Using the Xbox 360 Kinect to develop robotic flight systems
Ok, so maybe today can be flying robot day. Using the Kinect scientists at MIT have developed a sensor system for an autonomous flying robot. It even maps out its environment as it goes.
More details on the project
Biomimic robot bird takes flight
Based on the herring gull this robotic bird can start, fly and land autonomously. Its wings not only beat but can also twist at specific angles giving it an incredible natural appearance.
Funding sought for DNA-embedded genetic surveillance machine
US military research group (DARPA) wants to fund research into technologies that could be built into the genome of microorganisms and keep track of any changes made to the organism’s genes
Discover magazine – 80 beats
TechNyou
The big sticking point here is that nobody has a clue how to achieve this, but if they do it will have implication in the area of gene patent protection and possibly synthetic biology.
Bioengineering animals: attack of the fluoro mouse
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Beasts that glow, grow fast, and lactate drugs. Is it time we questioned the nature and purpose of this research?
This post is in response to a comment and question on our Facebook page, Talking Technology, which was also posted on the TechNyou website News.
The question from Lisa was a response to the Paul Wolpe presentation for Ted Talks where he has a bit of show and tell of genetically modified animals and a brief discussion about the implications of the technology used in this way, though the implication aspect was all too brief and a bit like hearing a series of newspaper headlines rather than any in-depth analysis of the issues.
Anyway, below is Lisa’s question and my extended thoughts to it.
Lisa’s comment and question
Interesting Video. I think the key point is his closing statement on responsibility. Humans have been “genetically altering” their environment since we first domesticated animals and selectively bred food crops. None of these species would survive in the wild, without human intervention/care, though. My question is would these new breeds of transgenic organisms survive in the wild? And what would be the implications if they could? I’m not sure that there is an answer for that question.
My extended answer
You are correct that many, if not all, crops bred for agriculture would struggle to survive outside their well-tended fields (paddocks in Australia). Even canola which is a weedy, out-crossing species will only survive 3-4 generations at most if left to its own devices in the natural environment (see ref. 1 below). We only continue to see it on roadsides, rail lines and near farmland, ports, etc because of the continual spillage of seed from transport or spread from nearby paddocks.
Unnatural selection?
All of our breeding over the thousands of years has resulted in the selection of traits to maximise a crop’s yield, palatability and harvest potential. For example, in relevant species we have eliminated seed pod shatter to prevent the seed bursting from the pod before harvest, we have selected for specific flowering and ripening times, we have reduced the amounts of toxins, allergens and other chemicals that affect the palatability for human consumption, but which are important chemical for a plant to naturally defend itself against pathogens and pest attack in the wild…and so on. Consequently we have also reduced a lot of the natural variability and removed such crops from any selective pressure that would enable them to potentially adapt to any gradual changes in their environment. To some extent we have set up a form of unnatural selection where we control the environment and selective pressures (water, nutrition, weed and pest control) and we choose the traits we want via breeding using any number of modern plant breeding tools such as marker-assisted selection, hybridisation, mutagenesis, embryo rescue, transgenics…etc. You could argue, that we have forced the selection of traits to suit our purposes rather than those of Nature, if you consider humans removed from Nature. In this context, you could ask is agriculture, in any form, is natural? If humans are an integral part of nature, is what we do to feed ourselves via agricultural any different from a wild animal hunting its prey or a hunter gatherer burning the landscape to attract grazing animals? But then we get all deep and philosophical and I need chocolate if I have delve into that obscure part of my brain where “profoundness” hides.
Transgenic escape
There is no doubt we need to be extremely careful in using transgenic technologies to generate new traits in animals or plants because of the risk of letting loose something that might outcompete or displace existing species, or affect the ecosystem in some other way, should it jump the fence (literally or otherwise). For this to happen though the trait (gene) must confer some advantage to the animal or plant in that “natural” environment.
For example, as mentioned in the Talking Technology Facebook post the gene or trait for herbicide tolerance only confers an advantage in the presence of the specific herbicide. In the “natural” environment – ie anywhere outside the paddock – the herbicide tolerant crop is no different to its non-herbicide-tolerant counterpart (that is, it has no competitive advantage), unless someone decides to spray that specific herbicide. I don’t recall ever seeing, nor have I heard of, in Australia at least, seeing agricultural crops becoming invasive weeds outside the paddock. Someone please correct me, if I am wrong on this. Of course, if herbicide-tolerant crops pass on that tolerance trait to related species that are environmental weeds, this might be a problem, though this is unlikely to be an issue in Australia at the moment as I don’t think any of our crop plants a have any relatives that are environmental weeds (see reference 2 below). Again, someone correct me here, if I am wrong.
This is not necessarily a GM herbicide-tolerant issue as we have two conventionally-bred herbicide-tolerant canola varieties to which the same questions and risks apply, especially for one, which, via outcrossing, can transfer the specific gene for herbicide tolerance the same way as the transgenic varieties can.
Another example might be drought-tolerance. This and similar abiotic stress traits such as salt or frost tolerance can all be potentially bred into crops via conventional or transgenic methods. What if we breed such a crop (which we have done via conventional means) that outcrosses with a related wild species and the drought-tolerant trait is transferred? This will potentially allow this wild plant to grow and thrive in environments it doesn’t normally exist. What affect will this have on the ecological systems? These are risks that need to be assessed and managed. The question is, I guess, how acceptable are the proposed ways to manage these risks? This level of acceptability will differ for each person.
The short answer…
I have only provided an overview of some of the implications associated with Lisa’s original question, but in short, yes there is a potential risk of introducing novel traits into animal or plants that might pose a risk to the environment. The risk to the environment and their ability to survive and thrive in it will depend on the trait, the host it is in and the environment in which we raise it. The risk, therefore, will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
References
1. Personal communication Associate Professor Christopher Preston, School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, The University of Adelaide
2. Preston, Reiger, Powles, Risks of gene flow from transgenic herbicide-resistant canola to weedy relative in southern Australian cropping systems, Aust J. Agricultural Research, 50, 115-128 1999
Other relevant stuff
I am happy to email anyone the papers, if required.
Maria Alice Garcia, Miguel A. Altieri, Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005, 335-353
Chris Preston, Mary Riegere, Managing herbicide resistance in weeds from use of herbicide tolerant crops. Plant Protection Quarterly. Vol 15 (2), 2000
Image from – http://shesaidpop.blogspot.com/2011/01/caturday-pretty-shiny-crime-against.html
T-shirt, shoe-powered iPhones
We are close to a nanogenerator that can use body movements (walking, heart beats) to generate electricity and power electronic devices.
PhysOrg: 29 March 2011
Quote: “This development represents a milestone toward producing portable electronics that can be powered by body movements without the use of batteries or electrical outlets,” said lead scientist Zhong Lin Wang, Ph.D. “Our nanogenerators are poised to change lives in the future. Their potential is only limited by one’s imagination.”
Extra info
More on Zhong Wang’s research into piezoelectronics can be found at his research group’s website and in this story
Bioengineering our brains
Ted Talk: American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience Editor, Paul Root Wolpe, says it’s time to question the bioengineering of animals, our brains and more.
It takes a while for Wolpe to get to the ethical questions, but after showcasing nearly every animal we have tinkered with in the last few year by either cloning, hybridising, genetically modifying or controlling them by wiring their brains he asks us to consider if we should have free range to do such things: do we we have the right to take over the autonomy of animals via brain control and what kind of planet and human bodies do we want for the future?
Also at Blog.bioethics.net
Science as art: growing meat in the laboratory
A designer discusses his work creating meat in the lab as art and if this method could be used as a source of food.
Scientific American, Mar 23 2011
Computer chips wired with nerve cells
Credit: Minrui Yu
Scientists at the University of Michigan have created a network of nerve cells connected through nanoscale tubes layered with silicon and germanium. The tubes are big enough for the nerve cell extensions to crawl through but are too small for the main body, when placed next to the tubes the cells sought each other out through the tubes.
“Neurons left to their own devices will kind of glom on to one another or connect randomly to other cells,” says biomedical engineer Justin Williams, the researcher leading the team. “They seem to like the tubes.”
What’s not known is if the cells are communicating over the connections made. The researchers plan to get voltage sensors into the tubes so they eavesdrop on the cells. The research could also give a good understanding how healthy neurons communicate to each other compared to diseased ones, or to study the effects of drugs on the neurons, leading to better research in multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.
In the long term such a system may lead to brain-computer interfaces that seamlessly integrate artificial limbs or other prosthetic devices.
Full story from Science News
Spacehack: For All your spacefaring needs
Spacehack is a source of all your space travel needs for the amateur space enthusiast without the resources to get to see the big black themselves.
DIY Space Balloon
A father a son and a bit of DIY launch an Iphone into space.