Many of the posts on my ‘Why Can’t I Have Wings?’ post remind me of this letter.

Man controls new prosthetic leg using leg muscles

Though reported as ‘man controls prosthetic leg using thought’, the man is controlling the prosthetic leg using his thigh muscles, which he is controlling using the nerves that used to go to his lower leg and foot (but were surgically re-routed to the thigh). The prosthesis detects the electrical activity in the muscles, rather than the nerves themselves.

So it goes like this:

brain → spinal cord → motor nerve → thigh muscle → EMG in prosthetic limb → movement

Not even interfacing with the motor nerves directly, let alone any kind of a brain-computer interface. This is NOT a mind-controlled prosthetic, any more than any other prosthetic.

Mitochondria transplants at risk of rejection

Those mitochondrial transplants (or ‘three parent IVF’ as it is innaccurately called at times) that I’ve blogged about before (here, here and here) might have a few side effects on gene expression. Replacing mitochondria affected by a genetic disease with those from a gene free donor has been compared to replacing faulty batteries in a camera with fresh new ones. But a recent policy opinion piece published in Science (Reinhardt et al 2013) suggest this analogy might not be totally accurate. One of the authors, Edward Morrow, is quoted in New Scientist:

“For a modern camera you’ve not only got to have the right brand of battery, but the right size, shape and voltage. There are all these parameters you have to have right. You can’t just go into a shop and buy any old one.”

As explained in the piece in Science, the mitochondria of some organisms like fruit flies, mice and monkeys has been shown to interact with the genes being expressed in the nucleus, and thus it probably does the same in humans. Non-invasive methods of replacing mitochondria have been used in most of these studies, which involves mating a male mouse of one line with a female mouse of another line, to produce mice with the mitochondrial DNA of line 2. These offspring were then only crossed to line 1, which after a few generations produces mice that mostly have nuclear DNA of line 1 but the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of line 2 (this is sort of similar to if your mother’s mother’s mother was from a totally different ethnicity to the rest of your family). The results of these experiments were that mice with a ‘mismatch’ had reduced exercise capacity (Nagao et al 1998) and reduced learning ability (Roubertoux et al 2003).

Thus, it’s at least theoretically possible these ‘rejection’ side effects might exist in humans too. We just don’t know, it’s a different species and a different method of mitochondria replacement to those studies. This therapy has been tentatively approved by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority in the UK, and the UK government is drafting regulation for the use of this therapy. This paper shouldn’t change that, as any new treatment is likely to have side effects. The question is whether it’s worth it. I agree with how the Science piece concludes:

Assessing the costs and benefits of MR [mitochondrial replacement] treatment requires that prospective patients are as fully informed as possible. The difference across patients in the severity of expected offspring symptoms in the event that MR treatment is not taken will shape the decision of choosing the treatment versus waiting for the outcomes of further research. Some families who are predicted to be, or who have previously conceived offspring that were, severely afflicted by mtDNA diseases are more likely to be prepared to take the risk. Others whose children are expected to suffer less detrimental symptoms, cognition problems or infertility, may wish to wait for further empirical clarification of the risks involved.

This treatment is very promising for severe mitochondrial diseases. For milder conditions, it might not be worth the risk until we know how the mitochondria and the nucleus interact, and can better work out what mitochondria a good donor needs to have for any given patient.

 

Unfortunately i…

Unfortunately it’s not at all uncommon for moral and scientific questions to get tangled up in this way. Let me give an example from a different domain—perhaps the most blatant example of all: the question of whether life begins at conception or at birth. That looks like a scientific question, but it really has no scientific content whatsoever. We understand the process of embryonic development in great depth and exquisite detail—attaching the label “life” at some timepoint would not add the slightest iota to our scientific understanding. We all know, of course, what this question is really about: it’s about whether abortion should be permitted. It is really a purely moral question, disguised as a scientific question.

Why do moral questions get disguised as scientific questions? Basically because it is useful as a debating tactic. Arguments about right and wrong often depend on axioms that are not shared by other people, so they tend to degenerate ultimately into hand-waving and shouting. If an argument is about objective truth, though, everybody who knows all the facts ought in principle to get the same answer. I’m not saying that people who argue about the beginning of life do this deliberately or understand what they are doing—obviously they don’t. But the upshot is the same.

William Skaggs (in “How Could We Recognise Pain in an Octopus? Part 2“, Scientific American Blog)

Basically saying that you do need to understand science in order to form a conclusion about the morality of it, but the moral conclusion you form isn’t a scientific conclusion. It’s informed by science, but science can’t answer moral questions for you.

Scaremongering regarding inheritable mitochondrial disease cures

Every single time there are new stories about mitochondrial transplants, it gets touted in the media as some new fancy technique. The most ridiculous of these was written by Rob Stein of NPR, titled “Scientists Breach Ethical Taboo by Changing Genes Across Generations“.

Geneticist[sic] reported Wednesday that they had crossed a threshold long considered off-limits: They have made changes in human DNA that can be passed down from one generation to the next.

Unfortunately for this scare-mongering, this threshold was crossed way back in 1998. And nothing seems to have happened as a result. This new research is quite useful, however. It’s just not ethically groundbreaking. Or new. Or even genetic modification. Just a simple mitochondrial transplant.

If you want some realistic news coverage of this story (free of sensationalism), then I suggest trying the journals Nature or Science. Or, first read the Wellcome Trust’s article about the science of what is being done, and THEN read your average news story about this issue.

In bioethics especially

Some words of wisdom

I’ve written about mitochondrial transplants for human embryos before (especially how it isn’t new, having been first done in 1998), but it still is getting a lot of press as a “three-parent IVF” method. But fortunately the Wellcome Trust has an article to set them all straight on the science of it. I like this part:

1 + 1 + 0.00001 ≠ 3

Also, in an article to The Times the Wellcome Trust’s director, Sir Mark Walport, wrote this very pithy sentence:

 If a child with donated mitochondria can be said to have three parents, then the recipient of a heart transplant could be said to have four.

Damn straight!

The five enhancements you can do today!

All the enhancements I write about are usually quite a ways off in the future. But you can enhance yourself today. Not by enhancing your genes, not yet, but by optimising your environment to be precisely what your genes evolved to inhabit. You won’t get to superhuman, but you can be better than you were yesterday. Who knows, maybe you will increase your chances of living long enough to see, and perhaps gain, some of the more radical human enhancements that are coming in the future.

 

 

(image via Flickr by endofmorose)

Be friendly

Social interaction is vital for mental and physical health (Holt-Lunstad et al, 2009). Being isolated is just as bad for you as smoking or drinking. Humans evolved in small groups, with families and friends close almost all the time. So it’s good for you to be friendly. Talk to your family, make new friends and catch up with the old. You will be happier and healthier with more friends and family.

 

 

Sleep

If you’re reading this when you should be asleep, go to sleep and read this post in the morning. People who consistently sleep only 5 hours rather than the recommended 7+ hours are 70% more likely to die (Ferrie et al, 2007). Humans evolved with only fire and moonlight as lights at night, so make sure your bedroom is dark at night and if you do have to use a light, use a fire-coloured light because orange/red won’t wake you up as much (Brainard et al, 2001).

 

 

Eat healthy

You are what you eat, and if you want to be healthy and balanced you need to eat healthy and balanced. The human species first appeared 200,000 years ago, and humans would have fed themselves on whatever animals they could catch and whatever plants were in season. Only as recently as 10,000 years ago, humans started farming. But agriculture was not an enhancement, as evidence from skeletal remains indicate that human height declined by about 15cm due to an over-reliance on grain-based foods for nutrition. So for dietary advice, I say eat a variety of natural foods like vegetables, fruits and fish/meat. (Side note: humans have been eating saturated animal fat and fruit sugars for a lot longer than we’ve been eating wholegrain bread, don’t be afraid of including them in a balanced diet)

 

 

(image from motivationforfitness)

Exercise

For now, the only way to increase your strength, endurance, flexibility and even intelligence (exercise increases brain stem cells) is to keep your body and mind active. Like a diet, a variety of exercise is the key. Humans evolved in an environment where they’d spend a lot of time walking, but sometimes they’d run and swim and climb trees and lift heavy objects. So to be fit and healthy, you have to provide your body with this same variety of stimuli that your body has evolved to expect. A lot of time walking, some time running and some time lifting heavy objects. (Side note: for my female readers, note that the differences between the male and female body is determined by hormones and not by exercise routines. Working out ‘like a man’ will NOT make you look like a man)

(image from Flickr, by a.drian)

See your health care professional

People who visit the doctor for checkups live longer and are healthier than people who don’t (Hozawa et al, 2010). Even if you’re young and healthy, you still should have a checkup with your doctor, dentist and optometrist every 2 years (more frequently if you’re older or have a health issue). Furthermore, health care professionals can provide you with all the other enhancements you can get: contraceptives, vaccines, corrective eyeglasses/surgery, orthodontics and various pharmaceuticals.

Years from now, you will wish you did these things when I told you to.

Gene therapy claimed to have been ‘almost unbroken failure’ in the NYT

Nicholas Wade, writing in the NYT, says this in his opening paragraph about a new gene therapy for hemophilia:

Medical researchers in Britain have successfully treated six patients suffering from the blood-clotting disease known as hemophilia B by injecting them with the correct form of a defective gene, a landmark achievement in the troubled field of gene therapy. Hemophilia B, which was carried by Queen Victoria and affected most of the royal houses of Europe, is the first well-known disease to appear treatable by gene therapy, a technique with a 20-year record of almost unbroken failure [emphasis mine].

What a lie! As I’ve outlined previously, gene therapy has astonishingly high efficacy rates, 75-90% of patients in clinical trials have seen a therapeutic effect. It is a troubled field, for sure, but I would not call this a ‘record of almost unbroken failure’. Gene therapy has cured some cancers, successfully treated HIV, given sight to the blind and treated (or cured) potentially fatal immune conditions. And also has treated hemophilia, as the NYT article notes. 

But of course, these successes are downplayed:

Gene therapy has had minor successes in very rare diseases but suffered a major setback in 1999 with the death of a patient in a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Another gene therapy trial treated an immune deficiency but caused cancer in some patients.

Surely if causing one death is a ‘major setback’, then saving the lives of many more patients should not be dismissed as merely a ‘minor success’.

Gene therapy, though it has proved more dangerous than was first thought, still deserves all the hype it ever received.

There’s no gene for stopping bullets.

There’s been a bit of talk recently about the bio-artist who managed to create a fabric of human skin and spider silk that managed to stop a .22 calibre round. Unfortunately the bullet didn’t ricochet off the skin, Superman-style. This skin acts a bit like a net stopping a soccer ball, in that it simply catches the bullet. Now imagine you kick the ball with superhuman strength into the net of soccer goal. If the net can’t stop the ball, one or both of two things will happen: either the net will break leaving a hole where the ball went through or the net will just tear right off the goalposts and both net and ball will keep sailing by.

In the case of this bulletproof skin/fabric, the skin wasn’t broken by the bullet. Instead, the bullet (now wrapped in spider silk and skin) still penetrated a couple of inches into the ballistics gel behind it.

For a visual, watch the video below (specifically the frame at 7:48).

Note that a Petri-dish sized piece of fabric was attached (through indeterminate means) to the ballistics gel. So as the bullet hits the middle of this circle of fabric, it pulls taut and in the case of the spider silk fabric, pulls off completely and envelopes the bullet. To go back to the soccer goal analogy, you can have a really strong net but if it’s poorly attached to the goalposts, it won’t stop a really fast ball. So while it’s possible that the tensile strength of the spider silk is enough that, if the fastening held, the bullet would be stopped completely, it is also possible that the skin would have broken had the fastening not broken first. More tests are needed, of course.

But anyway, if that gel was your heart, you’d still be very dead. So despite claims that the skin was ‘bulletproof’, the skin didn’t even stop a .22 bullet travelling at reduced speed. To be classified as a Type I vest (the lowest class of ballistic vest), the skin would have to completely stop a full velocity .22 round.

So, it’s not even bulletproof. And, it is just spider silk fabric covered in skin, it’s not really skin either. And so of course the press reports that bulletproof skin has been created and we transhumanists can rejoice at the promise of invulnerability.

That bastion of great reporting, The Daily Mail, quotes Dutch bio-artist Jalila Essaidi as saying:

“Now, let’s take this one step further, why bother with a vest: imagine replacing keratin, the protein responsible for the toughness of the human skin, with this spidersilk protein. This is possible by adding the silk producing genes of a spider to the gnome[sic] of a human: creating a bulletproof human. Science-fiction? Maybe, but we can get a feeling of what this transhumanistic idea would be like by letting a bulletproof matrix of spidersilk merge with an in vitro human skin.”

Yes, they said gnome. I lolled. But anyway, why would we bother with a vest? I don’t know, the fact that it actually works might be one reason. Or that it can be much tougher without having to also be nice and supple enough to allow you to move like skin does. And we can trade up to the newer models without having to have a new skin transplant or more genetic modification. The only disadvantage of a vest is not being bulletproof all the time.

Still, it’s kind of cool to have bio-artists out in the world experimenting with weird and wacky ideas like bulletproof skin, while all the ‘real’ doctors and scientists are trying to find ways to heal people with severe burns or gunshot wounds. Then again, it doesn’t mean much if the research is poorly tested and demonstrated on YouTube instead of at a scientific conference.

So will it ever be possible to have bulletproof skin? Probably not.

You see, our skin is flexible and can stretch pretty easily. If it didn’t stretch, we’d to moult and grow a new skin as we grow, get pregnant or gain weight. Also, we’d find movement difficult too (as anyone who has tried to squat in a pair of skin-tight jeans knows). Skin has to be this flexible even if we make it strong enough to stop a bullet. So despite a bullet not actually penetrating the skin, the skin will rapidly deform allowing the impact to cause severe underlying trauma, fracture bones or injure vital organs. (This happens with any soft body armour, and is called ‘behind armour blunt trauma’ or BABT). So although stronger, bulletproof skin might prevent penetrating injuries (and yes, save lives), bullets will still be potentially lethal. Bullet resistant skin? Possible. Nigh invulnerability thanks to bulletproof skin? Highly unlikely.

Or at least, it won’t look like skin. An hard exoskeleton like a crab, perhaps. But if we’re going for exoskeletons, I think Iron Man’s looks like a better option.

(And I know I totally glossed over the part where the spider silk was produced from the milk of a transgenic goat, but that’s because it’s 11-year-old news.)