Cyborgs Among Us
Claudia Mitchell and Jesse Sullivan are cyborgs. Dr. Todd Kuiken, of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, has fitted them with the next generation of prosthetic arms. The nerves that control the missing arm were rerouted to muscles in the chest. Sensors on the skin then sense the contractions of these muscles and translate them into movements by the motors in the robotic arm.
Dean Kamen, the inventor of the segway and a pretty impressive robotic wheelchair, has also been doing some pretty amazing things with prostheses. His work is also funded by DARPA, and he has created prosthetic arms weighing no more than the human arm, and displaying a dazzling range of motion. Jesse Sullivan shows up in this video too.
These are just two examples of the amazing work going on with prostheses at labs around the country. Several teams in various defense department labs are getting closer and closer to making Iron Man a reality.
Researchers in Pittsburgh have placed a network of probes on the motor cortex of a monkey, wired these probes to a prosthetic arm, and the monkey has learned to reach for food using the prosthesis. As you can see in this video, his actual arms are softly restrained, but the robotic arm is controlled entirely by the monkeys motor cortex.
Aside from the idea of robotic monkeys (or more properly, cyborg monkeys) scaring the shit out of me, this has all sorts of applications for stroke victims, paraplegics, and others who have lost use, function, or mobility of some or all of their limbs.
With the possible of exception of robotic monkeys, this is non-controversial. Noone is going to argue that we should not restore function and quality of life to victims of accidents and those who have offered the highest service to our country. What I really want to talk about is Oscar Pistorius.
Pistori Lesson
If you just said "Who?", Oscar Pistorius was born with no fibulas (the bone behind your shinbone) and had both legs amputated just below the knee. On each leg he wears a cheetah prosthetic, which is a j-shaped strip of carbon fiber designed for sprinting.
Pistorius has done well in paralympic events, and wanted to compete in the Olympics. In January, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) told him he couldn't. Pistorius underwent two days of testing which "made a biomechanical and physiological analysis of long sprint running...and also compared this athlete with five able-bodied athletes who are capable of similar levels of performance at 400m." The study concluded that the cheetah prostheses gave him a significant advantage over athletes with similar physiological and biomechanical potential. You can read the report here. The New York Times put together a very nice graphic explaining the ways in which the cheetah's could give a runner an edge.
In May, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the IAAF's decision and said that Pistorius could compete for the games. They said that the IAAF had not proven sufficiently that the cheetahs gave Pistorius a significant advantage. He has yet to post a time under the Olympic qualifying limit of 45.55 seconds, and will likely miss the games.
For those of you who are wondering, Natalie du Toit, the single amputee swimmer, is eligible for her Olympic event because she does not use a prosthetic leg. She'll be swimming 6 miles in open water (and probably dodging Chinese medical waste) with a leg and half.
So What, O Socrates?
Sporting federations will level the playing field. They will do most of the things they can to remove unfair advantage from competition. This is one of the beauties of sport. It may take them a while, and the crooks will always stay one step ahead, but for the most part, the bodies that govern competition will do their best to make things fair. They will try to minimize the effects of gambling, steroids, doping, and other forms of cheating, even when they maybe shouldn't:
Oscar Pistorius doesn't want to cheat, but if he were a better runner, he probably would not be allowed to compete for the Olympics. As it is, his performance with his prosthetics thus far has not threatened the integrity of the sport because he isn't good enough. Prosthetics that give significant advantage will be kept from "able-bodied competition". But do you think he should be allowed to compete? What about someone more skilled, a little faster, someone who might compete for a gold medal?
But what about other pursuits? Will we see elective prosthetics and implants? Will I be passed over for a job because I don't have a third and fourth arm? What sorts of things will the military want to install on soldiers? Will the cost of prosthetics and implants create a new technology gap between the rich and the poor? Will my children be shunned in their community because they do or do not have internet in their left eye? Can I have my brain installed in a robot (good god, I hope so)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Fox Sports: Double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius won his appeal Friday and can compete for a place in the Beijing Olympics.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that the 21-year-old South African is eligible to race against able-bodied athletes, overturning a ban imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
"I am ecstatic," Pistorius told reporters in Milan, Italy. "When I found out, I cried. It is a battle that has been going on for far too long. It's a great day for sport. I think this day is going to go down in history for the equality of disabled people."
It sounds like the feel good sports story of the year, but it's not. As the IAAF ruled in January of this year, not only do Pistorius' carbon fiber blades enable him to compete with other runners, but they actually give him "a mechanical advantage."
Nearly every sport imaginable has felt the effect of modern advances, be it better regimented nutritional programs or ever lighter composite materials used in golf clubs and tennis racquets. Hardly a year goes by that Gatorade doesn't claim to be boosting their formula to produce even better results for athletes. New records are set each year, and many athletes owe thanks to the leaps in technology that benefit their sport.
However, there's a distinct and key difference between technology enhancing natural athletic ability and technology replacing that ability while still claiming the same victories.
Records that attest to an athlete's devoted training, preparation, and innate ability deserve to be protected. When technology begins to trump human talent in sports, we're simply not in the same ballpark we once were. Records should stand until they are equaled and bettered by an athlete who is naturally equal and better. In a perfect world, this standard in sports would apply to everything from Pistorius' case to Major League Baseball's steroids debate.
To his credit, Pistorius deserves great respect for his fight for equality in sports and for his past and future achievements. He is an inspiring example of triumph over disability. But he is also a hybrid: a product of both intensely dedicated athletic training and technology. He's an F1car competing among sprinters.
In redefining what can be considered inherently human athletic achivement, the CAS has placed sporting on a slippery slope. If the world of sports is satisfied with marrying itself to technology in this way, it seems only a matter of time until we have increasingly robotic humans breaking all existing sporting records.
I for one am not looking forward to the day when we'll be telling world record long jumper Bob Beamon sorry, but your 40-year old record just got tripled by a guy with pogo sticks for legs.
Brave issue, picking on the crips.
I have only a brief moment, so I will attempt to offend tersely.
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who's daughter (4 years old, great kid) recently was diagnosed with diabetes. No fault of her own, just happens. Insulin daily, testing, will have this for the rest of her life. My heart aches for her & her family.
But, there are some things that some people just can not do. It does not make life fair or even just, but that is the way that it is. When we say that all men are created equal, this does not mean that we all get to be an olympic sprinter or a brilliant author or mathmatician (sp) etc .. . .
This young lady will go to a public school where she will get special times for blood sugar tests (which seems okay and accomodating) but also will be able to retake or skip tests for blood sugar reasons. Despite what Burger King tells us, it is not a customized world. Should this be extended to those with bad home lives that are stressed out and don't get enough sleep? It is impossible to create a level playing field for every possible disadvantage.
which leads me back to the point & the topic of the blog. There are rules for everything, that those who want to participate must follow. If you do not meet the requirements, you can not ride the coaster. Disadvantaging one group to the advantage of another, through govt action, whether it be financially or by some other means and whether the advantaged group began with some disadvantage is wrong. That is the job of charities.
It is a natural right to discriminate. We discriminate in everything we do. In my mind, people should be able to choose whom they want to associate with, hire, have in their club, sports organization, whatever, no matter how stupid, limiting and close minded their choices are.
That is called Freedom.
That being said, cyborgs are cool.
Dan hits on what I think is the central question, which is discrimination. I personally have difficulty believing that the diabetic girl's IEP states that she can retake tests due to blood sugar, but I do believe that it may say that she can choose the best time of day to take her tests, as many of my students have similar things in their IEPs.
The military has a height limit. You can't soldier if you are not between 60 and 80 inches tall. They can also refuse you for all sorts of other physical and psychological issues, which may or not be within your control.
As Dan points out, this isn't such a bad thing. I want the bus drivers in my town to pass vision tests, and I don't want epileptics driving on the highway with me.
What sorts of jobs can we imagine that might require these sorts of prosthetics and upgrades? Should preference for employment be given to those who are willing to alter themselves in this way, such as having their skull wired for bluetooth, having a microcamera installed on their retina, adding cybernetic appendages?
If a time came when the cyborg arm that Kamen et al are researching now was perfected so that Cleetus "Lefty" Driscoll began rolling through arm wrestling tournaments, would he be cheered like Springy No-Tibias? I would think the answer would be a resounding 'No' from any observer. So why is Pistoris, or this next guy, any different?
Some of you may recall the not-so-recent story of Casey Martin, the golfer who had a gammy leg(by genetics) and could not walk a course with ease. With 'ease' is important - he could do it but it made him tired and uncomfortable. He was not allowed to play in any PGA tour events because carts are not allowed. Part of golf, in the eyes of the PGA, is to walk the 7000 or so yards each round to compete. The only thing that makes golf close to a sport rather than a skills demonstration, like baseball. He did what any American would do, and like Pistoris, sued. He won.
What if some golfer, say John Daly, who 'genetically' is fat and an alcoholic degenerate gambler tried to use the same argument? He can walk a course, but probably gets damn winded for the effort and that negatively affects his game. What is the difference? Genetically, I am not big enough to play middle linebacker in the NFL. Steroids are technology that overcome my genetic disadvantage. Why should I not sue for the right to use them to 'level the playing field' for genetically short and not 240 pound guys?
To me, there is no difference. The difference that society at large sees is now we are not allowed to tell someone that they are not good enough, not able to compete or physically/mentally unable to do something. This is why Jeff Foxworthy has a career. Could you imagine any of our grandparents thinking that they should sue over not being able to drive a NASCAR race because they were born without arms? I have a feeling they would take up some other activity - like soccer.
I would like to take this argument outside of the 'should government force the issue,' for they have forced it with the ADA and countless other horribly executed regulations and agencies, and put it to society: Should we as a society allow this type of behavior? Can't we see the slippery slope of something like this. Years from now a child will be born with a brain that does not quite function properly. There is a chip that can be hardwired into the brain to replace the missing functions, only it is far superior in memory and calculation processing than an otherwise 'normal' human brain. This child now has a distinct advantage over your child for scholarships and academic success. Who is disabled now? Brainiac or your child? Who gets the protection and an unfair advantage in line for scholarship or job placement?
My last point since Ethan just raised the height requirement. They used to require NY city cops to be at least 5 and a half feet tall or something like that. Puerto Ricans and other latinos(as) have an average height of 5'5" or something. They sued and won because it was racially discriminating. The FBI used to require their agents in training to empty the clip in their gun in some ridiculously short time frame. Purpose: to be better than a criminal. Nope. Gender inequality as females weren't as likely to be able to do it. Sued. Won. Even though there were female agents who met the more stringent guidelines.
The line has been crossed from laws prohibiting discrimination against anyone to allowing discrimination in favor of only some. As a white male, I am appalled. I have faced this crap my whole life.
Post a Comment