Cyborg Cockroach Sparks Ethics Debate 512
sciencehabit writes "A do-it-yourself neuroscience experiment that allows students to create their own 'cyborg' insects is sparking controversy amongst scienitsts and ethicists. RoboRoach #12 is a real cockroach that a company called BackyardBrains ships to school students. The students fit the insect with a tiny backpack, which contains electrodes that feed into its antennae and receive signals by remote control — via the Bluetooth signals emitted by smartphones. A simple swipe of an iPhone can turn the insect left or right. Though some scientists say the small cyborg is a good educational tool, others say it's turning kids into psychopaths."
Fitting the backpack requires poking a hole in the roach's thorax and clipping its antennae to insert electrodes.
Re:Cockroach rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
" but living creatures of any kind are not toys. "
and you base your stellar argument on..what, exactly?
Re:Cockroach rights? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What does this have to do with science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I certainly hope those protesting are vegetaria (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cockroach rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't see a difference between killing it and doing this?
I first took that to imply that killing it is obviously worse, then read Gort65's reply and realized the anonymous GP was probably implying that zapping the antennae of a roach is worse than smashing it to bits (which, if you have done often, you would know that parts of it keep moving for quite a while unles you keep smashing and grinding all of it).
So, my answer: yes, there is a big difference. IMO, this is more humane than smashing it.
If one were to attempt to stretch this analogy to testing things on animals, especially primates, not only would I find that silly (much too far a stretch), but I would also argue that the same comparison be made: what's worse: smashing a monkey with a large object repeatedly until all bits stop moving, or putting some electrodes on his head?
Please note, I'm not making a right or wrong judgement here, but the first post made a good point.
Re:Cockroach rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
You are mentally ill if you believe that torture is the same thing as gathering honey, which requires almost no interaction with the bees and does not cause them any harm.
I'm not a PETA member, and eat meat. I would not eat meat if I found the producer advocating or allowing inhumane treatment however. To believe that you must have one to get the other is idiocy. So I think you are a troll.
Re:Cockroach rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is a false comparison. What do you think happens to the cockroach after the experiment? It is set out to freedom?
The real comparison is killing something living vs. torturing something living and then killing it.
Additionally, I think it's arrogant to think that humans have rights to torture animals (needlessly). Of course, it's a whole different debate whether we have the right to torture animals to save humans (drug testing etc.).
Re:Clearly unhealthy (Score:3, Interesting)
They mimic the neural signals that a roach experiences when it's antenna touch an obstacle. This is arguably much more humane than using a bit in a horses mouth. This is not intended to hurt the roach and has been engineered to match its nerve signals. You should learn about it if you're concerned. Look up their "spiker box". I've done the same with a different device and electrodes to force muscle control in my arm. It doesn't hurt, just feels weird. Super fun.