Researchers Engineer Light-Activated Skeletal Muscle 20
submeta writes "Researchers at MIT and the University of Pennsylvania have genetically engineered skeletal muscle cells to respond to light. The hope is that this 'bio-integrated' approach may lead to 'highly articulated, flexible robots.' The technique, known as optogenetics, has previously been used to stimulate neurons in worms to fire."
Re: (Score:1)
Are you trying to say that this is some kind of fleshlight?
Oscar Pistorius at the Rio Paralympics... (Score:2)
Sounds like a Japanese cartoon... (Score:3)
New reason to not go tanning (Score:2)
Cruelty to Animals? (Score:2, Troll)
We will probably make these robots work harder than we work natural animals.We will probably work some until they break, until the animal tissue dies, because we can "just replace it".
How much of the robot has to be animal before working it that hard is cruelty to the animal? How much robot until it's not an animal with a prosthetic, but flips to a robot with tissue?
Or are all hybrids subject to the compassion we have for animals?
What about when it's human tissue?
Re: (Score:1)
How much of the robot has to be animal before working it that hard is cruelty to the animal?
This has a very little to do with the tissue and more to do with the rewarding system. Cutting in flesh is not considered to be wrong unless the flesh is connected to a functional brain. If you want to read something that explores this in more depth the you can probably find something from Asimov. The first season of the anime Gunslinger Girl also deals with this a bit.
TL;DR; It is not cruel to let a robot work until it wears out or breaks, biological or not. It is however cruel to program said robot to fee
Re: (Score:2)
"Is not considered to be wrong"? Perhaps by you Anonymous Coward. The issue of live, even autonomous, animal tissue without animal nerves is pretty new, and far from settled. Asimov's half-century old work, from before anyone had any actual experience with any of these innovations, and a cartoon, aren't the final words on the matter.
The point is that the boundaries of "robot" are now fuzzy, and categorical statements like "biological or not" are invalid.
BTW, your post was 111 words while mine was only 86. "
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR; It is not cruel to let a robot work until it wears out or breaks, biological or not. It is however cruel to program said robot to feel pain when it wears out/breaks and then force it to do so.
I suppose it depends on how you define 'cruel'. In a strict sense, engineering humans or other sentient beings to delight in sacrificing themselves for your pleasure* would not be 'cruel', because you are not causing physical pain or suffering. But I believe most would consider such a thing to be deplorable and the product of a cruel and sociopathic mind.
* as Douglas Adams so aptly depicted
Re: (Score:2)
* as Douglas Adams so aptly depicted
For those unaware: scene from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV series) [youtube.com]
(that's Fifth Doctor Who Peter Davison under all that rubber)
scorch the sky (Score:1)
Weaknesses (Score:3)
My issue with bio-inspired designs like this is that are are surely susceptible to the same vulnerabilities as humans. One of the benefits of robots is that they can be sent to places humans would not otherwise go, such as deep space, extremes in temperature, and so on. What is the point? Why do we need a copy of a human, other than the obvious cool insights such research provides of course.
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't nanomachines yet that can do for robots what organic tissue can do for humans: Heal. A robot with a damaged servo needs a replacement. We either build the robot with lots of redundancy (have a colony of robots) and get them to fix themselves from scraps, manufacture themselves, or make them more independent -- just allow their injury to heal. Nature shows this is more advantageous when spare parts can not easily be acquired.
How would you indicate to the robot that it shouldn't use the dama
Re: (Score:1)
Don't fear the Cyborgs. Natural selection teaches us there are higher rungs on the evolutionary ladder than ours, we have but to reach.
Natural selection teaches us no such thing. There are no higher or lower rungs in evolution, there's just adaptability.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point? Why do we need a copy of a human
They aren't trying to duplicate humans. They are trying to distill and reproduce essential aspects of biomotion e.g. skeletal muscle contraction. TFA is about a way to control the twitching of skeletal muscles without requiring a biological nervous system.
Moooooo. (Score:2)
Strobe Lights (Score:3)
Panic! at the Disco (Score:2)
I made the mistake of going to the disco in my light-activated exoskeleton... Freak Out!
(Disco Stu meets Lise from William Gibson's great short story "The Winter Market [antonraubenweiss.com]".)