Lights and Brains: Injectible LED's Interact with Brain Cells

The quest to put computers in the brain has just come a step closer.  Tiny LED lights have been implanted deep in the brains of rodents.  The LEDs themselves are the size of individual neurons.  They are packaged with other tiny sensors into an ultrathin, flexible device.  The whole device is small enough to be implanted using a needle that positions the device at precise sites deep in the brain. 

Once implanted, the device communicates directly with the brain at the level of cells.  It communicates wirelessly with a module mounted above the rodent’s head, one small enough not to interfere with activity and removable when not in use.  The device itself is completely contained within the brain where it was implanted without any damage to surrounding cells.  Signals sent through the device stimulate genetically modified brain cells, signaling for example for the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine. 

Photo Credit: MicroLED device next to a human finger.  Image courtesy of University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign and Washington University-St. Louis.

 

"These materials and device structures open up new ways to integrate semiconductor components directly into the brain," said team co-leader John A. Rogers according to a press release from the University of Illinois.  "More generally, the ideas establish a paradigm for delivering sophisticated forms of electronics into the body: ultra-miniaturized devices that are injected into and provide direct interaction with the depths of the tissue."

The device itself is a feat of engineering requiring the effort of an international team based in China, Korea, and at multiple centers across the US.  By miniaturizing the device to the cellular scale and by creating a totally wireless interface, researchers overcame several challenges at once.  For example, larger implantable devices always run the risk of creating scars or lesions in the brain, which may cause serious problems.   "One of the big issues with implanting something into the brain is the potential damage it can cause," team co-leader Michael Bruchas said. "These devices are specifically designed to minimize those problems, and they are much more effective than traditional approaches."

In addition, because this device communicates and receives its power wirelessly, there are no wires or optical fibers passing from the brain to the outside world.  Previous devices were larger and nonflexible. They were implanted only on the surface of brain structures, but this new device is implantable deep within those structures and able to interact with units as small as a single cell.

Along with the LED lights, the device includes temperature and light sensors, microscale heaters, and electrodes that can stimulate and receive brain electrical activity.  Power to the device is provided wirelessly through a radio frequency system. 

It is impossible to predict the future of efforts to connect brains and computers. This work obviously represents a significant advance toward that end.  "These cellular-scale, injectable devices represent frontier technologies with potentially broad implications," Rogers said. Being able to monitor and trigger the brain of living animals at the cellular level is likely to become a profoundly valuable tool for research.  Medical research, too, is also likely to be affected, not just in responding to patients with paralysis but also in research and perhaps even therapy in other diseases involving the brain or other organs, where these devices are also implantable. 

Some, of course, will speculate about even wider implications for this technology.  Will it open the way to control people by controling their brains?  Perhaps.  Will it open the way for our brains to communicate with computers and the internet?  There is little doubt that this step will inspire more work along those lines. 

This article is entitled "Injectable, Cellular-Scale Optoelectronics with Applications for Wireless Optogenetics" and is published in the April 12, 2012 issue of the journal Science, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Humans Beings, DNA Nano-Robots, and Implantable Chips

Technological devices inside the human body are fast becoming more fact than fiction, and two reports released on February 16 are significant milestones along that path.

In one study, appearing in Science Translational Medicine, microchips were implanted in women suffering from osteoporosis. Researchers at Harvard Medical and Case Western worked with MicroCHIPS, the manufacturer of the device.

Patients with advanced osteoporosis, whose bones have weakened and lost density, are currently able to give themselves with a daily injection of a drug that requires refrigeration. By implanting a device, researchers want to make the process easier compliance more consistent.

The microchips implanted in the study contain tiny reservoirs of the drug. The device releases a daily dose when it receives a wireless signal. It also monitors the release of the drug and reports back to the physician, who is able to modify the prescription by sending new instructions to the device from another wireless device, such as a smart phone. This is believed to be the first wirelessly controlled implanted drug-delivery device.

"This trial demonstrates how drug can be delivered through an implantable device that can be monitored and controlled remotely, providing new opportunities to improve treatment for patients and to realize the potential of telemedicine," according to Robert Langer of MIT and the cofounder of MicroCHIPS, Inc. "The convergence of drug delivery and electronic technologies gives physicians a real-time connection to their patient's health, and patients are freed from the daily reminder, or burden, of disease by eliminating the need for regular injections," Langer said in a release issued by the MicroCHIPS.

The drug delivery device (on right) next to an everyday computer memory stick. Courtesy of MicroCHIPS, Inc., Massachusetts.

The company also reported that it is currently developing new designs of its microchip-based implant to include as many as 400 doses per device providing daily dosing for one year or multi-year therapy for less frequent dosing regimens.

In another study reported today, a team of researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University report on their work in assembling tiny robots out of DNA.

Building on previous advances in what is popularly known as “DNA origami,” the Wyss team used a computer to fabricate a barrel-like structure capable of containing specific molecules for delivery to targeted cells in the body. For example, cancer cells could be targeted with molecules that cause them to self-destruct, much the way the body’s own immune system carries out its functions.

“DNA origami” allows researchers to use DNA as a construction material. They are able to fold it and weave its strands together. What’s more, since DNA is a chemical code, specific patterns or sequences in the DNA can be used to “read” a signal and “act” accordingly. In this study, researchers built a DNA “latch” or locking mechanism. Their DNA barrel kept its molecular payload safely under wraps until it arrived on the surface of the target cell. On the surface of the target cell is a protein that unlocks the DNA latch, releasing the molecule at just the right location.

Cell-targeting DNA nano-robots bearing antibody-fragment payloads. [Image created by Campbell Strong, Shawn Douglas, & Gaël McGill using Molecular Maya & cadnano]

"We can finally integrate sensing and logical computing functions via complex, yet predictable, nanostructures—some of the first hybrids of structural DNA, antibodies, aptamers and metal atomic clusters—aimed at useful, very specific targeting of human cancers and T-cells," said George Church, Ph.D., a Wyss core faculty member and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, who is Principal Investigator on the project.

One way in which the researchers tested their DNA nano-robots was by programming them to target and destroy cancer cells growing in culture, including leukemia and lymphoma cells. The results were promising. According to the study, ” These findings demonstrate that the robots can induce a variety of tunable changes in cell behavior. Furthermore, biologically active payloads may be bound indirectly via interactions with antibody fragments, enabling applications in which the robot carries out a scavenging task before targeted payload delivery.”

The work reported here is built on advances around the world in nanotechnology and synthetic biology. What is new is the way the Wyss team combined several of these advances for the first time. For example, the release mechanism used here responds to the presence of a protein, not just to the presence of DNA or RNA. That feature alone makes this work more immediately applicable for medical purposes.

Put together, these two reports are part of a far wider panorama of basic advances in biomedical research. They stand out in part because of what they promise in terms of future treatment strategies. But more than that, they catch our attention because advances like these continue to blur the lines between ourselves and our technology.

In the first case—a wireless implanted drug-delivering chip—we are not simply injecting a medication or implanting a device. The patients in this study are hosts to a high-tech subsystem implanted within them that interacts in sophisticated ways with another human being (their physician). What’s more, that other human being—even if half a world a way attending a medical conference—can send instructions that immediately cause an effect within the body (but perhaps without the knowledge) of the patient. Surely there’s a spy story here just waiting to be written. More than that, this seems to be another significant milestone on the way to the (post?-) human future.

In the second case (the DNA nanoscale robot), nothing is yet implanted, but that’s clearly a next step. What are we to make of this elegant piece of tiny engineering? It is so small that it can only be made using computers. It is built from the same sort of DNA that we have in every cell, but it's engineered to hold a desired shape and to respond to a specific signal. Then, if inserted in great numbers into the human body, it can emulate the human immune system but take it in directions far beyond evolution.

The report on the implantable chip is entitled "First-in-Human Testing of a Wirelessly Controlled Drug Delivery Microchip" and appears in the February 16 issue of Science Translational Medicine. The report on DNA robots, "A Logic-Gated Nanorobot for Targeted Transport of Molecular Payloads," appears in the February 17 issue of the journal Science. Both journals are publications of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Is Aging a Disease of Stem Cells?

Is aging a disease? And if it is a disease, what “causes” it? Is it simply natural for bodies to age over time, or is something wrong with them, something that could be “fixed”?

In a report in the January 3 issue of Nature Communications, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine report on work with mice that are bred especially to age quickly. The mice have a version of progeria, a disease in humans that causes children to age well before their time.

The research team looked at differences in stem cells or progenitor cells, which healthy bodies naturally keep in reserve as a source for new cells to replace worn-out cells. Not surprisingly, they found that the progeria mice had fewer progenitor cells than their healthy counterparts. What’s more, the few progenitor cells in the progeria mice failed to function normally. For example, they didn’t produce replacement cells as needed.

If that’s the problem, can it be “fixed”? The researchers, led by senior investigators Johnny Huard and Laura Niedernhofer, injected the rapidly-aging progeria mice with progenitor cells from the muscles of healthy mice. The result was pretty amazing.

"We wanted to see if we could rescue these rapidly aging animals, so we injected stem/progenitor cells from young, healthy mice into the abdomens of 17-day-old progeria mice," Dr. Huard said in a press release issued by the University of Pittsburgh. "Typically the progeria mice die at around 21 to 28 days of age, but the treated animals lived far longer—some even lived beyond 66 days. They also were in better general health."

How did this work? Did the injected cells start producing replacement cells? Possibly, but the main effect of the injected cells seems to have been to change the host cells in the body of the progeria mice. In other words, the injected healthy progenitor cells changed the progeria mouse’s own cells into more healthy, more normal cells.

"This leads us to think that healthy cells secrete factors to create an environment that help correct the dysfunction present in the native stem cell population and aged tissue," Dr. Niedernhofer said. "In a culture dish experiment, we put young stem cells close to, but not touching, progeria stem cells, and the unhealthy cells functionally improved." Fascinating!

What about mice that are aging normally? Would the injection of progenitor cells from younger mice, for example, also “rescue” non-progeria but aging mice?

Whether anything like this could be done safely in human beings is a big question that will require a lot more research. It may turn out that injecting progenitor cells into a human patient with premature aging might help stall the aging but might also create other problems, such as cancer. In time, it may be possible to get the benefits while managing the risks.

The Pitt research, although dealing with mice with progeria, opens profound questions about humanity, aging, enhancement, and the possibility of extending the human lifespan.

The biggest question of all is whether something like this would slow the aging process in normal or healthy human beings. In other words, is this yet another possible pathway to human enhancement? Could this be used to “treat aging as a disease”?

Is aging a disease? Dr. Niedernhofer’s comment is revealing: "Our experiments showed that mice that have progeria, a disorder of premature aging, were healthier and lived longer after an injection of stem cells from young, healthy animals," Dr. Niedernhofer said. "That tells us that stem cell dysfunction is a cause of the changes we see with aging." A dysfunction? A disease? A difference?

On the question of religion and the morality of extending the human lifespan, probably the best book on the market is Religion and the Implications of Radical Life Extension, edited by Calvin Mercer and Derek Maher. I have an essay in the book reflecting on the question from the standpoint of Christianity.

My take? Extending the human lifespan is not immoral or obviously wrong, but Christians hope for a transformation, not an extension. More of the same is too little.

The report appeared in the January 3 issue of Nature Communications. It is entitled Muscle-derived stem/progenitor cell dysfunction limits healthspan and lifespan in a murine progeria model and is available free to the public.

Eating, Aging, and the Brain

Two recent studies shed new light on the relationship between food and the brain.

The first study involves mice on a calorie-restricted diet. Restricting calories to about 70% of normal intake kept the mice—and their rodent brains—young when compared to control mice who could eat whenever they wanted. And while there’s no proof yet that this works with human beings, there is a lot of interest by researchers in finding out what is going on in the relationship between aging and eating.

The latest research is reported in the December 19 of PNAS. Researchers at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Rome report their finding that a naturally-occurring protein, CREB1, plays a key role in mediating between caloric restriction and the delay of aging. Caloric restriction seems to trigger CREB1, which in turn activates many other genes involved in longevity and brain function.

What is new in this research is the relationship between caloric restriction and CREB1 activity. Discovering how these molecules interact opens the possibility that the activity of CREB1 can be increased without having to keep to a fairly austere diet.

According to Giovambattista Pani, one of the lead researchers, “Our hope is to find a way to activate CREB1, for example through new drugs, so to keep the brain young without the need of a strict diet.”

“This discovery has important implications to develop future therapies to keep our brain young and prevent brain degeneration and the aging process. In addition, our study shed light on the correlation among metabolic diseases as diabetes and obesity and the decline in cognitive activities,” according to Dr. Pani.

The second study is published in the December 28 issue of Neurology and does involve human beings. Just in time for New Year’s resolutions, researchers at Oregon State University report on the brains and the diets of 104 seniors with an average age of 87. The result is pretty sobering. Those who ate fast foods and snack loaded with trans-fats scored much worse on cognitive tests than those who ate diets rich in the healthy oils commonly found in fish or consumed high levels of vitamins B, C, D, and E.

How much worse? The fast-food seniors scored 17% lower on thinking and memory tests and had a shocking 37% lower active brain size based on an MRI. And that’s after other factors such as age or education level are removed. Diet alone, it appears, makes a significant difference. Eating the right food seems to help slow down the age-related shrinkage of the brain.

Someday there might be a pill that makes us and our brains resist aging. For now, it’s what we eat that counts. These results need to be confirmed, but obviously it is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet," according to Gene Bowman of the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and author of the study.

This would not have surprised Saint Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the mid-4th century. Like many of his age, Athanasius was fascinated by the story of Saint Anthony of Egypt, one of the earliest Christian ascetics. Athanasius wrote a spiritual biography of Anthony, interpreting his life and turning him into the prototype of Christian monks.

Anthony gave away the family fortune and lived in isolation in the Egyptian desert, eating almost nothing. The result? He lived to 105 and was known for his wisdom to the very end.

Todd Daly has written about Athanasius and Anthony, including an essay in my recent book, Transhumanism and Transcendence. Daly makes it clear that Anthony’s purpose was not longevity or a youthful brain. This is no science experiment, and if Anthony is the first monk, he’s not the first transhumanist. But according to Athanasius (and to Daly), Anthony is conducting a spiritual experiment. His question is whether it is possible to regain some small portion of the original human condition…humanity as God intended, in other words, rather than the fallen humanity we experience. By denying his body, he sought to expand his soul. Without realizing it, he kept his brain from shrinking.

The amazing thing is that by asking a seemingly arcane theological question—and by sticking with it for decades—Anthony anticipates today’s research.

The PNAS article was published on December 19. The Oregon study was published online on December 28 by the journal Neurology.

Enhancing the Brain: A New Approach?

A molecule that protects you against viruses may also be slowing down your brain. That’s the startling finding just reported by researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine.

In the December 9 issue of Cell, a research team led by Mauro Costa-Mattioli report on how a key component of the immune system may also play a central role in the brain’s ability to form memories.

The molecule in question is the enzyme “protein kinase RNA-activated” or PKR for short. PKR is well-known to biomedical researchers. It is found in nearly all vertebrates and helps fight viral infections.

What was unknown is how PKR plays a pivotal role in regulating how the brain forms memories. Using mice, Costa-Mattioli’s team found that PKR actually slows down the brain’s ability to form memories. By blocking the production of PKR in mice, Costa-Mattioli’s team was able to produce mice with enhanced memory.

“The molecule PKR (the double-stranded RNA-activated protein kinase) was originally described as a sensor of viral infections, but its function in the brain was totally unknown," said Costa-Mattioli in a press release issued by Baylor Medical College.

The researchers used two methods to block PKR. They produced mice that were genetically modified so they couldn’t produce PKR. But they also used a drug that inhibits the production of PKR. In both cases, memory capacity was enhanced.

How does PKR act in the brain? Apparently by interacting with another key molecule, interferon-γ or IFN-γ, which is also best known for its role in the immune system. Researchers believe that in the brain, PKR and IFN-γ interact, keeping each other in balance. Suppressing PKR seems to increase the role of IFN-γ and the activity of the brain, particularly the neurons that are creating long-term memories.

“These data are totally unexpected, and show that two molecules classically known to play a role in viral infection and the immune response regulate the kind of brain activity that leads to the formation of long-term memory in the adult brain,” said Costa-Mattioli.

What is perhaps most startling about the report is that a drug that inhibits PKR enhances memory in mice. “It is indeed quite amazing that we can also enhance both memory and brain activity with a drug that specifically targets PKR,” according to Costa-Mattioli.

If a drug enhances memory capacity in mice, could it work in humans? That’s a big jump, one that will take much more research before anything is even tested in human beings. But researchers suggest that this is possible and worth exploring. Costa-Mattioli said, "More investigation is undoubtedly necessary to translate these findings to effective therapies but we would be delighted if our scientific studies were to contribute in some way to this ultimate goal."

“Our identity and uniqueness is made up of our memories," Costa-Mattioli said. "This molecule could hold the key to how we can keep our memories longer, but also how we create new ones.”

Will this provide a new strategy in dealing with diseases that rob us of our old memories and of our capacity to create new ones? Given the stakes, research will explore these possibilities.

If the research is applicable to human beings (and why not?) and if it provides a new path to preventing or delaying dementia, it will also open new ways to think about the enhancement of human cognition. The mice in the study were not suffering from any memory loss, but the speed at which they were able to learn a new task was enhanced nearly four-fold.

Given the wide-spread interest in cognitive enhancement, especially on university campuses and among transhumanists, we should expect to hear more about how inhibiting PKR just may make you smarter.

The article, "Suppression of PKR Promotes Network Excitability and Enhanced Cognition by Interferon-γ-Mediated Disinhibition,” appears in the December 9 issue of Cell.

Cognitive Enhancement: Campus Update

Use of drugs to boost academic performance is nothing new, but The Washington Post has just published a news story suggesting that use of these drugs is increasing on college campuses.

The story, written by Post reporter Jenna Johnson, refers to a study at the University of Maryland that suggests that students who take cognitive enhancers study less, party more, and have slightly lower grade point averages than their classmates. That suggests that their main purpose for using the drugs is stay competitive without letting studies get in the way of college.

There is little doubt, however, that the drugs are also being used by highly focused, academically competitive students in demanding programs. Their purpose: to add an edge to their hard work in order to stay in the top one or two percent of the competitive pile. As the Post reports, one name for these drugs is “Ivy League crack.”

The drugs in question are familiar enough—mostly Ritalin and Adderall. Students without prescriptions can easily buy these drugs from other students.

Should use of these drugs be treated as crimes? Or should those who wish to excel academically be allowed to use whatever means helps them achieve that end? For more on that debate, see the now-classic 2008 article in the journal Nature, in which prominent bioethicists such as Stanford’s Henry Greely argue for greater tolerance and openness.

Brain Regeneration: Mouse Brains and Human Futures

Embryonic stem cells are surprisingly capable of regenerating portions of the brains of mice according to a report published in the November 25 issue of the journal Science. What is unexpected about this report is not the extent of the repairs so much as where they occurred in the brain.

The hypothalamus, which is involved basic metabolism and complex behaviors, has usually been regarded as less open to regeneration, whether naturally or by biomedical intervention. Naturally, a limited number of neurons develop during adulthood, but these are not enough to restore this area of the brain after injury or disease. “The neurons that are added during adulthood in both regions are generally smallish and are thought to act a bit like volume controls over specific signaling,” explained Jeffrey Macklis of Harvard Medical School and one of the lead researchers in the study.

“Here we've rewired a high-level system of brain circuitry that does not naturally experience neurogenesis,” Macklis said, “and this restored substantially normal function.”

The report reached this conclusion: “these experiments demonstrate that synaptic integration… [by] donor neurons can impart an organism-level rescue of metabolic defects, thereby providing a proof of concept for cell-mediated repair of a neuronal circuit controlling a complex phenotype.”

While it is important to underscore that this work is performed on mice, the results suggest that something similar might be possible someday in human beings with brain injuries. “The finding that these embryonic cells are so efficient at integrating with the native neuronal circuitry makes us quite excited about the possibility of applying similar techniques to other neurological and psychiatric diseases of particular interest to our laboratory," according to Matthew Anderson in a press release issued by Harvard Medical School.

For now, research continues using mice as models for human disease or spinal cord injury. “The next step for us is to ask parallel questions of other parts of the brain and spinal cord, those involved in ALS and with spinal cord injuries,” according to Macklis. "In these cases, can we rebuild circuitry in the mammalian brain? I suspect that we can."

This study, coming so quickly on the heels of another report showing the functional integration of human embryonic stem cells into the mouse brain, suggests that embryonic stem cell research may indeed open new ways to treat brain disease or injury. Both studies, however, open the possibility that the use of technologies of brain regeneration will not stop with disease. As always, the growing power of medicine to treat disease is also an expansion of the possibility of human enhancement. All this if far in the future. But already, advocates of human enhancement have noticed its significance. See, for example, the re-posting of the original press release on Ray Kurweil's transhumanist blog.

The report, entitled “Transplanted Hypothalamic Neurons Restore Leptin Signaling and Ameliorate Obesity in db/db Mice,” appears in the November 25, 2011 issue of Science.

Stem Cells, Working Brains, and Human Enhancement

Research using human pluripotent stem cells—whether derived from an embryo or induced into a pluripotent state—holds great promise for regenerating parts of the human body by producing new cells to replace diseased or damaged cells. Nowhere is this potential more intriguing than in the human brain.

During the past decade, researchers have learned to turn human pluripotent cells into neurons. They have tested these neurons in cell cultures, where they seem to function like normal neurons. They have implanted these human neurons in mouse brains, where human cells thrive like normal cells. The big question is whether they do the work of brain cells. Long before cells are implanted in human brains, researchers want to know whether the cells will function properly in any working brain, starting with a mouse brain.

Now comes evidence that the implanted cells seem to be fully function, integrated in the basic process of the mouse brain. In the report published in the November 21 issue of PNAS, researchers at the University of Wisconsin report on their use of a new technology, optogenetics, to test the function of the implanted cells. This technology uses light rather than electricity to stimulate implanted neurons. The result, it is claimed, is the best evidence so far that implanted cells are integrated fully into the functioning brain, sending and receiving signals as part of living neural networks.

”We show for the first time that these transplanted cells can both listen and talk to surrounding neurons of the adult brain,” said lead author Jason P. Weick in a press release from the University.

By using optogenetics, this study provides evidence that implanted human neurons derived from pluripotent stem cells can become functionally integrated into systems of a living brain, sending and receiving signals from surrounding or “host” cells and interacting with brain circuitry in a way that is consistent with normal brain rhythms.

According to the paper published in PNAS, the neurons derived from pluripotent cells “can participate in and modulate neural network activity through functional synaptic integration, suggesting they are capable of contributing to neural network information processing…”

What’s more, the researchers discovered that optogenetics may someday have a clinical use far beyond its value as a research tool. The fact that implanted cells can be stimulated using a light signal may someday become part of the way stem cells are used on human patients. According to Su-Chun Zhang, also an author of the report, “You can imagine that if the transplanted cells don't behave as they should, you could use this system to modulate them using light.”

Still more challenges must be met before neurons derived from human pluripotent cells are implanted successfully in the human brain. But this study advances the field in a critically important way and provides strong evidence that implanted cells might one day take on the function of damaged cells in the living human brain.

If human brains can be regenerated even in highly limited ways, the consequences will be profound. The most obvious applications will be to treat patients who have lost some part of brain function due to stroke, brain injury, or disease.

And if that becomes possible, it is not hard to imagine that the same technology will be used to regenerate the brains of those whose only “disease” is aging. Furthermore, it is quite likely that at some point in the future, implanted neurons derived from pluripotent cells will be genetically modified first, perhaps to prevent disease but also perhaps to enhance the performance of the brain into which they become functionally integrated.

It is important to stress that treatment for complex disorders of the brain, such as Alzheimer’s Disease, are still a long way off. But this research is an important step, showing that the basic concept of stem cell treatment may provide one form of treatment. But is that becomes possible, it may also become possible to enhance the cognitive capacity of people without disease.

The milestone reported here is just one more step--of which there must be hundreds or thousands--leading us closer to the day when human brains might be regenerated or renewed. Few will object to the use of such treatments to restore functioning neurons to those with Huntington's disease or early onset Alzheimers. And if early onset Alzheimers, why not late onset? And if late onset dementia, why not age-related cognitive decline? At what point do we cross the line from therapy to enhancement, and does such a line even exist?

So while we stress that these treatments are not available today--and may never be--they will very likely come in time. And when they come, they will open the path for completely new ways to extend the functional lifespan of the human brain.
The report, entitled "Human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons adopt and regulate the activity of an established neural network," appeared in the Nov 21, 2011 issue of PNAS.

Religion and Nanotech: Problems Ahead?

Chris Toumey has just posted a nice summary of research on religion and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Toumey is a cultural anthropologist in the University of South Carolina NanoCenter, and what he reports is pretty sobering.

Toumey’s study summarizes seven recent research projects that explore the relationship between religious beliefs and attitudes toward nanotechnology. He cites a study by Brossard et al. entitled "Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology", which found that the "strength of religious beliefs is negatively related to support for funding of nanotechnology.”

One thing that concerns religious people about nanotechnology, Toumey says, is its possible link to transhumanism. He writes that “many religious persons worry that nanotechnology will contribute to re-defining human nature in ways that are amoral or dangerous.”

Underneath the fear of nanotechnology is a more fundamental fear of transhumanism. Religious people, says Toumey, “sense that transhumanist values are the enemy of religious values, and that nanotechnology, especially nanomedicine, is implicated in a transhumanist agenda.”

Toumey claims that of the seven studies he reviewed, six identified the religious objection to transhumanism as the basis for worries about nanotechnology. Not all six use the term “transhumanism,” but all refer explicitly to a deep anxiety that nanotechnology poses some sort of threat to human nature. Toumey writes: “Six of the seven religious reactions include a concern that nanotech will contribute to changing our sense of what it means to be human, and that this is clearly undesirable.”

All the more reason for religious scholars to take up the challenge of transhumanism and to disarm some of the anxiety. For me, at least, transhumanism is not to be feared. It is to be criticized theologically, not because it seeks to use technology to enhance human beings but because it sets its sights too low, or so I try to argue in Transhumanism and Transcendence.

A more complete version of Toumey’s review—"Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology"—will appear in the December issue of NanoEthics.

New Book on “Transhumanism and Transcendence”

My latest book is Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement. It is a collection of essays from leading Christian theologians responding to various aspects of transhumanism and of the growing potential for technology to “enhance” human beings. The book is on display for the first time at the book exhibits at the American Academy of Religion, 19-22 November 2011 in San Francisco. The publisher is Georgetown University Press.

On the back cover of the book, Philip Clayton comments:

This is the most important Christian debate on transhumanism that I have ever read. Those who prefer fawning acceptance or frightened rejection of human enhancement can find simplistic monographs aplenty. But if you want to think theologically about the transformation of humanity through technology—what's already here, and what lies ahead of us—this collection is mandatory reading.

I wrote the first and the last chapters of the book, framing the argument and summarizing the findings.
The eleven chapters in between are written by established scholars and younger thinkers, some of whom were finishing doctoral studies on transhumanism just as the book was being written.

Michael Burdett, for example, drew upon his studies at Oxford in writing about Francis Bacon, N. F. Fedorov, and Teilhard as early examples of transhumanist thinking. David Grumett, an emerging expert on Teilhard, follows Burdett with a deeper look at this pioneering theologian and scientist.

J. Jeanine Thweatt-Bates drew upon her doctoral work to criticize transhumanist thinking on gender, while Stephen Garner and Todd Daly provided fresh thinking about themes of cyborgs and extended lifespans in traditional Christian theology. Michael Spezio, a theologian who does advanced research in neuroscience, engages some of the projects of the Defense Advanced (DARPA).

Established scholars such as Ted Peters, Karen Lebacqz, Gerald McKenny, Brent Waters, and Celia Deane-Drummond also contribute chapters to this book. While all of them raise criticisms of transhumanism and of the growing use of technology for human enhancement, all recognize that transhuman poses a challenge for Christian theology.

Here’s one way to think about the challenge. Religion promises but technology delivers, so who needs religion anymore? For example, Christian theology holds up a promise of some form of life beyond the present. Technology, on the other hand, sees aging as a problem to be overcome, and it sets out to slow or even reverse it.

Whether it will truly succeed is, of course, debatable. But that’s not that point. The key question is where we place our hopes and what form of life do we hope for.

Through technology, transhumanists hope to transcend the limits of our biology. But is this the truest and highest form of human transcendence? It is not that technology is rejected or feared. But does teach us to settle for too little?

Studying Transhumanism and Religion

For several years now, the American Academy of Religion has included a “Transhumanism and Religion Group.” The next session of the group will be on Saturday, November 19, during the annual meeting of the AAR in San Francisco.

During our session, we will hear four papers. Brian Green will address the question, “Could Transhumanism Change Natural Law?” He will be followed by Michael Burdett, speaking on “New Jerusalem or the Tower of Babel?: Transhumanist Visions of the Future in Kurzweil, Rees, and Bostrom.”

The third paper will be presented by Amy Michelle DeBaets, addressing “The Transhuman Mystique: Feminism and the Discourses of Democratic Transhumanism.” Finally, Abbas Rattani will speak on “Transhumanism, Cosmetic Neurology, and Suffering.”

Following the discussion, Calvin Mercer will conduct a business meeting to make plans for next year’s session. Stay tuned here for a report on what happens on Saturday.

Transhumanism and "Super-human"

I am working on a book on human enhancement through technology. It covers various technologies, including drugs for cognitive enhancement or strategies to extend the human lifespan. The core question for me is theological: what do these technologies mean in light of the classic Christian hope that our lives are to be transformed in Christ?

Part of the book deals with transhumanism, which is a movement that promotes the use of these technologies to enhance human capacities. Today I was looking especially at the antecedents of transhumanism. The word "transhuman"--considering all its cognates in Latin--seems to originate in Dante's Divine Comedy, Paradiso, I.70 (more on that in a later post). What's really interesting is that if we include the Greek equivalent--hyperanthropos--the earliest uses go all the way back to about 150CE.

I ran across an interesting article by Paul Monaghan, who writes about aesthetics and theater. Here's an extended quote from an article by Monaghan:

"I want to introduce another term here, the hyperanthropos or ‘more-than-man’. The first known use of the word itself is in a comic dialogue called Kataplous (chapter 16) by Lucian of Samosata in the second century A.D., in connection with Prometheus, the Titan god who taught mankind how to live independently of the gods by giving them fire, and who is strongly associated with Ananke and suffering in human life. But I am using the term hyperanthropos as a useful shorthand for a concept that had appeared in one form or the other from Homer and Hesiod onwards, was dominant in Greek culture, and has continued to play an important role in Western metaphysics. The hyperanthropos was, and is, either part man, part god (for example, the Homeric Heroes), or a man who is raised well above ordinary men by reason of his intellect (philosophers), physical abilities (athletes), or the great benefits he provides mankind (such as Prometheus). The protagonist in Greek tragedy was a hyperanthropos who had been ‘separated out’ from the Chorus, and whose actions had enormous ramifications for that community of ordinary (often very ordinary) men and women. Socrates himself was seen as a protagonist and hyperanthropos by Plato, and Plato has been regarded as such throughout the centuries, along with the ancient Greeks in general."

But what Monaghan doesn't say is that around the same time, a charismatic Christian named Montanus, later regarded as a heretic for (among other things) recognizing the leadership of women, used the same word--hyperanthropos--to describe ordinary believers.

Transhumanists themselves tend to credit Julian Huxley with creating the word "transhumanism." The fact that it goes back not just to Dante but to Lucian of Samosata and to the early Christian Montanus is more than just a correction. It show that the hope for human enhancement is intertwined with--even rooted in--the longing for a more profound transformation. Transhumanists like to associate their vision of human transformation with Prometheus but not with Christ.