How do you build a bionic man?

By Matt James

“Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world’s first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster”.  Steve Austin – aka The Six Million Dollar Man – may have been the thing of 1974 movie fame but given the rapid developments in technology we are witnessing today, are we really capable of building a bionic man?

In the spirit of Steve Austin but with equally chilling resemblances to Frankenstein, “How to build a bionic man” was aired on Channel 4 within the last month (You may still be able to watch it on line thanks to 4OD). Its aim was “….to create the world’s first bionic man, that can get off the slab and walk among us”. Having watched the programme I’m left a little disappointed and uncertain as to how well it met this aim.

Format

Dr Bertolt Meyer performed the role of guide through the 60 min programme which was billed as a “guided tour of the future”.  This tour was a mix of tracking the progress of the team of experts as they gathered to construct the bionic man and Meyer’s experiences as he travelled to visit various experts in the field and individuals who are benefiting from these technological advances. For instance Caroline Skinner, a blind churchwarden, who’s story was particularly compelling as she began to experience a degree of restored sight having received a bionic eye implant. You can visit the C4 website and have a go at building your own bionic ‘you’ , but in summary a range of technologies were used to construct the bionic man – (named Eugene, not ‘Rex’ as some have referred to him. Rex is the name of the exoskeleton legs….). I am grateful to the IEEE blog for the following information:

Arteries and Trachea made from nanocomposite polymers seeded with stem cells. Developed by Royal Free Hospital in London, patients have successfully received implants.

Blood: A paste of plastic molecules suspended in water with similar oxygen binding and releasing properties as the hemoglobin in red blood cells. Developed by the University of Sheffield, undergoing laboratory development.

Kidneys: Immune stable nanoscale filtration system coupled with renal tubule cells in an implantable cartridge. Developed by UCSF, ready for clinical trials in three to five years.

Heart: Battery powered, self contained, total replacement system. Developed by SynCardia Systems, approved for implantation in humans by the FDA.

Spleen: Magnetic nanoparticles pull pathogens out of blood and into a saline solution through a porous membrane. Developed by the Wyss Institute, undergoing testing for battlefield triage deployment.

Pancreas: Circuitless glucose–sensitive insulin gel releasing implant. Developed by De Montford University, under development.

Lungs: Portable blood/air mass exchanger which can remove CO2 from and add oxygen to the blood of active patients through gas permeable, surface–coated hollow fibre polymers. Developed by Haemair, prototype in laboratory testing.

Eyes: External video camera sends images through a processor, which transmits them wirelessly to a receiver mounted on the eye. An array of electrodes placed directly onto the retina sends signals along the optic nerve, which the brain learns to interpret as images. Developed by Second Sight, undergoing international clinical tests.

Education vs Entertainment

So what did I make of the programme? My take was that while it was informative and provided a snapshot of the future, it was largely disappointing and could have achieved so much more. I appreciate the fact that programmes of this kind are made with the public in mind and do not want to ‘blind them with science’ but there is a difference between pitching a programme above the level of public understanding and pitching a programme which meets the lowest common denominator.

The public are not stupid and while careful consideration needs to be given to how new and perhaps complex information is presented, this should not be an excuse for oversimplification and sensationalism. At points How to Build a Bionic Man seemed to play on the sci–fi angle and underplaying the real advances in robotics. There were certainly good elements to the programme but overall how the programme was produced, its lack of pace and depth meant that it was disappointing.

Bionic meets human

In its favour choosing Dr Bertot Meyer as the presenter was a good move and introduced much value to the programme.  The Swiss social psychologist was born without a left hand and has a £30,000 bionic replacement providing him with the ability to grip and twist. This personal ‘connection’ with bionics meant that as well as acting as a guide for the programme, his personal experience and insights were engaging and brought colour to the programme. I found his comments and reflections on how he considered his robot hand as “part of me” fascinating and the value he placed on technology being aesthetically pleasing particularly insightful. It seems obvious now but clearly if you are using a robotic hand to replace a human hand, it is not only going to have to function correctly but you are going to want it to look life like and aesthically pleasing as well.

This line of thinking was also highlighted during Meyer’s visit to the MIT labs in the USA. Here he was able to try out one of the latest bionic hands being developed for use with the US military and which offers considerably more movement in the wrist than Meyer’s present bionic hand. One of the lab assistants remarked to Meyer “The hand learns from you; it’s not a case of you learning to use the hand”.  This is not just a sophisticated grabber; this was part of Meyer, a tool through which he was seeking to express himself. This idea of expression was all the more poignantly addressed once his visit had concluded and he was preparing to leave: “I had a wrist there for a moment and then you walk out of there and it’s gone again.”

It would have been good to have incorporated more of Meyer’s perspectives and thoughts on bionics as I think he has some very interesting and useful ideas to contribute to discussions in this area. For a start, his visit to the US to see the latest developments in bionic hands et al, brought to my attention once more the fact that it is the US military and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) who are one of the largest (if not the largest) source of funding and investment in future technology. Why is this so? I have some ideas: the perceived need for a world superpower to be at the cutting edge of technology in order to maintain the competitive edge. But why should this be the key driving force behind this? What about the many amputees who would gladly accept a bionic hand were if not for the cost implications? As distinguished bioethicist George Annas commented later on in the programme, it is fine balancing act between on the one hand halting R&D until a time when everyone can afford the technology not just the rich and on the other hand allowing R&D to continue on order to help bring equality of access.

Lurking in the basement

Running throughout the programme was reference to Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ and the idea of bringing together various body ‘parts’ to build a new creature.  The comparison and reference to Frankenstein is a useful one as the novel helps to raise key questions about the creation of life. Yet I think the programme made too much of this, portraying a sinister feel to the technology.  I appreciate the concerns and important questions which technology like this pose and advocate the need to engage and debate them but I could not help wondering whether the programme was designed to entertain as opposed to educate?

The portrayal of the bionic man being put together in a basement somewhere in London only helped to confirm this fear. The team from Shadow Robot who were helping to construct the bionic man were portrayed as somewhat Frankenstein–ial, aloof and with a touch of the mad scientists about them. The roboticists I have come across are not like that at all and it is these aspects of the programme which lead me to think that the programme failed in helping to promote stereotypes. Instead it only helped to reinforce them.

Discussions regarding technology, the future and disruptive innovations require us to bring together different viewpoints, perspectives and disciplines, not drive wedges between them.

Body parts

In my opinion the key strength of the programme was how it focused on the interesting developments in the field of synthetic body parts. In 60 minutes it served as a useful survey of what is currently available and under development in terms of being able to replace various limbs and internal organs.  The segment of the programme which looked at the synthetic heart was quite incredible and amazing. Not only could you grasp how it worked in theory but also watch it being implanted into a patient.

Nevertheless, in relation to the artificial heart as with the other artificial body parts, where the programme kept on falling short was helping to at least raise the moral questions, let alone provide some ways of how to begin forming some responses to them. It came tantalising close: the ‘talking head’ segments from experts such as George Annas, were good and offered some salient perspective. Is a human being really nothing more than the sum of its parts? Can technology surpass biology?

In a similar vein, the closing stages of the programme also helped to bring attention to the ethics involved in such an endeavour. As the bionic man begins to finally take shape, Meyer’s turns to one of the team and asks him whether they should be doing this, even if they have the capabilities to do so. The reply: “I don’t know!”. This is one of the key questions we need to face up to and give time to consider. Just because we can do something, does not mean that we have to do it.

At this point some serious philosophical engagement could be entered into, not least in terms of Hume’s “is–ought” problem but which far exceed the purpose of this pithy opinion piece. But it is important to raise here the importance of thinking clearly about machines and organisms. Confusion can arise if this distinction is not clearly made and ‘How to build a bionic man’ successfully highlights this confusion.

Making the comparison between machines and organic bodies is not something new and in many respects is quite an obvious distinction to make. Organic bodies, such as the human body, clearly have distinguishable organs in ways that inorganic bodies do not. For example, I have a heart which is clearly distinguishable from my lungs, pancreas and brain. Yet inorganic bodies can also be distinguished and separated in the way that I can separate one quantitative part from another. So to refer back to the bionic man, I can separate the artificial heart from the exoskeleton which helped to make it walk. Likewise, a machine can be said to be like a living organism because of synergy – functioning as a whole that are greater than those of the parts working in a correct order and pattern.

But there also distinct differences as well.  Whilst my heart or brain can be distinguished from one another, they are produced simultaneously with the whole organism and continue to develop while the organism is growing. There can be both positive and negative connotations to this development. Think: heart failure, heart disease etc. 

In contrast to this, the mechanical is all about the construction of independent, separate parts which are then assembled or replaced.  This assembly process formed much of the focus of the programme:  an exoskeletons arriving in encased in packaging from one place to be assembled alongside the artificial heart and blood system arriving from another place. What is more, the parts could function independently. The exoskeleton legs could be switched on and move without being assembled with the rest of the bionic man. The artificial heart and blood system could work separately from the exoskeleton legs.  This is direct contrast to an organ which cannot perform its function apart from a living organism. Take my heart out and it is difficult for it to perform its function, hence the crucial importance of time in heart and other organ transplantation procedures.

Don’t forget the body!

The many emerging technologies we are witnessing around us and which the C4 programme gave a glimpse of, indicate how we are taking significant steps towards replacing and repairing the human body or in some cases enhance body functioning.  But what we must remember and not loose sight of is the need and place for the human body in this rapidly changing world for these new medical technologies to work – both extrinsically and intrinsically. 

These kinds of concerns were noted in the High-Level Expert Group report from the European Commission, with reference to the prospect of the “pursuit of happiness”. The EU report argued that there should not be “engineering of the mind and of the body” but rather “engineering for the mind and for the body”, somehow maximising our humanity without taking us beyond it. Whilst helpful, critics have attacked this distinction due to the fact it presupposes that a neat distinction can be made between peripheral technologies – external ‘tools’ and aids that may augment function and the underlying hardware. Nevertheless, there is the need to pursue a new way of reframing the debate in such a way as to give these issues the prominence they deserve.  By assuming a reductionalist approach which seeks to explain the complexity of any given system from its various parts, we can also adopt a reductionalist ontology. Highly complex man–made mechanism may well help us to be human, but we are not just a grand assembly of different, replaceable parts. 

This thinking is nowhere better demonstrated in the programme than at the end when a prosthetic face of Meyer’s is added to the bionic man. Sitting on the top of a vast array of technological components and wires, Meyer’s response is strikingly emotional. In fact, he is horrified saying that it has a Frankenstein creepiness to it.  While Meyer looks distinctly unease and alarmed, one of the designers finds the situation it a lot more amusing. “I think I need a break,” said Meyer. “And will you STOP laughing!” I choose to believe that this was not just for entertainment value but a genuine response. Was he looking at a monster created in his own image?

Conclusion

I fear sadly that some may well have viewed the programme and discerned a far amount of ‘hype’ and may even have questioned the degree  of ‘progress’  and ‘breakthrough’ which we have really attained if the bionic man which emerges at the close of the programme is anything to go by. Hardly jumping “off the slab and walk[ing] among us”, it rather edged forward, looking decidedly precarious and requiring some reassuring human support on either side.  Personally, I think the programme did not do as good a job showcasing what is really achievable at this time and could risk getting some specialists in the field rather annoyed and frustrated that far from profiling their work, it actually detracts from it an attempt to be entertaining.

Putting these criticisms to one side, what the programme does do is to help provide a springboard for debate on the wider questions which need to be asked in the face of such advances.  Is the human body just an assembly of replaceable parts? What is our relationship with technology? What does it mean to be human? These are questions not just for ethicists but as the programme demonstrates – but does not necessary explore as well as it could have done – they are for all of us to grapple with public, academic, engineers, and investors alike.

–––––––

The bionic man is on display now at the London Science Museum in London until 11 March 2013.

• AI & Robotics

There have been 0 replies to this Article. + Post your comment here.