Tag Archives: living robots

Bio-hybrid robotics (living robots) needs public debate and regulation

Leave a reply

A July 23, 2024 University of Southampton (UK) press release (also on EurekAlert but published July 22, 2024) describes the emerging science/technology of bio-hybrid robotics and a recent study about the ethical issues raised, Note 1: bio-hybrid may also be written as biohybrid; Note 2: Links have been removed,

Development of ‘living robots’ needs regulation and public debate

Researchers are calling for regulation to guide the responsible and ethical development of bio-hybrid robotics – a ground-breaking science which fuses artificial components with living tissue and cells.

In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS] a multidisciplinary team from the University of Southampton and universities in the US and Spain set out the unique ethical issues this technology presents and the need for proper governance.

Combining living materials and organisms with synthetic robotic components might sound like something out of science fiction, but this emerging field is advancing rapidly. Bio-hybrid robots using living muscles can crawl, swim, grip, pump, and sense their surroundings. Sensors made from sensory cells or insect antennae have improved chemical sensing. Living neurons have even been used to control mobile robots.

Dr Rafael Mestre from the University of Southampton, who specialises in emergent technologies and is co-lead author of the paper, said: “The challenges in overseeing bio-hybrid robotics are not dissimilar to those encountered in the regulation of biomedical devices, stem cells and other disruptive technologies. But unlike purely mechanical or digital technologies, bio-hybrid robots blend biological and synthetic components in unprecedented ways. This presents unique possible benefits but also potential dangers.”

Research publications relating to bio-hybrid robotics have increased continuously over the last decade. But the authors found that of the more than 1,500 publications on the subject at the time, only five considered its ethical implications in depth.

The paper’s authors identified three areas where bio-hybrid robotics present unique ethical issues: Interactivity – how bio-robots interact with humans and the environment, Integrability – how and whether humans might assimilate bio-robots (such as bio-robotic organs or limbs), and Moral status.

In a series of thought experiments, they describe how a bio-robot for cleaning our oceans could disrupt the food chain, how a bio-hybrid robotic arm might exacerbate inequalities [emphasis mine], and how increasing sophisticated bio-hybrid assistants could raise questions about sentience and moral value.

“Bio-hybrid robots create unique ethical dilemmas,” says Aníbal M. Astobiza, an ethicist from the University of the Basque Country in Spain and co-lead author of the paper. “The living tissue used in their fabrication, potential for sentience, distinct environmental impact, unusual moral status, and capacity for biological evolution or adaptation create unique ethical dilemmas that extend beyond those of wholly artificial or biological technologies.”

The paper is the first from the Biohybrid Futures project led by Dr Rafael Mestre, in collaboration with the Rebooting Democracy project. Biohybrid Futures is setting out to develop a framework for the responsible research, application, and governance of bio-hybrid robotics.

The paper proposes several requirements for such a framework, including risk assessments, consideration of social implications, and increasing public awareness and understanding.

Dr Matt Ryan, a political scientist from the University of Southampton and a co-author on the paper, said: “If debates around embryonic stem cells, human cloning or artificial intelligence have taught us something, it is that humans rarely agree on the correct resolution of the moral dilemmas of emergent technologies.

“Compared to related technologies such as embryonic stem cells or artificial intelligence, bio-hybrid robotics has developed relatively unattended by the media, the public and policymakers, but it is no less significant. We want the public to be included in this conversation to ensure a democratic approach to the development and ethical evaluation of this technology.”

In addition to the need for a governance framework, the authors set out actions that the research community can take now to guide their research.

“Taking these steps should not be seen as prescriptive in any way, but as an opportunity to share responsibility, taking a heavy weight away from the researcher’s shoulders,” says Dr Victoria Webster-Wood, a biomechanical engineer from Carnegie Mellon University in the US and co-author on the paper.

“Research in bio-hybrid robotics has evolved in various directions. We need to align our efforts to fully unlock its potential.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Ethics and responsibility in biohybrid robotics research by Rafael Mestre, Aníbal M. Astobiza, Victoria A. Webster-Wood, Matt Ryan, and M. Taher A. Saif. PNAS 121 (31) e2310458121 July 23, 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310458121

This paper is open access.

Cyborg or biohybrid robot?

Earlier, I highlighted “… how a bio-hybrid robotic arm might exacerbate inequalities …” because it suggests cyborgs, which are not mentioned in the press release or in the paper, This seems like an odd omission but, over the years, terminology does change although it’s not clear that’s the situation here.

I have two ‘definitions’, the first is from an October 21, 2019 article by Javier Yanes for OpenMind BBVA, Note: More about BBVA later,

…

The fusion between living organisms and artificial devices has become familiar to us through the concept of the cyborg (cybernetic organism). This approach consists of restoring or improving the capacities of the organic being, usually a human being, by means of technological devices. On the other hand, biohybrid robots are in some ways the opposite idea: using living tissues or cells to provide the machine with functions that would be difficult to achieve otherwise. The idea is that if soft robots seek to achieve this through synthetic materials, why not do so directly with living materials?

…

In contrast, there’s this from “Biohybrid robots: recent progress, challenges, and perspectives,” Note 1: Full citation for paper follows excerpt; Note 2: Links have been removed,

…

2.3. Cyborgs

Another approach to building biohybrid robots is the artificial enhancement of animals or using an entire animal body as a scaffold to manipulate robotically. The locomotion of these augmented animals can then be externally controlled, spanning three modes of locomotion: walking/running, flying, and swimming. Notably, these capabilities have been demonstrated in jellyfish (figure 4(A)) [139, 140], clams (figure 4(B)) [141], turtles (figure 4(C)) [142, 143], and insects, including locusts (figure 4(D)) [27, 144], beetles (figure 4(E)) [28, 145–158], cockroaches (figure 4(F)) [159–165], and moths [166–170].

….

The advantages of using entire animals as cyborgs are multifold. For robotics, augmented animals possess inherent features that address some of the long-standing challenges within the field, including power consumption and damage tolerance, by taking advantage of animal metabolism [172], tissue healing, and other adaptive behaviors. In particular, biohybrid robotic jellyfish, composed of a self-contained microelectronic swim controller embedded into live Aurelia aurita moon jellyfish, consumed one to three orders of magnitude less power per mass than existing swimming robots [172], and cyborg insects can make use of the insect’s hemolymph directly as a fuel source [173].

…

So, sometimes there’s a distinction and sometimes there’s not. I take this to mean that the field is still emerging and that’s reflected in evolving terminology.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Biohybrid robots: recent progress, challenges, and perspectives by Victoria A Webster-Wood, Maria Guix, Nicole W Xu, Bahareh Behkam, Hirotaka Sato, Deblina Sarkar, Samuel Sanchez, Masahiro Shimizu and Kevin Kit Parker. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, Volume 18, Number 1 015001 DOI 10.1088/1748-3190/ac9c3b Published 8 November 2022 • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

This paper is open access.

A few notes about BBVA and other items

BBVA is Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria according to its Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈbaŋko βilˈβao βiθˈkaʝa aɾxenˈtaɾja]), better known by its initialism BBVA, is a Spanish multinational financial services company based in Madrid and Bilbao, Spain. It is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and is present mainly in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, South America, Turkey, Italy and Romania.[2]

BBVA’s OpenMind is, from their About us page,

OpenMind: BBVA’s knowledge community

OpenMind is a non-profit project run by BBVA that aims to contribute to the generation and dissemination of knowledge about fundamental issues of our time, in an open and free way. The project is materialized in an online dissemination community.

“Sharing knowledge for a better future“.

At OpenMind we want to help people understand the main phenomena affecting our lives; the opportunities and challenges that we face in areas such as science, technology, humanities or economics. Analyzing the impact of scientific and technological advances on the future of the economy, society and our daily lives is the project’s main objective, which always starts on the premise that a broader and greater quality knowledge will help us to make better individual and collective decisions.

As for other items, you can find my latest (biorobotic, cyborg, or bionic depending what terminology you what to use) jellyfish story in this June 6, 2024 posting, the Biohybrid Futures project mentioned in the press release here, and also mentioned in the Rebooting Democracy project (unexpected in the context of an emerging science/technology) can be found here on this University of Southampton website.

Finally, you can find more on these stories (science/technology announcements and/or ethics research/issues) here by searching for ‘robots’ (tag and category), ‘cyborgs’ (tag), ‘machine/flesh’ (tag), ‘neuroprosthetic’ (tag), and human enhancement (category).

Xenobots (living robots) that can reproduce

Leave a reply

Xenobots (living robots made from African frog (Xenopus laevis) frog cells) can now self-replicate. First mentioned here in a June 21, 2021 posting, xenobots have captured the imagination of various media outlets including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) Quirks and Quarks radio programme and blog where Amanda Buckiewicz posted a December 3, 2021 article about the latest xenobot development (Note: Links have been removed),

…

In a new study, Bongard [Joshua Bongard, a computer scientist at the University of Vermont] and his colleagues from Tufts University and Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering found that the xenobots would autonomously collect loose single cells in their environment, gathering hundreds of cells together until new xenobots had formed.

“This took a little bit for us to wrap our minds around,” he said. “There’s no programming here. Instead, we’re designing or shaping these xenobots, and what they do, the way they behave, is based on shape.”

…

“We take a couple of thousand of those frog cells and we squish them together into a ball and put that in the bottom of a petri dish,” Bongard told Quirks & Quarks host Bob McDonald. 

“If you were to look into the dish, you would see some very small, what look like specks of pepper, moving about in the bottom of the petri dish.”

The xenobots initially received no instruction from humans on how to replicate. But when researchers added extra cells to the dish containing xenobots, they observed that the xenobots would assemble them into piles.

“Cells early in development are sticky,” said Bongard. “If the pile is large enough and the cells stick together, the outer ones on the surface will grow very small hairs, which are called cilia. And eventually, after four days, those cilia will start to beat back and forth like flexible oars, and the pile will start moving.”

“And that’s a child xenobot.” 

…

A November 29, 2021 Wyss Institute news release by Joshua Brown describes the process a little differently,

To persist, life must reproduce. Over billions of years, organisms have evolved many ways of replicating, from budding plants to sexual animals to invading viruses.

Now scientists at the University of Vermont, Tufts University, and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have discovered an entirely new form of biological reproduction—and applied their discovery to create the first-ever, self-replicating living robots.

The same team that built the first living robots (“Xenobots,” assembled from frog cells—reported in 2020) has discovered that these computer-designed and hand-assembled organisms can swim out into their tiny dish, find single cells, gather hundreds of them together, and assemble “baby” Xenobots inside their Pac-Man-shaped “mouth”—that, a few days later, become new Xenobots that look and move just like themselves.

And then these new Xenobots can go out, find cells, and build copies of themselves. Again and again.

…

In a Xenopus laevis frog, these embryonic cells would develop into skin. “They would be sitting on the outside of a tadpole, keeping out pathogens and redistributing mucus,” says Michael Levin, Ph.D., a professor of biology and director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University and co-leader of the new research. “But we’re putting them into a novel context. We’re giving them a chance to reimagine their multicellularity.” Levin is also an Associate Faculty member at the Wyss Institute.

And what they imagine is something far different than skin. “People have thought for quite a long time that we’ve worked out all the ways that life can reproduce or replicate. But this is something that’s never been observed before,” says co-author Douglas Blackiston, Ph.D., the senior scientist at Tufts University and the Wyss Institute who assembled the Xenobot “parents” and developed the biological portion of the new study.

“This is profound,” says Levin. “These cells have the genome of a frog, but, freed from becoming tadpoles, they use their collective intelligence, a plasticity, to do something astounding.” In earlier experiments, the scientists were amazed that Xenobots could be designed to achieve simple tasks. Now they are stunned that these biological objects—a computer-designed collection of cells—will spontaneously replicate. “We have the full, unaltered frog genome,” says Levin, “but it gave no hint that these cells can work together on this new task,” of gathering and then compressing separated cells into working self-copies.

“These are frog cells replicating in a way that is very different from how frogs do it. No animal or plant known to science replicates in this way,” says Sam Kriegman, Ph.D.,  the lead author on the new study, who completed his Ph.D. in Bongard’s lab at UVM and is now a post-doctoral researcher at Tuft’s Allen Center and Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering.

…

Both Buckiewicz’s December 3, 2021 article and Brown’s November 29, 2021 Wyss Institute news release are good reads with liberal used of embedded images. If you have time, start with Buckiewicz as she provides a good introduction and follow up with Brown who gives more detail and has an embedded video of a December 1, 2021 panel discussion with the scientists behind the xenobots.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the latest paper,

Kinematic self-replication in reconfigurable organisms by Sam Kriegman, Douglas Blackiston, Michael Levin, and Josh Bongard. PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] December 7, 2021 118 (49) e2112672118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112672118

This paper appears to be open access.