Tag Archives: Denise Caruso

Nanotechnology enables robots and human enhancement: part 2

1 Reply

Mary King’s project on Robots and AI, the one I mentioned yesterday, was written in 2007 so there have been some changes since then but her focus is largely cultural and that doesn’t change so quickly. The bird’s eye view she provides of the situation in Japan and other parts of Asia contrasts with the information and ideas that are common currency in North America and, I suspect, Europe too. (As for other geographic regions, I don’t venture any comments as I’m not sufficiently familiar with the thinking in those regions.)  Take for example this,

South Korea, meanwhile, has not only announced that by 2010 it expects to have robo-cops patrolling the streets alongside its police force and army, but that its “Robot Ethics Charter” will take effect later this year. The charter includes Asimov-like laws for the robots, as well as guidelines to protect robots from abuse by humans. South Korea is concerned that some people will become addicted to robots, may want to marry their android or will use robots for illegal activities. The charter demands full human control over the robots, an idea that is likely to be popular with Japanese too. But a number of organizations and individuals in the West are bound to criticize laws that do not grant equal “human” rights to robots.

Mary goes on to cite some of the work on roboethics and robo-rights being done in the West and gives a brief discussion of some of the more apocalyptic possibilities. I think the latest incarnation of Battlestar Galactica anchored its mythology in many of the “Western” fears associated with the arrival of intelligent robots. She also mentions this,

Beyond robots becoming more ubiquitous in our lives, a vanguard of Western scientists asserts that humans will merge with the machine. Brooks says “… it is clear that robotic technology will merge with biotechnology in the first half of this century,” and he therefore concludes that “the distinction between us and robots is going to disappear.”

Leading proponents of Strong AI state that humans will transcend biology and evolve to a higher level by merging with robot technology. Ray Kurzweil, a renowned inventor, transhumanist and the author of several books on “spiritual machines,” claims that immortality lies within the grasp of many of us alive today.

The concept of transhumanism does not accord well with the Japanese perspective,

Japan’s fondness for humanoid robots highlights the high regard Japanese share for the role of humans within nature. Humans are viewed as not being above nature, but a part of it.

This reminds me of the discussion taking place on the topic of synthetic biology (blog posting here) where the synthetic biologists are going to reconfigure the human genome to make it better. According to Denise Caruso (executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute), many of the synthetic biologists have backgrounds in IT not biology. I highly recommend Mary’s essay. It’s a longish read (5000 words) but well worth it for the insights it provides.

In Canada, we are experiencing robotic surveillance at the border with the US. The CBC reported in June that the US was launching a drone plane in the Great Lakes region of the border. It was the 2nd drone, the 1st being deplored over the Manitoba border and there is talk that a drone will be used on the BC border in the future. For details, go here. More tomorrow.

Excitement over the cow genome…why?

Leave a reply

They’ve sequenced the genome for a female Hereford cow, according the BBC News here. In reading the article, you’ll find a fair chunk of equivocation.

The genome of a female Hereford cow has been sequenced, which could be a major starting point for improvements in the agricultural industry.

…

The information is likely to have a major impact on livestock breeding. [emphasis mine]

Other genomes have been mapped, notably the human genome, and as far as I’m aware, nothing much has come of it. Denise Caruso in her webcast discussion with Rick Weiss on synthetic biology (for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies) mentioned the Encode Project where they identified all the functional elements in the human genome sequence. There was an international consortium working on this multi-year project  and, according to Caruso, after it was completed the biologists found that they still don’t understand how the genes actually interact within the body. In other words, you may have markers for a disease that never manifests because of other factors which are part of your personal biology. Theories are all very well but they don’t necessarily function outside a laboratory.

Eta: I forgot to mention that a team of Simon Fraser University researchers worked with colleagues at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland on the cow genome.

Quantum dots possibly toxic? And a followup to the Canadian 2009 budget and Genome Canada

Leave a reply

After last week’s (and continuing into this week) excitement over Canadian scientists creating the smallest quantum dot ever, there’s an article about possible toxicity in Science Daily here. The gist of the article is that quantum dots which are used in solar cells, medical imaging devices, and elsewhere could decompose during use or after they’re disposed. In any event, the decomposed dots could release metals that are toxic when they are exposed to acidic and/or alkaline environments. According to the article, there’s no need to sound an alarm yet but it’s a good idea to keep an eye on the situation.

I made a comment abut mapping genomes when discussing the science funding cuts in the Canadian budget which featured Genome Canada’s complete disappearance [from the budget].  I referred to a comment by Denise Caruso (she was featured in a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies webcast discussing synthetic biology here). I’ve reviewed the webcast and found that she wasn’t referring to genome mapping per se but was discussing something called the Encode Study which was four years long and funded by the Human Genome Project. It featured an international consortium of 80 organizations that were working together to create an encyclopedia of DNA elements. Here’s a rough transcription of her comments,

We have no idea what we’re talking about here. The genes don’t operate the way we thought they did. The genome is not a tidy collection of independent genes where the sequence of DNA does this [action] and always does this so we can put it on a shelf [and have it on a] parts inventory list. [The genes] operate within networks. What they [study participants] said was almost 180 degrees opposite to what we have believed for quite some time.

Rick Weiss who was interviewing her went on to describe how a genes that are seemingly unrelated signal each other in ways that we had not expected. Who knows how it all works in the environment i.e. when you get out of the lab?

So getting back to my original point, mapping is fine but it’s not the most primary goal. As per the webcast, it’s the relationships or networks that are important.

A quick note: the University of Virginia has a virtual lab that features information and podcasts about nano. You can go here to see it.

Science funding cuts in the Canadian 2009 budget

Leave a reply

Lost in all the excitement over Genome Canada’s disappearance from the budget is the drop in funding allocations for all three national research councils, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), National Research Council (NRC), and I think they’re including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) as the third one even though the name isn’t quite right. You can read up on the situation here and notice how the other three institutions are hardly mentioned.

Interestingly there was a recent article (Sat., Jan. 24, 2009) in the Globe and Mail about health research in Canada and how a great many US researchers flocked up because their funding was being limited and cut off in the US. Two researchers interviewed for the article mentioned that they were seeing similar signs of a freeze or even loss of funds, as they’d experienced in the US, on the horizon here as they were having problems with funding requests. (As I recall, the focus was on stem cell research but it might have been something else too.)

I am concerned in a general sense although I’m not a big fan of all this genomic mapping. How does mapping the genome of any organism help? As far as I can tell, all they’ve done is identify characteristics but they don’t understand how any of it works together. (I’m going to see if I can find a quote from Denise Caruso about genes and mapping them. As I recall, it hasn’t really amounted to anything much.)

While I disagree with some of the emphasis, I’m still concerned that all the science funding is being pulled back at this time. The whole thing is in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s interest in revitalizing and strengthening research in the US by pumping additional funds.

Synthetic biology, ethics, and IT

1 Reply

I watched the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) live webcast yesterday (Jan.8.09) with Arthur Caplan, an ethicist, discussing ethical implications associated with synthetic biology. If you’re interested the webcast will be compressed and made available on their site in about five or six days. (I’ll put up a link when I see it there.)

There ware a couple of interesting bits. Caplan pointed out that emerging technology and science is often represented as appearing magically overnight  when in fact it’s the result of years of incremental work which was being discussed not only by scientists but also social scientists, ethicists, and policy makers.  I think that happens because it makes a better story and/or because a lot of reporters have no context. Reporters don’t necessarily spend much time on any particular beat and today’s science reporter might be yesterday’s sports reporter.

Caplan also mentioned Craig Venter who is determined to prove that there is no difference between life and nonlife. ie. That you can create a living organism by putting together ingredients such as synthesized DNA that you can purchase via the internet. Denise Caruso (blog posting Jan.7.09) alluded to that perspective in her PEN webcast on synthetic biology. She ascribed to the fact that a lot of the people involved in developing synthetic biology have engineering and/or IT backgrounds. As she pointed out, organismic biologists do not share the opinion and in fact use different language and, for the most part, are not involved in the synthetic biology discussions.

Synthetic conversation between Rick Weiss and Denise Caruso

Leave a reply

The conversation took place under the auspices of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) in November 2008 and thank goodness for webcasting since that means there’s a copy free for the viewing here [ETA Sept. 30, 2011: I have replaced the link as it points to the wrong page with this URL http://www.synbioproject.org/events/archive/synthetic_biology_coming_up_fast/]. The discussion is absorbing and I highly recommend it. However, it’s disturbing. They discuss bio error and bio terror along with mentioning how easy it would be to create synthetic life (this leads to a brief discussion about how we define life).  It’s provocative in a thoughtful way. Weiss was a science reporter who is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress. Caruso (former journalist) is the executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute which she founded in 2000.

There is an ethics discussion about synthetic biology tomorrow at PEN 9:30 – 10:30 am PST. Go here to enjoy the live webcast or to view it later.

Synthetic Biology webcast

Leave a reply

Just got an invite to: Synthetic Biology: Coming Up Fast! the latest webcast/live event from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). It will take place Friday, November 14, 2008 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm ET. According to the press release,

Synthetic biology is being touted by scientists and venture capitalists as “the next big thing.”  Researchers claim to be on the brink of creating artificial life in a laboratory and making the world’s first synthetic microbes.  The first blockbuster synbio drug–an affordable cure for malaria–is expected on the market by 2010.  And a whole new biofuels industry spawned by synthetic biologists that promises to conquer the globe’s energy problems seems just around the corner.

The speakers are,

Denise Caruso, former New York Times columnist and longtime analyst of technology-based issues and industries, will explore this question with the Center for American Progress’s Rick Weiss.  Caruso is the author of Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet (2006).  Weiss recently left The Washington Post after a distinguished career as one of the country’s foremost science journalists.

David Rejeski, PEN executive director, will be moderating. If you’re in the Washington, DC area you can attend but you do need to rsvp otherwise there’s the live webcast (or if the timing is bad, they will make post it later but it can take a few days). For more information, check here.