Tag Archives: Oliver Wainwright

Neural and technological inequalities

Leave a reply

I’m always happy to see discussions about the social implications of new and emerging technologies. In this case, the discussion was held at the Fast Company (magazine) European Innovation Festival. KC Ifeanyi wrote a July 10, 2019 article for Fast Company highlighting a session between two scientists focusing on what I’ve termed ‘machine/flesh’ or is, sometimes, called a cyborg but not with these two scientists (Note: A link has been removed),

At the Fast Company European Innovation Festival today, scientists Moran Cerf and Riccardo Sabatini had a wide-ranging discussion on the implications of technology that can hack humanity. From ethical questions to looking toward human biology for solutions, here are some of the highlights:

The ethics of ‘neural inequality’

There are already chips that can be implanted in the brain to help recover bodily functions after a stroke or brain injury. However, what happens if (more likely when) a chip in your brain can be hacked or even gain internet access, essentially making it possible for some people (more likely wealthy people) to process information much more quickly than others?

“It’s what some call neural inequality,” says Cerf, a neuroscientist and business professor at the Kellogg School of Management and at the neuroscience program at Northwestern University. …

Opening new pathways to thought through bionics

Cerf mentioned a colleague who was born without his left hand. He engineered a bionic one that he can control with an app and that has the functionality of doing things no human hand can do, like rotating 360 degrees. As fun of a party trick as that is, Cerf brings up a good point in that his colleague’s brain is processing something we can’t, thereby possibly opening new pathways of thought.

“The interesting thing, and this is up to us to investigate, is his brain can think thoughts that you cannot think [emphasis mine] because he has a function you don’t have,” Cerf says. …

The innovation of your human body

As people look to advanced bionics to amplify their senses or abilities, Sabatini, chief data scientist at Orionis Biosciences, makes the argument that our biological bodies are far more advanced than we give them credit for. …

Democratizing tech’s edges

Early innovation so often comes with a high price tag. The cost of experimenting with nascent technology or running clinical trials can be exorbitant. And Sabatini believes democratizing that part of the process is where the true innovation will be. …

Earlier technology that changed our thinking and thoughts

This isn’t the first time that technology has altered our thinking and the kinds of thoughts we have as per ” brain can think thoughts that you cannot think.” According to Walter J. Ong’s 1982 book, ‘Orality and Literacy’,that’s what writing did to us; it changed our thinking and the kinds of thoughts we have.

It took me quite a while to understand ‘writing’ as a technology, largely due to how much I took it for granted. Once I made that leap, it changed how I understood the word technology. Then, the idea that ‘writing’ could change your brain didn’t require as dramatic a leap although it fundamentally altered my concept of the relationship between technology and humans. Up to that time, I had viewed technology as an instrument that allowed me to accomplish goals (e.g., driving a car from point a to point b) but it had very little impact on me as a person.

You can find out more about Walter J. Ong and his work in his Wikipedia entry. Pay special attention to the section about, Orality and Literacy.

Who’s talking about technology and our thinking?

The article about the scientists (Cerf and Sabatini) at the Fast Company European Innovation Festival (held July 9 -10, 2019 in Milan, Italy) never mentions cyborgs. Presumably, neither did Sabatini or Cerf. It seems odd. Two thinkers were discussing ‘neural inequality’ and there was no mention of a cyborg (human and machine joined together).

Interestingly, the lead sponsor for this innovation festival was Gucci. That company would not have been my first guess or any other guess for that matter as having an interest in neural inequality.

So, Gucci sponsored a festival that is not not cheap. A two-day pass was $1600. (early birds got a discount of $457) and a ‘super’ pass was $2,229 (with an early bird discount of $629). So, you didn’t get into the room unless you had a fair chunk of change and time.

The tension, talking about inequality at a festival or other venue that most people can’t afford to attend, is discussed at more length in Anand Giridharadas’s 2018 book, ‘Winners Take All; The Elite Charade of Changing the World’.

It’s not just who gets to discuss ‘neural inequality’, it’s when you get to discuss it, which affects how the discussion is framed.

There aren’t an easy answers to these questions but I find the easy assumption that the wealthy and the science and technology communities get first dibs at the discussion a little disconcerting while being perfectly predictable.

On the plus side, there are artists and others who have jumped in and started the discussion by turning themselves into cyborgs. This August 14, 2015 article (Body-hackers: the people who turn themselves into cyborgs) by Oliver Wainwright for the Guardian is very informative and not for the faint of heart.

For the curious, I’ve been covering these kinds of stories here since 2009. The category ‘human enhancement’ and the search term ‘machine/flesh’ should provide you with an assortment of stories on the topic.

North Carolina universities go beyond organ-on-a-chip

Leave a reply

The researchers in the North Carolina universities involved in this project have high hopes according to an Oct. 9, 2015 news item on Nanowerk,

A team of researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University has received a $5.3 million, five-year Transformative Research (R01) Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create fully functioning versions of the human gut that fit on a chip the size of a dime.

Such “organs-on-a-chip” have become vital for biomedical research, as researchers seek alternatives to animal models for drug discovery and testing. The new grant will fund a technology that represents a major step forward for the field, overcoming limitations that have mired other efforts.

The technology will use primary cells derived directly from human biopsies, which are known to provide more relevant results than the immortalized cell lines used in current approaches. In addition, the device will sculpt these cells into the sophisticated architecture of the gut, rather than the disorganized ball of cells that are created in other miniature organ systems.

“We are building a device that goes far beyond the organ-on-a-chip,” said Nancy L. Allbritton, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the UNC-NC State joint department of biomedical engineering and one of four principle investigators on the NIH grant. “We call it a ‘simulacrum,’ [emphasis mine] a term used in science fiction to describe a duplicate. The idea is to create something that is indistinguishable from your own gut.”

I’ve come across the term ‘simulacrum’ in relation to philosophy so it’s a bit of a surprise to find it in a news release about an organ-on-a-chip where it seems to have been redefined somewhat. Here’s more from the Simulacrum entry on Wikipedia (Note: Links have been removed),

A simulacrum (plural: simulacra from Latin: simulacrum, which means “likeness, similarity”), is a representation or imitation of a person or thing.[1] The word was first recorded in the English language in the late 16th century, used to describe a representation, such as a statue or a painting, especially of a god. By the late 19th century, it had gathered a secondary association of inferiority: an image without the substance or qualities of the original.[2] Philosopher Fredric Jameson offers photorealism as an example of artistic simulacrum, where a painting is sometimes created by copying a photograph that is itself a copy of the real.[3] Other art forms that play with simulacra include trompe-l’œil,[4] pop art, Italian neorealism, and French New Wave.[3]

Philosophy

The simulacrum has long been of interest to philosophers. In his Sophist, Plato speaks of two kinds of image making. The first is a faithful reproduction, attempted to copy precisely the original. The second is intentionally distorted in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers. He gives the example of Greek statuary, which was crafted larger on the top than on the bottom so that viewers on the ground would see it correctly. If they could view it in scale, they would realize it was malformed. This example from the visual arts serves as a metaphor for the philosophical arts and the tendency of some philosophers to distort truth so that it appears accurate unless viewed from the proper angle.[5] Nietzsche addresses the concept of simulacrum (but does not use the term) in the Twilight of the Idols, suggesting that most philosophers, by ignoring the reliable input of their senses and resorting to the constructs of language and reason, arrive at a distorted copy of reality.[6]

Postmodernist French social theorist Jean Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. Where Plato saw two types of representation—faithful and intentionally distorted (simulacrum)—Baudrillard sees four: (1) basic reflection of reality; (2) perversion of reality; (3) pretence of reality (where there is no model); and (4) simulacrum, which “bears no relation to any reality whatsoever”.[7] In Baudrillard’s concept, like Nietzsche’s, simulacra are perceived as negative, but another modern philosopher who addressed the topic, Gilles Deleuze, takes a different view, seeing simulacra as the avenue by which an accepted ideal or “privileged position” could be “challenged and overturned”.[8] Deleuze defines simulacra as “those systems in which different relates to different by means of difference itself. What is essential is that we find in these systems no prior identity, no internal resemblance”.[9]

Getting back to the proposed research, an Oct. (?), 2015 University of North Carolina news release, which originated the news item, describes the proposed work in more detail,

Allbritton is an expert at microfabrication and microengineering. Also on the team are intestinal stem cell expert Scott T. Magness, associate professor of medicine, biomedical engineering, and cell and molecular physiology in the UNC School of Medicine; microbiome expert Scott Bultman, associate professor of genetics in the UNC School of Medicine; and bioinformatics expert Shawn Gomez, associate professor of biomedical engineering in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences and NC State.

The impetus for the “organ-on-chip” movement comes largely from the failings of the pharmaceutical industry. For just a single drug to go through the discovery, testing, and approval process can take as many as 15 years and as much as $5 billion dollars. Animal models are expensive to work with and often don’t respond to drugs and diseases the same way humans do. Human cells grown in flat sheets on Petri dishes are also a poor proxy. Three-dimensional “organoids” are an improvement, but these hollow balls are made of a mishmash of cells that doesn’t accurately mimic the structure and function of the real organ.

Basically, the human gut is a 30-foot long hollow tube made up of a continuous single-layer of specialized cells. Regenerative stem cells reside deep inside millions of small pits or “crypts” along the tube, and mature differentiated cells are linked to the pits and live further out toward the surface. The gut also contains trillions of microbes, which are estimated to outnumber human cells by ten to one. These diverse microbial communities – collectively known as the microbiota – process toxins and pharmaceuticals, stimulate immunity, and even release hormones to impact behavior.

To create a dime-sized version of this complex microenvironment, the UNC-NC State team borrowed fabrication technologies from the electronics and microfluidics world. The device is composed of a polymer base containing an array of imprinted or shaped “hydrogels,” a mesh of molecules that can absorb water like a sponge. These hydrogels are specifically engineered to provide the structural support and biochemical cues for growing cells from the gut. Plugged into the device will be various kinds of plumbing that bring in chemicals, fluids, and gases to provide cues that tell the cells how and where to differentiate and grow. For example, the researchers will engineer a steep oxygen gradient into the device that will enable oxygen-loving human cells and anaerobic microbes to coexist in close proximity.

“The underlying concept – to simply grow a piece of human tissue in a dish – doesn’t seem that groundbreaking,” said Magness. “We have been doing that for a long time with cancer cells, but those efforts do not replicate human physiology. Using native stem cells from the small intestine or colon, we can now develop gut tissue layers in a dish that contains stem cells and all the differentiated cells of the gut. That is the thing stem cell biologists and engineers have been shooting for, to make real tissue behave properly in a dish to create better models for drug screening and cell-based therapies. With this work, we made a big leap toward that goal.”

Right now, the team has a working prototype that can physically and chemically guide mouse intestinal stem cells into the appropriate structure and function of the gut. For several years, Magness has been isolating and banking human stem cells from samples from patients undergoing routine colonoscopies at UNC Hospitals.

As part of the grant, he will work with the rest of the team to apply these stem cells to the new device and create “simulacra” that are representative of each patient’s individual gut. The approach will enable researchers to explore in a personalized way how both the human and microbial cells of the gut behave during healthy and diseased states.

“Having a system like this will advance microbiota research tremendously,” said Bultman. “Right now microbiota studies involve taking samples, doing sequencing, and then compiling an inventory of all the microbes in the disease cases and healthy controls. These studies just draw associations, so it is difficult to glean cause and effect. This device will enable us to probe the microbiota, and gain a better understanding of whether changes in these microbial communities are the cause or the consequence of disease.”

I wish them good luck with their work and to end on another interesting note, the concept of organs-on-a-chip won a design award. From a June 22, 2015 article by Oliver Wainwright for the Guardian (Note: Links have been removed),

Meet the Lung-on-a-chip, a simulation of the biological processes inside the human lung, developed by the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University – and now crowned Design of the Year by London’s Design Museum.

Lined with living human cells, the “organs-on-chips” mimic the tissue structures and mechanical motions of human organs, promising to accelerate drug discovery, decrease development costs and potentially usher in a future of personalised medicine.

“This is the epitome of design innovation,” says Paola Antonelli, design curator at New York’s Museum of Modern Art [MOMA], who nominated the project for the award and recently acquired organs-on-chips for MoMA’s permanent collection. “Removing some of the pitfalls of human and animal testing means, theoretically, that drug trials could be conducted faster and their viable results disseminated more quickly.”

Whodathunkit? (Tor those unfamiliar with slang written in this form: Who would have thought it?)

Oxford’s (UK) Bodleian Library gets a new chair while Vancouver’s (Canada) Public Library gets a ‘creative studio’

Leave a reply

One of my interests vis à vis science and technology has to do with consequences, intended or otherwise. In this case, I”m considering the impact that the digital domain has had on one of my favourite analogue forms, books, more specifically, I’m interested in one of their homes, libraries.

It’s lovely being online and being able to access information and people in ways that were undreamed of even 20 years ago. There have also been some consequences as music, movies, books, etc. have entered the digital domain either directly or from their original analogue forms. Copyright law, access to science research papers, business models for writers, musicians, and other creative types, etc. have all been hugely affected by the advent of a digital domain  enabled by the fields of computer science, mathematics, etc.

Before discussing the two library stories (Oxford and Vancouver), here’s a brief description of libraries from a Wikipedia essay on the topic (Note: Links have been removed),

A library (from French “librairie”; Latin “liber” = book) is an organized collection of information resources made accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing. It provides physical or digital access to material, and may be a physical building or room, or a virtual space, or both.[1] A library’s collection can include books, periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, films, maps, prints, documents, microform, CDs, cassettes, videotapes, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, e-books, audiobooks, databases, and other formats. Libraries range in size from a few shelves of books to several million items. In Latin and Greek, the idea of bookcase is represented by Bibliotheca and Bibliothēkē (Greek: βιβλιοθήκη): derivatives of these mean library in many modern languages, e.g. French bibliothèque.

The first libraries consisted of archives of the earliest form of writing—the clay tablets in cuneiform script discovered in Sumer, some dating back to 2600 BC …

Keeping that definition in mind, it’s fascinating to note that Oxford’s Bodleian Library has just announced a winner for its chair competition. From an Oct. 15, 2013 article by John Pavlus for Fast Company,

The Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford have housed precious literature and scholarly documents for the past 400 years. It’s a special place, with its own special chairs–and over those last four centuries, only three chair designs have graced the Bodleian’s halls. The latest, designed by Barber and Osgerby, beat out competing designs by Herman Miller and four other firms. So how do you create a chair for the ages–something that can fit into Oxford’s storied history while updating it at the same time?

Oliver Wainwright in his Sept. 13, 2013 article for the Guardian provides some context for the chairs and their role in the Bodleian library and others,

Founded in 1602, the Bodleian Library rooms were always furnished with either raised reading lecterns – to study manuscripts standing up – or low wooden benches fixed to the bookshelves, to which the precious volumes were chained. It was not until the mid-18th century that the radical idea of the chair was introduced.

Records show that in 1756, three dozen Windsor chairs were bought from a Mr Munday, for the princely sum of 8s 6d each (about £120 in today’s money) – beginning a story of scholarly sitting that reaches its latest chapter this week.

…

They are competing for a prestigious commission that was last awarded to Giles Gilbert Scott in 1936, when he designed two seats to furnish his New Bodleian Library building, in the form of heavy leather-clad bucket chairs to match his stripped stone fortress of books. The building is currently undergoing a £78m renovation by Wilkinson Eyre architects – due to open next year – as a home for special collections. And special collections clearly need a very special chair.

“We wanted something that would be iconic and representative of the library,” says the Bodleian’s estates manager, Toby Kirtley. “It should be contemporary in style, but not out of place in a heritage setting – innovative and original, without being too experimental and risky.”

…

“People are now used to reading all over the place on their iPhones, while waiting for the bus or on the train, so there is a renewed attraction to coming back to the sanctity of a specific, static space.”

Perhaps surprisingly, Fletcher [Chris Fletcher, keeper of special collections] has also seen the use of the special collections increase, despite the wide availability of much of the material online.

“As digital information becomes more accessible, so the importance of the analogue also surfaces. It’s like vinyl, or 35mm film: people are interested in objects and the innate quality of things.”

By contrast, Vancouver Public Library’s chief librarian, Sandra Singh, wants to embark on a different approach to the library experience (I will get back to the Bodleian library and the winning chair). From an Oct. 1, 2013 article by Cheryl Rossi for the Vancouver Courier,

Once a bastion of silence, the Vancouver Public Library wants to build a creative technology lab that includes a recording studio with sound mixing equipment.

Open to library patrons, the Inspiration Lab would include a recording studio, digital devices to preserve and share stories, video editing software and self-publishing tools that include software and hardware to produce print or eBooks.

“What our hope would be down the road is if they come in and record an oral history or create a movie or a new piece of music or something, that we can actually add it to our collection,” said chief librarian Sandra Singh. “As a community we’re enriched when we learn about each other, we learn about each others’ experiences, we learn how to see the world through each others eyes. It helps build connectivity, trust, empathy and a sense of belonging.”

The library anticipates needing up to $600,000 to create the 3,000-square-foot lab on the third floor of the Central Branch at 350 West Georgia St. The lab is slated to open in late 2014.

Interestingly, it seems that anyone with an objection to this grand plan is going to be called old (and presumably described as ‘out of touch’) as per Rod Mickleburgh’s Dec. 21, 2012 article about the ‘inspiration’ lab for the Globe & Mail,

Under the direction of its enthusiastic chief librarian, Sandra Singh – at 39, the youngest head of a major public library system in Canada – visits to the VPL are up, circulation is up, and wireless use in particular, not surprisingly, is skyrocketing. [emphasis mine]

“This is a very exciting time to be in libraries. We are being transformed,” Ms. Singh said. “When they think of libraries, many still have the old mental model of books on shelves. Well, we are books on shelves, no doubt about it. But we are so much more.” [emphasis mine]

The evidence was clear on a wet, miserable afternoon this week at the VPL’s multi-storey main branch downtown. The place was packed. Most were not borrowing books.

Teenager Jerrison Oracion excitedly checked out a couple of dance video games. “It’s the only place where you can get video games for free,” he said, with a big grin.

Up on the fifth floor, a group of community college students sat around a table, talking over their opened binders. “There’s peace and quiet here,” Jen Hall said. “If I go to Starbucks, I get nothing done.”

Nearby, long rows of computer stations were full up. “Just browsing,” said fashion designer Jewelz Mills, one of the users. “I try to come in here once a week.”

While insisting that the books are all right, with a long life ahead of them, Ms. Singh said the library is meeting the challenges of the digital age head-on.

The popularity of e-books, which can be downloaded directly from the VPL’s website, is on the rise. The cost of most Internet paywalls is absorbed by the library, and computer courses abound, ranging from basic skills for seniors to surfing the net beyond the obvious.

“What libraries are really about is learning. It’s not really about the format,” Ms. Singh said.

Where to start? The youngest chief librarian talks about old mental models followed by anecdotes about teenagers and college students who are at the library because it’s quiet (pause for an ironic moment) and breathless excitement over e-books and the digital domain.

Having visited the Vancouver Public Library (central branch and my neighbourhood branch), I can tell you there is significantly less product on the floor and by product  I don’t mean just books. There’s less of everything. I guess they’re making room for the new studio. How many of us are going to fit into that studio which is located in the central branch only (discards going to the now ’emptyish’ neighbouhood branches) ? Who’s going to get access? I’m also curious about intellectual property. For example, if I make a movie that spawns much money, do I owe the library anything? What about my self-published book? Or am I paying the library for the privilege of using the equipment after I’ve paid in taxes to have the studio built?

As for Singh’s contention that libraries are for learning, she and I have a significant difference of opinion. I think they’re chief function is access and a public library is supposed to ensure access for everyone.

I have some issues with this grand studio plan but no doubt Ms. Singh (and I have met and talked with her so I have no doubt) would ascribe my objections to my age rather than any reasonable objections based on a lack of data and information. What statistics or data to support this notion that the library should supply someone or other with an ‘inspiration’ lab? There are similar experiments in the US and elsewhere. Have these been successful and has anyone analyzed the reasons for success and/or failure?

Apparently, there was some sort of public consultation. According to Mickleburgh’s article,

An extensive series of Free For All sessions, seeking community opinion on what was wanted from their libraries, including the wishes of teens, produced more than 7,000 responses over 10 months. What emerged is that people still value the VPL’s extensive collections, and they treasure its space, a refuge from the density of modern living.

When and where? How were people notified and who was invited? Who crunched the data? Is it possible the data crunchers had an agenda (consciously or unconsciously)? The answer to that last question is yes and one always has to compensate for one’s own agenda.

Some of these questions could also be aimed at the Bodleian Library folks and this contention “As digital information becomes more accessible, so the importance of the analogue also surfaces. It’s like vinyl, or 35mm film: people are interested in objects and the innate quality of things.” Do you have data supporting your contention or is that what you want to believe?

Finally, here’s what Wainwright had to say about the winning design,

Finally we come to Barber Osgerby, working with classic English modernist manufacturer Isokon. Either the designers are fans of Christine de Pizan, or I have been looking at medieval illuminations for too long, but their chair has definite echoes of some of the low, round-backed seats the Renaissance feminist is depicted sitting in.

With a single straight spine that joins a continuous curving arm rest to a similarly-shaped rail on the floor, the form is also strongly reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Barrel Chair, designed in 1937 for the Wingspread house in Wisconsin. Seen in a row from behind, as they will be installed in the library, they appear to form a line of little rooms around the readers, defining a series of individual territories from the floor to the desk.

As Barber Osgerby have cleverly done before with their Tip Ton school chair, the bottom rail is also angled to allow the chair to be subtly tilted forward, or leaned back to recline.

“That could be an important feature for the users of special collections,” says Fletcher. “You often want to get right in to see the variations in type, or annotations, or the chain lines in the paper.”

Sitting down, it appears to be the most comfortable, with broad armrests set at the right height; although, as I tilt forward – engrossed in the detail of a ligature – it feels like there might be a chance of being deposited head-first into the folio.

…

As a classic form that would sit at home in the Gilbert Scott interiors, yet which has its own distinctive identity as an elegant and ergonomic design, my money’s on Barber Osgerby.

You can see a photograph of the three finalist chairs and enjoy Wainwright’s full article here.