, it's for the parents. You know, they have their baby, they want to lead a happy life and they want to protect the child, the children. So for me, I respect that even if it was hard. Can you imagine like last year when I had to say well it's impossible to give the proof because of them saying no. But in the second, I think the second generation might be easier, ... the second ... babies ..."

Although I am eager to jump onto the Clonaid train of endless possibilities, I am afraid that I remain as sceptical of her abilities at cloning humans as bioethicist Professor Nigel Cameron of the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy.

NIGEL CAMERON: "I think virtually every scientist in the world would say that it is impossible at the moment to clone live-born human beings. That's one clear fact. There's a lot of research into aging processes but this stem cell stuff is so hard to control at the moment I think it will be a long way away."

Until further evidence I too share this sentiment. However, I suspect I am far more positive about the prospect of successful cloning of humans than Professor Cameron.

Stay tuned for the next blog post, which will be an infographic on how one (theoretically) goes about cloning a human. Then decide for yourself if human cloning is or isn't the next 'natural' step from stem growth in human enhancement.