Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Sponsoring Limb Regeneration Research

fragmentate writes "Wired News is reporting: 'In response to the hundreds of soldiers coming home from war with missing arms or legs, Darpa is spending millions of dollars to help scientists learn how people might one day regenerate their own limbs. Prosthetics are getting better all the time, but they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with. So two teams of scientists at 10 institutions across the country are competing to regrow the first mammalian limb ... The researchers' first milestone is to generate a blastema — a mass of cells able to develop into various organs or body parts — in a mammal.' Apparently this is a relatively new area of research, even Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is very terse."

221 comments

  1. Stub. by Wordsmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wikipedia's stub. I get it. Hah.

    1. Re:Stub. by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jokes aside, if they can regenerate limbs, surely its just a hop skip and a jump to regenerate organs? If we can do that, immortality is just around the corner...

    2. Re:Stub. by Stile+65 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First of all, TFA says that one of the two teams of scientists working on this is basing their work on the MRL mouse, which can and does regenerate internal organs, including severed spinal cords.

      Second of all, this may increase lifespan, but would not provide immortality. Human cells stop reproducing after a certain number of reproductions. The cell chromosomes have end-cap like things called telomeres which are shortened with each mitotic cycle. When they get too short, the cell stops reproducing. This is to prevent too many mutations from accumulating after a while. Generally, if cells divide without shortening the telomeres, they're usually malignant tumor cells. So to get immortality, you'd have to augment the mitotic cycle to a) "spellcheck" the chromosome copying, and b) prevent the telomeres from being shortened.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    3. Re:Stub. by Flavio · · Score: 2, Informative

      The chromosome copying is already spellchecked.

      Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have copy verification and repair machinery which drastically reduce replication errors.

    4. Re:Stub. by javilon · · Score: 4, Informative

      a) "spellcheck" the chromosome copying, and b) prevent the telomeres

      b) is easy, you can shut off telomerase for a while(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerend er.fcgi?artid=14711&tools=bot)

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    5. Re:Stub. by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they can regenerate organs, will they be able to regenerate the largest organ, skin? This would help burn victims immeasurably.

    6. Re:Stub. by izomiac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Drastically reduce but not eliminate. IIRC mutations tend to occur once every 600,000 base pairs, so that would mean that replication is about 99.99983% accurate. After 100 divisions the genome of a cell would only be 99.983% accurate, so it'd have about 1 error every 500 base pairs. Given the size of most genes/proteins, that cell should have some serious problems or be cancerous. (I don't know the "maximum" number of divisions, it could be more or less, but you can see the problem.) Not to mention, mutation accumulation is just one part of aging. Now, if we could take our genome and add some parity base pairs and some redundancy checking proteins we might be able to address that problem. But that's far beyond our level of genetic engineering (AFAIK).

    7. Re:Stub. by RobinH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I understand it, the ability of cells in a human body to regenerate themselves (heal) diminishes over time due to "programming" in our genes. This causes aging, but is also a cancer fighting mechanism.

      If you could use a given adult's body to grow a blastema or whatever it is and then use it to grow a limb or organ, the cells would remember their "age" and would still not be as resilient as a child's organ or limb. Therefore, you could replace your heart at the age of 75 but it would still be a 75 year old's heart in some ways.

      If you could use a child's cells to create a blastema and then use that to create organs for an adult, then you're talking about real rejuvenation. Of course, you'd not be able to do this with a brain, so you're still going to eventually run out of neurons. At least you could live a better quality of live though.

      The best idea would be to combine this blastema thing with the ability to turn off the genes that cause aging, while finding a cure for cancer at the same time. Then I think we would be almost immortal. Just keep your brain from being damaged beyond repair.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Stub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you've got it backwards.

      Telomerase increases the length of the telomere, so you'd need to turn telomerase on temporarily, not shut it off.

      Most tumors produce telomerase, which is a major factor in their ability to grow indefinitely.

    9. Re:Stub. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that a limb is made up of serveral organs, such as bones and muscles, I would think that you would have to get organs before you could get limbs.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    10. Re:Stub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there's that darn brain to deal with. Even if we can completely map it, the best we can hope for is a *copy*. On the soldiers issue, perhaps this line of darpa research is aimed at growing new recruits for the war on terror. No brain required. *cough* Sarcasm aside, the military applications are endless.

    11. Re:Stub. by brainburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmmm - I bet it is possible to regenerate the body indefinitely, (eventually), but I am doubtful that this is possible with the mind. Even if the brain-tissue could be replaced, could a useful structure be preserved? How would a human mind cope with the increased memory requirements? - It would distort the psychology somewhat to have centuries or millennia of experience.
      Perhaps the brain could drop its oldest memories in favour of new ones, but would this seem like immortality to mind of that person?

    12. Re:Stub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, humans have an enzyme called telomerase that rebuilds telomers. You're right that telomers do wear down over time, but the solution may be much simpler than preventing telomer shortening, which, if I remember correctly, is sort of a side-effect of DNA replication.

    13. Re:Stub. by sabernet · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I gotta say it. This thread you two got going is the coolest thing I've read on slashdot in a while.

      Carry on:)

    14. Re:Stub. by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      The actual engineering involved isn't that important. What's important is that researchers no longer consider aging to be just something we have to live with, and consider it their goal to increase the human lifespan. Note, this isn't all researchers. Many people still believe that humans should always grow old and die and to perform research into indefinitely extending human lifetimes is wrong.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:Stub. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      What about when this gets duped?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    16. Re:Stub. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, they can pretty much clone skin now. The problems now are grafting it and growing enough of it fast enough.

      They can culture skin artificially, as well as use various mechanical methods to 'stretch it'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:Stub. by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      Telomerase is hyperactive in over 90% of cancer cells... thus the point in my original post that it's linked to malignant tumors. :P

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    18. Re:Stub. by Stile+65 · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right.

      They do have controlled drugs in development (two that I know of off the top of my head) that can temporarily increase telomerase activity. I don't know how well targeted they are, though, and to me that's important, because in my mind, if you have a precancerous cell and you turn up telomerase activity then WHAM, you've just triggered a malignancy.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    19. Re:Stub. by magetoo · · Score: 1
      How would a human mind cope with the increased memory requirements?
      [...]
      Perhaps the brain could drop its oldest memories in favour of new ones, but would this seem like immortality to mind of that person?
      Dropping old memories is pretty much how it works now. It is not stored like on flash memory or a hard drive. (What were you doing a year ago, at exactly this time? Two years? Five? Fifteen?)


      And our minds change all the time, just not quickly enough that we notice. With the possible exception of when we're small kids (but I tell you, kids these days just don't pay attention...).

    20. Re:Stub. by waferhead · · Score: 1

      Assuming this works, everyone would have some of their own stem cells harvested when young, for use in the future.

      (Sorta like inoculations, only requiring a communal cryogenic freezer)

    21. Re:Stub. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "(What were you doing a year ago, at exactly this time?"

      Reading Slashdot.

      "Two years?"

      Reading Slashdot

      "Five?"

      Reading Slashdot

      "Fifteen?)"

      Bitching about how there was no Slashdot for me to read at this hour of the night.

      Pathetic, isn't it?

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    22. Re:Stub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The best idea would be to combine this blastema thing with the ability to turn off the genes that cause aging, while finding a cure for cancer at the same time.
      Wow, that is a good idea! I'll get to work on that right away.
    23. Re:Stub. by njh · · Score: 1

      If we make a new heart and slot it in you, everything is good. But if we make a new brain and slot it in you, are you still you?

    24. Re:Stub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being an obsessive archivist, I've long ceased to rely on my own memory and instead started to log and archive every tiny bit I've ever done on my computer. Of course, that doesn't cover the rest of my life, but a big enough portion of it to allow me to remember most of what I did back then.

      But that's beside the point.

    25. Re:Stub. by Down_in_the_Park · · Score: 1
      Not to mention, mutation accumulation is just one part of aging.

      Glad that you said this. More important is the fact that you have to deal with a lot of cells, that don't divide at all anymore, guess who? Yep, you're right; the cells of the central nervous system, called brain. So, if you get a body that can renew, albeit from cells that accumulate mutations as they continue to divide, you still have the problem with the aging brain. Now, researcher have found that there are probably adult stem cells in the brain, but these ones don't get better by every division; while you may solve the problem with the telomerases, you can't exclude all natural sources of mutations:; alcohol, obesity, drugs, Xrays, gamma rays from the sun, natural radioactivity from soil and air and more...

      Conclusion? Improve information technology, such that you can do sooner or later a "brain dump" and have a backup you can transfer to your newly grown body. Oh, and don't open source it :-)
      --
      "People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

      B F
    26. Re:Stub. by mrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a person lives for 1000 years and their personality continues to evolve, to what extent can the 1000-year-old individual be regarded as "the same person" as, say, the 30-year-old individual? Are you the same person you were 10 years ago, or 20? What would 1000 years of experience, combined with 1000 years of cultural, political and technological change, do to the human personality?

    27. Re:Stub. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It's a stretch to claim that you're the same person as you were yesterday (assuming you slept).

      If you havn't already, have a read of Peter F. Hamilton's "Pandora's Star" for a description of a society where death is all but eliminated.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    28. Re:Stub. by bdonalds · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I bet your Windows XP OEM license would no longer be valid....

      --
      The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
    29. Re:Stub. by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I haven't, thanks for the pointer.

    30. Re:Stub. by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      The concept of a "brain dump" has always fascinated me, but it doesn't do anything for the person who's dumping their brain. They're still dead. That isn't them that continues to exist.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    31. Re:Stub. by Down_in_the_Park · · Score: 1
      They're still dead.

      Their body is dead, the question is now, what is it that continues to exist and worse, what if there exist multiple copies of this "backup"? I would still argue, that your personality sits in your brain, so yes, I think this backup would be me, who else?
      --
      "People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

      B F
    32. Re:Stub. by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1
      Assuming this works, everyone would have some of their own stem cells harvested when young, for use in the future

      This is possible now. It can be collected from the umbilical cord at birth and is completely harmless to the baby, though very expensive. It can also be donated to a cord blood bank, though in that case it's not kept specifically for your future use.
      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    33. Re:Stub. by infidel13 · · Score: 1

      I agree - to all outside observers, the duplicated person would be identical to their former self. However, the chemical reactions and physical processes defining their consciousness would have ceased when they died. The copy would look, act, and behave exactly like them, but once they were dead, they wouldn't just become the copy. The copy is merely that, an exact copy and not the original.

      What's ironic is that if someone professing a belief that they would become the copy were to die and be respawned from a copy, the copy would believe that it was the actual person - the actual person, however, would be dead and not believe anything.

      --
      quia potentia mens mentis
    34. Re:Stub. by brainburger · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly what I was doing on this day last year. However, I don't know (without wracking my brain) exactly what I was doing this day last week! However, in both cases I do have a general memory of my overall situation - it isn't the same as a blank period from which I can recall nothing. To get one of those I have to go back to my early childhood. It is unlikely that I ever stored those early memories, so I don't think the blank period has appeared as I got older. If time makes long-term stored memory become generalised, rather than creating gaps, then those general memories are still going to take up space. This means that in a long enough lifetime, the available space must run out. - That's going to have some kind of adverse psychological effect. Also, what about the emotional experience of life over a very long period? - I have been damaged by so many girls already! - If I live to be 1000 at this rate I will have the emotions of a crocodile.

  2. Wikipedia by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

    Since this is Slashdot, which is not exactly known to be a bastion of maturity, I bet that Wikipedia won't be very terse for long...

    1. Re:Wikipedia by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's the spammers I fear: get your Penis Enlargement Blastima now!

    2. Re:Wikipedia by nametaken · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny, that was my thought, except I had a bit more optimistic expectation. I was hoping that it would get filled out in record time with quality info. :)

  3. Reminds me of The Forever War by bhunachchicken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (WARNING - SPOILERS)

    When William Mandella lost his leg in an accident he was under the impression that he would simply be given an artificial one and would then be free to persue a semi-normal life. To his horror he discovers they'll simply grow him a new leg and chuck him right back in to active duty... :)

    1. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by nosredna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      New moderation ideas are a dime a dozen, but I have to throw one in for this...

      +1 Creepy but probably true

    2. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wells it's also likely the soldier may want to go back to his unit if he was rehabilitated...

    3. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW, in the U.S. military you are given an honorable discharge on demand if wounded three times (three purple hearts), so even if something ridiculous like this happened you'd be sent home by the third severed limb :-P

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      I expect a stop-loss policy would trash that rule PDQ.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    5. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I expect a stop-loss policy would trash that rule PDQ.

      Why? They had the policy during wartime when they were busily drafting people.

      Oh, and it's not three PH's and you're able to get out, it's three PH's and you have the option of transfering to a non-combat area.

      I imagine that regrowing a limb and retraining you on the usage of it would be something that'll take years. The nerve endings are never quite the same...

      Oh, and you'll never really get combat troops until you realize that there have been documented cases of injured escaping from the hospital in order to return to combat with their unit. That there are people who still want to deploy and fight after loosing limbs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Reminds me of The Forever War by CommanderIsm · · Score: 1

      if only the same amount of thought had gone into invading all these countries in the first instance - but i guess the mentality is 'when they say jump - the only thought is how high'

  4. Chip off the genetic block. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""Wired News is reporting: 'In response to the hundreds of soldiers coming home from war with missing arms or legs, Darpa is spending millions of dollars to help scientists learn how people might one day regenerate their own limbs [CC] [MD] [GC]. Prosthetics are getting better all the time, but they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with."

    Stem cells!

  5. Has no one seen the Spider-man cartoons by JoeyJoeJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wasn't the Lizard created from a scientist who was trying to do this very thing?

    1. Re:Has no one seen the Spider-man cartoons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His name was Curtis Conners.

  6. Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a radical idea (maybe too radical for DARPA) that just might work. How about we refrain from military conflicts unless they are absolutely, positively necessary? That is, instead of sending our young men and women off the Iraq based on faked intelligence and then trying to figure out how to improve the quality of their lives when they come back, why don't we just execute more care before sending them out in the first place? Less conflicts means less amputations.

    1. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here's a radical idea...

      I have another radical idea. How about you let us talk about technology on this site, and you take your political rants over to digg where it belongs.

    2. Re:Radial idea by gijoel · · Score: 1
      Here's a radical idea (maybe too radical for DARPA) that just might work. How about we refrain from military conflicts unless they are absolutely, positively necessary?


      First of all DARPA is the research arm of the DOD. Secondly, the military doesn't like to fight a war unless they absolutely have to. Unfortunately, they don't get to choose their fights. The President does that.

      rant: And if they had sent those 500,000 troops in the first place instead of pussy footing around maybe Iraq wouldn't be in the mess it is. /rant
    3. Re:Radial idea by kahei · · Score: 1


      I'm sure that's already occurred to DARPA. Unfortunately, the military goes off to Iraq when they are ordered to by the elected representative of you, the voter. So what are you doing about it?

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    4. Re:Radial idea by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Captain Obvious. Now let the grown-ups talk.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Radial idea by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Am i the only one who noticed that radical was spelled wrong?

      /topic

      As stated, darpa is a research group they don't pick wars. They do what they can to make life easier for our soldiers. However maybe you right, the military should never research stuff like this.

      --
      You mad
    6. Re:Radial idea by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Easy, only veterans should be allowed to vote and run for office.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Radial idea by c_forq · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We tried that one for a while. We were criticised for being xenophobic and isolationist.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    8. Re:Radial idea by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .they don't get to choose their fights. The President does that.

      Washington, we have a problem.

      KFG

    9. Re:Radial idea by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heinlein, is that you?!

    10. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heinlein, is that you?!


      It just might be, and I don't think it's a bad idea.

      I'm a veteran and I sure as hell didn't vote for chimp boy errr Bush.
    11. Re:Radial idea by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    12. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a really radical idea: why don't you and all your dullwitted hippie buddies wake up and realize that, far from being "radical", your simple-minded opinions on world politics are not only 40 years out of date, they were pretty fucking stupid even at the time?

      Go eat your granola, gramps. This is the 21st century.

    13. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... from a military point of view, then, wouldn't getting the president killed and electing a new one be the cheapest, safest option? Then umm... rinse, repeat, until you get one that doesn't start wars.

      Sometimes these military boffins miss the really obvious solutions.

    14. Re:Radial idea by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      More to the point, if you look at the real complaint the terrorists have, it is cultural invasion. But we don't even do the cultural invasion: We are merely successful. That makes people is other countries emulated us - in general raising their success level. But they are seen as traitors to the original culture, and as selling out to the US. (You can also see this happen inside the US in various social groups to a more limited extent.)

      So, without us doing anything except minding our own business and succeeding, we become the bad guy - because we are destroying their culture. And that's why a detectable percentage of the world wants to kill us. In reality there are few other cultures more self centered and isolationist than the US, even now. We just don't care that much what the rest of the world wants to do, we think they are free to choose whatever they want.

      Of course this is often simplified to: they hate us because they hate freedom, etc.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    15. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, without us doing anything except minding our own business and succeeding, we become the bad guy - because we are destroying their culture. And that's why a detectable percentage of the world wants to kill us.

      Well that and supporting bloodthirsty dictators, sometimes overthrowing their own government and installing our own dictators (see Iran).

      The whole Israel thing isn't really part of our "success" either. Plenty of bad guys on both sides there, but guess which side we're on?

      There's not many people willing to strap bombs to themselves because our women dress too sexy. The guy who's had his house bombed by American-made F16's has different reasons. But hey if the bomb hit them, they must be terrorists, right?

    16. Re:Radial idea by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic, proposing Starship Troopers style military control of government as a way to allow DARPA to stop wars.

      I read Starship Troopers, and more importantly saw the film which does a good job satirising the ideas from the book.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Radial idea by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      And if we nuked all of Iraq in the first place, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

      The amount of force isn't what got us into the mess. A lying head of state did.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    18. Re:Radial idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course.
      Since many (not all) of U.S. military endeavours are conducted in complete disharmony with the rest of the world.
      This applies also to the times whe the U.S. stayed out of conflicts.
      For the U.N., it must feel like having a grumpy 5-year old child sitting in at meetings.

  7. Reliable sources by Lord+Aurora · · Score: 1
    Apparently this is a relatively new area of research, even Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is very terse.


    Of course, Wikipedia stubs are the definitive indicator of a field of knowledge.


    Moving on, though, I guess I'll have to mention how starfish do the whole regeneration thing. You know. And geckos, and other stuff like that. In fact, your own body can do it already---sorta kinda not really---in that a tumor or a wart is just a replication sequence gone awry. Interesting to see how this turns out. Can't imagine what the FDA will do with it if and when it's successful.

    --
    The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
  8. Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Prosthetics are getting better all the time, but they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with.

    Why not? I see no good reason why competent engineering can't eventually beat a chunk of meat.

    It's not like we were intelligently designed... we evolved. Evolution will tend to produce good solutions to problems, but it will hardly ever produce the best possible solution. Once we get nerve-circuit interfaces down, we should have no problem outengineering most of the human body.

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    1. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      In 2 or 3 centuries maybe.

      Sure, the human body is a result of evolution, but that doesnt mean that its not sophisticated at all. Its the result of a billion years of "everything thats not good enough died", starting from the level of cellular chemistry up to the general layout.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we should have no problem outengineering most of the human body.

      Yes and then the batteries in your cyberleg run down and you have to haul the entire 40 kilo hunk of metal across town in the rain... on one leg. Besides that you are forgetting that the limbs aren't seperate components of the body; its all interlinked. Its no good having an arm able to flip over a truck, your torso would compact and tear itself apart if you didn't just rip the thing off, nerve circuits and all. The only real option for enhanced performance cybernetics would be a Ghost in the Shell effort, with full body replacement except for the brain. If you can manage that, without regular maintenance and some sort of 50 year power source, I'll admit you have a point.

    3. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by nametaken · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's not like we were intelligently designed... we evolved.

      That's a bold statement of fact, considering even the most avid proponents of evolution refer to it as "theory".

    4. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a bold statement of fact, considering even the most avid proponents of evolution refer to it as "theory".

      Not a great troll... poignant, with a hint of maple... but lacking in the body and depth that a really rich, warm troll should have... I'll have to give this one star, I'm afraid.

    5. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evolution is both theory and fact. Please learn the definition of the word 'theory'.

    6. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one robotic device that has ever equalled any organic creature for versitility? They can be stronger and faster but there has never been an electronic device than can equal an ant for size weight and versitility let alone a human. It may one day be possible but not in our lifetimes and when it is chances are the robot will closely resemble organics Mechanical devices are actually the more limited of the two. Organics will always win when it come to adaptability. You'll probably see a cloned limb far sooner than a robotic one that can do half what the cloned one could. Just because it's high tech doesn't mean it's superior.

    7. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because we may eventually out-tnature doesn't mean the thousands of injured soliders and civilians want part of their body replaced with robotics if they could have the option of a new, real limb.

      There is also no reason both areas of research can't operate simultaneously, nor anything that is restricting them from working coopoeratively.

    8. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The art of trolling has declined, to the point where a one line flamebait post is moderated as troll. A good troll is so much more than that.

      Like this for example, my all time favourite

      http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6823&cid=8 86346

      If Swift were alive today, he'd be trolling slashdot.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Britz · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but:

      1. It will take a while! I think it is more a matter of centuries than decades.

      2. It will be too expensive for most people. Look at the moon landings. They would never have happened if not the richest nation on earth would have poured so much money into it. Even now it is still too expensive to put people into near orbit. The few exeptions only go there, because the governments still spend A LOT of money on it. The few tourists (that still pay more than some thousand people in Africa spend their whole life just to survive) do not cover the investment at all. They just cover some of the running costs. So they actually travel on huge subsidies.

    10. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, do you mean by "versitility" and "adaptability"? Give examples.

      Outengineering a biological system isn't nessisarily easy, but I assure you that it's possible. High tech devices aren't always better, but they frequently are - which is why we build them.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    11. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Your own limbs have grown and developed based on how you use them and look after them: bone density, nerve wirings etc. A limb grown in the lab won't have developed the same so won't be suitable.

    12. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      even the most avid proponents of evolution refer to it as "theory".

      Yup. Like the theory of gravity.

      There's no question that organisms evolve any more than there is question that masses attract eachother. There is some debate about the exact mechanism for these effects, but there's no question that they happen.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    13. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct.

      It just annoys me when people assume that technology isn't going to improve, or that the human body is the pinnacle of perfection.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    14. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by cappadocius · · Score: 1
      Evolution is both theory and fact. Please learn the definition of the word 'theory'.

      To be fair to the little troll, the original post clearly is referring to the theory of evolution.

      The fact of evolution does not make predictions about the degree to which the design of any biological organism is optimized. All scientific theories of evolution derived from the Darwinian one seem implicitly to do so.

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    15. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      In 2 or 3 centuries maybe.

      Oh, I think we can do better than that. Remember that "everything that's not good enough dies" combines with "anything that's better than it needs to be gets pwned by random mutations".

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    16. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Consider that cyberleg. We can build it to run off glucose in order to avoid it running out of batteries. We can easily give it the performance characteristics of an athlete - we know the human body can take that. It will never get out of shape. Assuming it has sufficient glucose (which is easy to introduce to your body, especially if you deal with the insulin thing right), it will never get tired.

      Now, that's no car-tossing cyberarm, but it's definately an improvement on the stock equipment. The downside is maintnence, but anyone who's paid too much attention to cyberpunk settings knows that - and that can be reduced with better engineering.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    17. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Isn't anything we design thereby a product of evolution? If evolution produced the human brain, which in turn produced a prosthetic limb, isn't it evolution which ultimately created the limb?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    18. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      No. For a given organism, evolution only cares about two outcomes: death and reproduction. Anything the organism does that doesn't result in its genes being preserved has nothing to do with evolution.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    19. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Evolution will tend to produce good solutions to problems, but it will hardly ever produce the best possible solution.

      Not so. Unless the space of solutions is extremely unusual -- not simply connected, something like that -- natural selection will always find the optimum solution, given enough time. Deliberate engineering gets you to the optimum faster, that's all. But natural selection has got one hell of a head start on deliberate engineering as far as our bodies go, like maybe four million years' worth.

      I think the main reason to favor regeneration over prosthetics is economy. See, the program to regenerate your leg already exists in your body. It's just a question of turning it on, and the signal is very likely to be the same for everyone. So once you can figure out how to do that -- and that will undoubtably be a monstrously expensive undertaking, yes -- then all you need to do to regenerate limbs is apply the signal. Say, you get a $50 injection from a nurse of a tailored virus, and, ding, you grow a new hand over the next four months. Don't need to stay in the hospital, have expensive technicians custom-build a prosthesis for you, learn to use it and take care of it. You just go home and eat a little extra protein every day, and the thing takes care of itself.

      That would save large amounts of medical costs. Not to mention revolutionizing the treatment of all kinds of injuries and diseases. Aggressive gangrene or flesh-eating bacteria in a wound? Arm half bitten off by a shark? No need for expensive microsurgery -- just lop off the thing and grow it back clean and whole.

    20. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by operagost · · Score: 1

      We already have quite a few competently-engineered devices available on the internet that can beat your meat.

      Modesty does not permit me to link to them.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      but it will hardly ever produce the best possible solution.

      So.... the human brain which isn't the best possbile solution because of evolution, will produce the best possible solution?

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    22. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution occurs - that's fact.

      As to how evolution occurs - that's theory.

    23. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      So they actually travel on huge subsidies.

      Actually, this is probably not the accurate way to look at it. The only government flying paying space travelers is doing so after bankruptcy essentially - and it is typical for an after-bankruptcy bussiness to sell close to marginal cost.

      Sunk costs, and all that... trust me, the former soviets are not flying rich Americans with a government subsidy!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    24. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      That's the neat thing about evolving sentience... yes.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    25. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by metlin · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Not to mention layers and layers of redundancy, of course -- if something goes wrong, our body can easily adapt and on occasion, rewire the synapses.

      A synthetic body should be capable of the same thing, too.

    26. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Odds are neural wetware will run off of the natural electrical curent your body produces, or can be easily recharged thru an inductance field (though this means the charging pack is close to the skin.) We're working on this already with devices implanted into your spine that overload your spine with "information" so you don't feel pain nearly as much, for those with irrepairable spinal injuries. You might want to read a book titled "Cobra" as it somewhat touches on this topic, though more in a military manner than a medical one.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Cecil · · Score: 1

      You can have most of the versatility of organics at the same time as having the specialized advantages from technology. Some people would prefer specialized hardware for certain tasks. For specialization, tech almost always wins over organics.

    28. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I think the main reason to favor regeneration over prosthetics is economy.

      Yes, but regrowing an eye doesn't give you zoom, splitscreen, quantel...

      Not to mention I want my nipple to tune in jazz FM.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    29. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And what about the self-healing capabilities of the human body? Fall over and graze that mechanical leg, and you have to go in for repairs. Minor damage will accumulate in ways that it doesn't on the human leg. Or the degree of tactile sensation you can get from human fingertips? You'll have to hook it up to the receivers in the brain, and develop very sophisticated sensors to emulate that. Then there's the fact that this prosthetic leg is likely to be heavier than your natural leg, and not have the same physical properties - walking on one might be find, but try running and you're balance will be thrown off by the weight difference. And don't even think about going swimming - it's not bouyed to the same degree as the rest of your body, you're headed straight to the bottom. And glucose is unlikely to as efficient in powering a mechanical arm than a biological one, and there's no guarantee that the body will deliver the amount of glucose it needs to this foreign body; if you consume enough glucose to power your arm, your body may well store too much of it, inhibit insulin production and make you obese. In that case, your stuck with inserting the insulin directly into the arm, which really isn't much better than a really inefficient battery. What about the latency in translating signals from the brain into a form understood by your mechanical arm - are you going to have lag whenever you try and move it? Heat generation, is it going to produce more or less than your normal arm? Will you be able to keep yourself warm by wrapping it around you, or will it generate more heat and be uncomfortably warm in the height of summer?

      The human body is a very, very complex system, with a whole bunch of intertwined mechanisms, few of which we understand completely, and some of which are total mysteries. Suggesting that lopping off a limb and slapping on a mechanical replacement (that is not only functionally equivelant, but will not throw off any of the body's other systems, including the ones we don't understand) is relatively easy is ludicrous.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    30. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      but regrowing an eye doesn't give you zoom, splitscreen, quantel...

      Why not? A little tinkering with the genetic code, and Bob's your uncle. Surely regrowing the thing exactly as it was designed is merely the first step. Then come the improvements.

    31. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by kyjl · · Score: 1

      Damnit, you beat me to the GitS reference mumbo-jumbo.

      --
      Perl, n. A language spoken by Eskimos.
    32. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, once you're sentient enough to be sufficiently delusional (or dishonest) - you get to define "best possible solution".

      Even if nobody is sure what the problem is, the solution is "42" ;).

      --
    33. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no question that organisms evolve any more than there is question that masses attract eachother.

      Ummm, no... There is no question that "natural selection" happens. Evolution is just science fiction to myself and the other straights.

    34. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. This is not really a reasoned answer; You're just arguing from incredulity. Whereas many people have made very good, detailed, and convincing arguments, explaining how this can happen within decades.
      2. The first one will undoubtedly be super-expensive. The second will be less expensive. The third will be less expensive still. You see where this leads. "Don't rob the poor of the future, for the sake of the poor of the present."

      My own thought is that, by 2060, there will be options better than a prosthetic body: Living inside of a computer, disembodied, for instance.

    35. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Britz · · Score: 1

      Hot dog stands on the moon anyone?

    36. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      You mention issues like and glucose efficiency - and most of the other problems you mention, there's no reason for those to be worse in a mechanical arm than a natural arm. Those are well defined performance properties, and they will be solved with enough engineering.

      As for damage and the complexities of insulin, well - there's a reason why I explicitly mentioned those in my origional post - they're problems that would need to get dealt with. When it comes to insulin, I'd like to see computerized insulin control systems right now, reguarless of artifical hardware running on glucose.

      The human body *is* complex, but the level of complexity that engineers are able to deal with is constantly increasing. I see no reason to believe that replicating - and improving upon - the fuction of a human limb is beyond our abilities. I'll probably live to see it.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    37. Re:Don't underestimate prosthetics by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      For a complex problem, it *can* be hard to actually define what the best possible solution is.

      That doesn't mean that we can't point to things that are poorly built and say "we can do better than that", and the human body is poorly built in a number of ways.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  9. Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is very terse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think it would be more accurate to say Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is embryonic.

    1. Re:Wikipedia's stub on blastemas is very terse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neutrality of the parent post is disputed.

  10. is this really the right reason? by macadamia_harold · · Score: 1, Troll

    In response to the hundreds of soldiers coming home from war with missing arms or legs, Darpa is spending millions of dollars to help scientists learn how people might one day regenerate their own limbs.

    You *know* the Army's thinking behind this is to regenerate their limbs so they can just send them back to war.

    1. Re:is this really the right reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes! Let's assume that.

      Afterwards we can stop research on all things that improve quality of life because they might be used for military purposes. Yes, even if it means significantly reducing the cost of human suffering we pay for acts of war.

    2. Re:is this really the right reason? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I doubt there's going to throw someone back into battle that's gone through the psychological trauma of having a limb blown off. You can replace the body part, perhaps, but the mental damage will be there for awhile.

    3. Re:is this really the right reason? by dotoole · · Score: 1

      It's just common sense.

      Training costs a hell of a lot of money. Some guy gets a limb blown off and suddenly all that training and experience is useless (on the front line at least). If limb replacements can be accomplished without serious side-affects then I don't see any real moral dilema.

      Guy breaks his leg, gets healed, and is sent back to the front line.
      Guy loses a leg, gets it replaced, and is sent back to the front line.

      Is there really that much of a difference?

    4. Re:is this really the right reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can replace the body part, perhaps, but the mental damage will be there for awhile

      Pussy

    5. Re:is this really the right reason? by Dravik · · Score: 1

      What all the people who post this seem to miss is that most of the soliders want to get back to the front and help their buddies. This isn't some evil army destroying soliders. They generally want it as much or more than the Army.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    6. Re:is this really the right reason? by pseudopawn · · Score: 1

      Training a new grunt is expensive but where they are looking to save the most money is in paying disability to the solder for life. Being a solder I have worried that I will receive a minor injury when I get close to retirement and get medically retired only to be healed a few years latter. In a situation like that if you have less than 20 years you will get only medical retirement and then if a few years latter they patch you up you have lost all your military retirement income.

      So far in this war they aren't having that much trouble getting the manning they need.

    7. Re:is this really the right reason? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they may be on recouperation leave for a while, but if a severed limb becomes just a matter of a few surgeries and a year of physical therapy, a lot of the psychological damage becomes moot. Plus, there are a lot of soldiers through history who have fought while missing limbs, etc. Not common, but definitely not unheard of.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  11. can we grow some extra limbs in advance? by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 3, Funny

    so, say, if one hand is blown off, I still have a few more left, no need to rush to hospital. an extra head won't hurt either. (with a possibility of starring in Hitchhiker).

    1. Re:can we grow some extra limbs in advance? by magetoo · · Score: 1
      That doesn't sound like such a bad idea actually. I imagine you would start with simpler and more immediately practical spare parts first (intestine, blood vessels, etc).


      Hands (and feet, think about anti-personnel mines) would be hard, probably too hard; and you'd still be out for a long time, so you might as well take the time to do it from scratch, I suppose. Internal organs might be worth it.

      I bet it's been done in science fiction a long time ago. (If not, I demand royalties!)

  12. Potential for other applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they can give soldiers the ability to grow amputated limbs, any possibility this technology can be used to produce 100% real enlarged breasts? Forget silicone and saline implants, in ten years time we'll have women who can inject themselves with this serum and grow from a B-cup to DD. I imagine the government will find a way to outlaw that, too, just like they did for silicone "for the saftey of women".

    1. Re:Potential for other applications by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they can give soldiers the ability to grow amputated limbs, any possibility this technology can be used to produce 100% real enlarged breasts?

      Yes, but don't be surprised if people look at you funny -- or maybe that should be funnier.

      KFG

    2. Re:Potential for other applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, enormous tits aren't sexy. Learn to appreciate them the way the are.

      Now.

      Tell me how to grow my cock 5 more inches, and we'll talk.

    3. Re:Potential for other applications by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Not really. Regenerating a limb is replacing something your body already has instructions on how to build. Since the B-cup girl doesn't have the instructions for a DD, it wouldn't work.

      But it would rock for those who had a mastectomy.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Potential for other applications by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      My bet is what will happen first is that scientists will be able to generate the larger breast organ in the lab, and start surgically implanting those instead of the silicone or saline. I think it's a harder trick to get the new breat tissue growing in exactly the right places.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:Potential for other applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll suck for those men who don't like to be out-weighed by their girlfriend's left tit though. I totally fail to see the attraction of ludicrously sized breasts. The slim, sleek model is far sexier.

  13. I sense a disturbance in the Force by GungaDan · · Score: 3, Funny

    as if a million stumpfuckers suddenly cried out in protest.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  14. One step closer... by QuantumFTL · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is one step closer to the invincible zombie army that the government is working on. Maybe it will help us defeat the robots in the future?

    Why yes, my hat ismade out of tin. How did you know?

    1. Re:One step closer... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Why yes, my hat ismade out of tin. How did you know?
      We know all about you QuantunFTL (the tinfoil, it does nothing)

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    2. Re:One step closer... by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      We know all about you QuantunFTL (the tinfoil, it does nothing)

      It's apparently blocked you from reading my nick properly... :)

  15. War on Missing Limbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason for this research is so we can torture 'insurgents' by cutting off their limbs as this won't be a permanent condition at some point.

  16. Ask for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blade's or any other vampire's DNA... They regenerate limbs don't they?

  17. Millions ? by OpenSourced · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The two groups are sharing $7.6 million in grants for a year to find a way to give humans salamander-like abilities.

    Am I out of whack or it's $7.6m like peanuts for this kind of research? I'd guess any serious effort on that would need to be in the billions level, and that likely for many years.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Millions ? by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 1

      Depends if its government-unionized employees or not.

    2. Re:Millions ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I guess it depends on the "salamander-like abilities" that you're asking for.
      If just you wanna be able to work your tongue like a salamander (and God knows that's what I'm hoping for), then I'd hope 7.6 mil should cover it...

      Oh wait... regenerated limbs? Ok, yea, that'll cost ya...
      (I'm still pullin' for the tongue thing though)

    3. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Or just a few thousands to just the right person at just the right time.

      Money is pretty good at creating data and sorta good at creating engineering, but it's never been shown to be very good at producing science, accept by accident.

      See Fleming's discovery of penicillin vs. the godzillions spent looking for a cure for cancer.

      KFG

    4. Re:Millions ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, didn't the space program produce some science? Apollo? Hubble? Mars rovers? I mean I can kinda see your point here but launching a Saturn V takes more than a few thousand to the right person at the right time.

    5. Re:Millions ? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Eh...I'd have to disagree with that. What's important to realize is that science is, by and large, a process of finding what works by systematically trying everything that doesn't work first. That's one reason it's enormously expensive and takes so much time.

      In hindsight you can often recognize the tender little shoot of the Right Idea growing, and, yes, it is often growing in some neglected garden with very little fertilizer (a.k.a. money). You'd naturally think that "all" you have to do to be much more efficient is "just" identify that shoot a little earlier, and pour your resources into it.

      Alas, in the first place it's typically impossible to identify the right idea except in hindsight. And in the second, the vast sterile fields of weeds surrounding the right idea are not wasted effort. They serve the very important purpose of demonstrating what does not work. This is important, because people are so enthusiastic about their theories that only concrete demonstrations of their failure will convince folks to abandon false theories and look around for better.

      Another way to put it is: without the vast bitter harvest of Wrong, we would not be motivated enough to search out the rare fruit of Right. Senator Mikulski notwithstanding, it isn't logically possible to make scientific advance more efficient. Its inefficiency is part of what makes it work.

    6. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Wait, didn't the space program produce some science?

      Some, yes, but not very much. This is one of the key criticisms against the money spent on it.

      Apollo?

      Engineering and human achievment. Hillary accomplished much the same.

      Hubble?

      Lotta data. Some of it has had some real scientific implications, much of it has not. Data is like that.

      Mars rovers?

      Lotta data.

      I mean I can kinda see your point here but launching a Saturn V takes more than a few thousand to the right person at the right time.

      Launching a rocket, however, does not. There is no more science in a large rocket than a small one. The majority of rocket science isn't science at all. Regenerating all the limbs lost in a war will require a large medical infrastructure staffed by many people at great expense, but this is not science. Figuring out how to regenerate a limb is science, and only requires one person with the right idea.

      Science is not implimentation. Science is principle.

      KFG

    7. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      science is, by and large, a process of finding what works by systematically trying everything that doesn't work first.

      No. Science is about discovering principles so you do not have to try everything that doesn't work first.

      KFG

    8. Re:Millions ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I think I get it. Cost of regenerating limbs vs the cost of the scientist that discovers how is like the cost of building a Saturn V vs whatever it cost to design the first Chinese rocket a thousand years ago. And while the cost of curing cancer may be expensive to implement, the cost of finding it shouldn't be, right? Interesting.

    9. Re:Millions ? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Ha. And I say that as a theoretician.

    10. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Bingo. In fact most of the cancer research that is going isn't going on because there is any real science behind it, or any real science coming out of it, but only because the money is there and can only be spent on cancer research. Lots of lab techs doing busy work collectiong redundant data.

      Now data is valuable. You can't do science without it. The first American to win a Nobel Prize won it for increasing the accuracy of lightspeed measuring equipment. Without Brahe there would have been no Kepler, without Kepler there would have been no Newton.

      But 10,000 Keplers gathering planetary position data wouldn't have gotten us to Newton any faster. The key point was simply the idea to gather data and set Kepler to gathering it. One Kepler was sufficient for the job. 10,000 Keplers would have generated denser data, perhaps with slightly better precision, but wouldn't have gotten us to Kepler's deductions any faster. Those were in the data.

      Maxwell gave us the data and the resultant principles deduced from them to bring us from Newton the Einstein. It took 40 years to get there. Hiring 10,000 physicists to sit in a room staring at Maxwell's equations wouldn't have gotten us to Relativity any faster. All the physicists (and a good many of the engineers) in the world were already doing that. And they hacked out what it meant.

      There are fields that take massive amounts of money to do any real science, just because of the cost of the test equipment. High energy physics comes to mind, but fields like this are actually rather rare.

      We have generated an army of "scientists," and at the same time a publish or perish "science" culture. Most of the work done these days isn't really done because someone had a cool idea. It's done because they need to protect their paycheck and to do that they have do something, whether there's anything behind that something or not. Then they ad hoc justify their work, so they get another paycheck, so they need to do something else, so they. . .

      This isn't science. It's busy work. I doubt there are more than a few thousand real scientists in the world today; and most of them are watching bugs.

      KFG

    11. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Curing the common cold, as well as being a great source of comfort to mankind and even saving a few lives, would mean some major advances in virology and cellular biology. I believe I will devote the rest of my life to finding the cure.

      As a theoretician; do think I would be better off starting my research by waving a chicken over my patients, or a hamster?

      KFG

    12. Re:Millions ? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how you start your research. If you know nothing about the cold, then by all means start off by waving a chicken over your patients.

      The important thing is that you must observe very carefully -- write down, take pictures, in every way strive to record objectively and repeatably -- exactly what happens when you wave the chicken, and you must compare the outcome when you do, or do not, wave the chicken, and you must repeat the experiment many times, to account for random error and chance, and trying to control as much as possible for any extraneous factors like the age or general health of your patients.

      By doing so you will prove once and for all that (A) waving chickens cures the cold, or (B) it does not. Assuming arguendo that the result is (B), you have now made a permanent scientific advance: no one ever needs to debate whether waving chickens around is helpful with the common cold. We know.

      Next, you think up something else. Hamsters, maybe. Or injections with killed coryza virii. Whatever your imagination comes up with. And you test it once again in the same empirical way. The science part of this process is not the imagination part, not the theorizing. Anyone can do that. People have formulated logically consistent, persuasive, believable -- and utterly wrong -- theories about how the world works for the past 40,000 years. It's the careful empirical testing that distinguishes successful science from mere philosophizing.

    13. Re:Millions ? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      There is no more science in a large rocket than a small one. The majority of rocket science isn't science at all.

      I know several materials scientists who would disagree with you there.

    14. Re:Millions ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      The science part of this process is not the imagination part, not the theorizing.

      That's what I said. Your empirical testing leads you to formulate principles which eliminate entire classes of things that are even imagined as things worth trying. The understanding that having waved a chicken and a hamster you do not have to try waving a water buffalo.

      Because you know. So you go on to injecting things into cells before you waste your testing life waving everything you can find over your patients. You have to try a lot of things and make a lot of errors, but each error reduces the number of things you need to try in a nonlinear progression.

      It's the careful empirical testing that distinguishes successful science from mere philosophizing.

      That's why I get insulted when people introduce me as a philosopher. It's only philosophers who have to try everything, because they know nothing; and thus they rely on their imaginations for solutions.

      Once upon a time Feynman was at a party and chatting with a philospher about some latest discovery of science. At one point the philosopher said, "I knew that already."

      Feynman replied, "No you didn't. You believed it. I proved it."

      KFG

    15. Re:Millions ? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Up to a point, I would cautiously agree, but up to that same point, perhaps no one would disagree. Using obvious generalizations of what you have proved is something everyone does. It's not something that you need scientific training, or a scientific way of thinking, to do. It's not peculiar to science -- it's just having conscious thought and a desire to avoid unnecessary exertion. It's little more than the definition of the capacity to learn, which, while admirable, is not quite yet science.

      Where science comes in, I suggest, is in restraining yourself from making generalizations. It is in the extreme caution with which you generate and use general principals. For example, using the principle of parsimony to generate the least general, most specific possible explanation for your data. That does not, indeed, come naturally to H. sapiens, who tends to leap to as grand and general a conclusion as he can. That is what distinguishes scientific thinking from ordinary thinking.

      I'm not denying that imagination and inductive thinking are important parts of doing science in a practical way. What I'm suggesting is that the essential core of empirical science -- what really sets it apart from its Aristotelian progenitor -- is the extremely pessimistic insistence on empirical proof and even overproof for plausible generalizations. It is not enough, in empirical science, for something to seem obvious or reasonable or persuasive. It must be backed up by measurement. That is not a natural way of thinking for people, even very intelligent people, as I suggest your quote from Feynman illustrates.

      Why harp on the point? In part because in years of teaching science, and supposedly training young scientists, ha ha, I have been so very often disheartened by a distorted view of science they seem to pick up in primary and secondary education, even in college: namely, that science is all about formulating clever, convincing theories. This is a terrible bias that must be undone if they are ever to become useful. It's difficult to get into their heads that formulating theories is just being human, speculating, goofing around trying to fit the puzzle pieces together. Neanderthals did it. Things become scientific when you start devising careful empirical tests of your theories. Science is the winnow, the sieve, the thing that separates plausible error from truth -- which may even, amusingly, as various modern physics theories show, be highly implausible.

      I don't think we disagree. It's merely a matter of where the emphasis is put. I've explained why I put the emphasis where I do, and as heavily, just because it's one o' my pet peeves. But now I've fed the little rascal, I'll put him back in his kennel so ye need not be bored with him any longer...

      Thank you for the interesting exchange.

  18. How about some hair regeneration? by glrotate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's focus our efforts on something a little more important.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:How about some hair regeneration? by NiceRoundNumber · · Score: 1

      Well, Wikipedia does have a stubble article on it.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of letting other people have your way.
    2. Re:How about some hair regeneration? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Go read your Polya.... Hair regeneration is simple and, I'd like to think, something we learned from doing something small and simple first helped us understand the larger puzzle.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:How about some hair regeneration? by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      Hey, they already have spray-on hair. Why not spray on limbs? Doing some work on a precarious perch? Spray on a few extra legs for balance, and amputate them when you're done.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    4. Re:How about some hair regeneration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That problem is already solved: Rogaine and Propecia.

    5. Re:How about some hair regeneration? by lbmouse · · Score: 1

      Or how about growing me a larger third leg? I'd like to switch careers.

  19. Partial success years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robert Becker reported partly regenerating mammal limbs years ago. See http://www.newtreatments.org/doc.php/WisdomExperie nce/135

  20. further info by EricBoyd · · Score: 1

    some more info for anyone interested:

    Timelines for Manipulating and Greatly Enhancing Human Regeneration
    http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000929.php

    Transhumanism: Regenerative Medicine
    http://digitalcrusader.ca/archives/2006/05/regener ative_me.html

    --
    augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
  21. recall the transhumanist point of view by khallow · · Score: 1

    Dismissing prosthetics as being less than natural ignores that the technology is always improving. It's not that hard to envision a time when the prosthetic limb is better than the natural one. For example, at best, we'll be able to grow back a natural limb. If a prosthetic limb breaks, it will probably be a lot easier to replace. OTOH, it's reasonable to assume that a considerable fraction of people are going to want like replaced with like. Ie, they will often want a natural limb replaced by a natural one or an artificial one replaced by the same.

  22. Potential for new cybernetic prosthetics by Colgate2003 · · Score: 3, Informative
    they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with

    Not quite as good, but I just interviewed someone about new research into interfacing neurons with electronics that could lead to Luke Skywalker-like replacement limbs. Harvard researchers have figured out a way to directly read and write to a neuron with digital electronics.

    1. Re:Potential for new cybernetic prosthetics by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Harvard researchers have figured out a way to directly read and write to a neuron with digital electronics.

      It gives new meaning to the BSOD.

  23. Forget regeneration, by gnujoshua · · Score: 1

    let's just generate new limbs!

    1. Re:Forget regeneration, by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Hmm... my dad is always complaining about not having three arms. It would be nice... but I fear what the hand of a middle arm would look like. Would any hand gesture be giving someone the finger?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Forget regeneration, by Roduku · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine how productive a 20 fingered programmer would be?

  24. Don't underestimate overestimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Our engineering arrogance is still no competition with the million-year-old blind watch maker. From nanotechnology, to junk DNA, dark matter, and artificial intelligence, we constantly overestimate our understanding. We will get there, but we don't even know what we don't know. I think we will be cribbing engineering notes from cell cultures for millennium to come and still have much left to learn from biology.

    1. Re:Don't underestimate overestimation by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1
      Arrogance is a virtue. Without it, we would give up without even trying.

      That's not to say that you're not right. We have a ton of stuff to learn from biological systems - we've barely begun to scratch the surface on all the useful stuff that evolution has come up with.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  25. Obligatory Simpsons quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medic: Sir, we're going to need to cut off your arms.

    Homer: They'll grow back, right?

  26. Akira... by MaineCoon · · Score: 1

    The researchers' first milestone is to generate a blastema -- a mass of cells able to develop into various organs or body parts -- in a mammal.

    Cue out-of-control flesh monster, Akira-style.

    --
    Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  27. Re:the Real cost of war by fishbowl · · Score: 1


    >they certainly have plenty of Iraq war veterans to practice on, over 20,000 injured to date , 2700 dead and >counting

    I rarely come across any detailed report of those injuries. Not all injuries are the same. And who considers two lost arms to be an equivalent disability to one lost leg, or even two legs? (I don't, but I get the impression it's not "socially correct" to say so.)

    All we hear about is the aggregate number of casualties. Nothing to tell us what kind of injuries they represent. Some of those 20,000 might recover, and others will not, and there is a big difference between different injuries.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  28. Been done in rats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Look up 'charles becker', he did things like this in his research 20 years ago. Was regrowing rat legs right and left from what i remember.

    And isnt a rat pretty close to a human? Thats what they keep saying anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Been done in rats by kfg · · Score: 1

      And isnt a rat pretty close to a human?

      Only if he's a lawyer.

      KFG

    2. Re:Been done in rats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Been done in rats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      ya, got it wrong.. it was from distant memory. ... oops

      Not seen that book of his ... something to buy :)

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. Prosthetics beat natural limbs by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    6 million dollar man
    Inspector Gadget
    Luke Skywalker

    Fake limbs can resist bullets. They can have powerful weapons and other tools. If you buy the Dr. Strangelove model, you get to blame the arm's buggy software when it grabs a woman's butt.

    1. Re:Prosthetics beat natural limbs by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Until the control is good enough that I can, say, play guitar without any more difficulty than I do with my meat hand, I think I'll stick with meat.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

  30. Not too far from reality by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    IIRC, it makes a good story anyway, the use of pinning etc was pioneered by military medics as a way to quickly heal limbs and recycle soldiers faster. Previous to that, an "accidentally" damaged leg was a ticket back to home comforts and safety.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  31. Re:the Real cost of war by kfg · · Score: 1

    All we hear about is the aggregate number of casualties.

    One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. -Joseph Stalin.

    KFG

  32. Wiki's stub by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know that this has already been beaten to death, but, for instance, Wikipedia's stub on Radiometry, one of the oldest fields in optics, is also rather terse--and that's the entry for an _entire field in optics._

    It DOES, I might add, as a saving grace contain the most important radiometric lesson that anyone in the sciences needs to learn: if you say the word "intensity," you probably ACTUALLY mean irradiance. This bothers optics folks to NO END.

  33. Time for the new DARPA challenge! by JoeCommodore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A member of each tem gets one limb sawn off and the first one to regrow it to appropriate size wins the prize!

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:Time for the new DARPA challenge! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Bobbit, is that you?

    2. Re:Time for the new DARPA challenge! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no 'a' in tem. At least that is what the no armed coach used to say to the special olympics teams.

  34. Focus Points by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    I think they need to narrow it down a little - you know, focus on more important things like testicles. Apparently, Dell is more or a threat to our collective biology than the Iraq war. You can't ignore this sort of thing when you go sci-fi like this.

    Limbs are great, but some limbs are are more important than others. Priorities, people.

    -sorry

  35. worthy of King Midas by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Immortality may be just not that far off, but all that would lead to is an increase in over population and wealth stratifacation. I'm all for improving the quality of life for amputees but I think a century or so is long enough for any one person.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:worthy of King Midas by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Well, from a Malthusian perspective, the population is always going to increase to capacity regardless. Personally I think it is a separate problem.

    2. Re:worthy of King Midas by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. In modern industrialized nations with good education and economies, the average population growth is negative (if you don't count immigration). If we can get all the 3rd world countries up to speed with economy and education, we might not have an over population problem.

    3. Re:worthy of King Midas by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      You make a good point regarding declining birthrates in industrialized countries. I would worry more about the wealth/power concentrations possible with lab grown 500 year lifespans. The wealthiest 5% of the USA holds 59% of the wealth. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=20 50 already imagine if the went on accumulating for centuries, or a senator that he his seat for 200 years ...

      --
      We are all just people.
  36. OK, someone has to ask this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this help if you're legless?

    (yes, it's late here - as a matter of fact, it's so late it's early)

  37. John Wayne Bobbitt..... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    ........na its to easy

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  38. Re:Radical idea by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

    ... or maybe only PeaceCorp veterans ...

    --
    We are all just people.
  39. Soooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If artificial limbs are improving, how long you bet before we see folk walking around with just pure metalic limbs for the cool factor.

    Full Metal Alchemist anyone?

  40. so about the guy who got the penis transplant.... by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 2, Funny

    now he wont have to look down and see another mans penis lol

    --
    -Noc
  41. "So it'll just grow back then, will it?" by toby · · Score: 1

    Perkins: Bitten sir. During the night.
    Ainsworth: Hm. Whole leg gone eh?
    Perkins: Yes.
    [As they talk, the din of battle continues outside. Screams of dying men, crackling of tents set on fire.]
    Ainsworth: How's it feel?
    Perkins: Stings a bit.
    Ainsworth: Mmm. Well it would, wouldn't it. That's quite a bite you've got there you know.
    Perkins: Yes, real beauty isn't it?
    All: Yes.
    Ainsworth: Any idea how it happened?
    Perkins: None at all. Complete mystery to me. Woke up just now... one sock too many.
    Pakenham-Walsh: You must have a hell of a hole in your net.
    Ainsworth: Hm. We've sent for the doctor.
    Perkins: Ooh, hardly worth it, is it?
    Ainsworth: Oh yes... better safe than sorry.
    Pakenham-Walsh: Yes, good Lord, look at this.
    [He indicates a gigantic hole in the mosquito net.]
    Ainsworth: By jove, that's enormous.
    Pakenham-Walsh: You don't think it'll come back, do you?
    Ainsworth: For more, you mean?
    Pakenham-Walsh: Yes.
    Ainsworth: You're right. We'd better get this stitched.
    Pakenham-Walsh: Right.
    Ainsworth: Hallo Doc.
    Livingstone: [entering the tent with Chadwick] Morning. I came as fast as I could. Is something up?
    Ainsworth: Yes, during the night old Perkins had his leg bitten sort of... off.
    Livingstone: Ah hah!? Been in the wars have we?
    Perkins: Yes.
    Livingstone: Any headache, bowels all right? Well, let's have a look at this one leg of yours then. [Looks around under sheet] Yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... yes... well, this is nothing to worry about.
    Perkins: Oh good.
    Livingstone: There's a lot of it about, probably a virus, keep warm, plenty of rest, and if you're playing football or anything try and favour the other leg.
    Perkins: Oh right ho.
    Livingstone: Be as right as rain in a couple of days.
    Perkins: Thanks for the reassurance, doc.
    Livingstone: Not at all, that's what I'm here for. Any other problems I can reassure you about?
    Perkins: No I'm fine.
    Livingstone: Jolly good. Well, must be off.
    Perkins: So it'll just grow back then, will it?

    ... http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/MeaningOf Life/MontyPythonstheMeaningofLife

    --
    you had me at #!
  42. not Washington by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    You probably want to address Madison or Jefferson, not Washington.

  43. MILLIONS? Surely Not. by shaneh0 · · Score: 1

    DARPA is spending MILLIONS to help researchers re-grow limbs. Try that again. They're spending MILLIONS (which is what you need for a fair retirement) to advance the RE-GROWTH OF A HUMAN LIMB. In other news, I'm donating $12.32 towards the advancement of Sentinent AI. By my estimates, my $12 will yield results in 2 or 3 hundred years. Shortly thereafter my AIbot will then invent a way to regrow human limbs, beating the underfunded DARPA project by 3 or 4 hundred years.

  44. Re:the Real cost of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of amputations happen because of auto crashes on the highway. But nobody likes to think about highway accidents (easier to pretend they don't happen). Plus there's a huge amount of money in the defense budget just waiting to be given out.

  45. Re:the Real cost of war by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps the nation has a much greater duty to help young men and women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend us, and who have lost a limb in the process.

    It's not quite clear the nation owes the same consideration to J. Random Citizen who gets himself racked up on the highway, say, by drinking and driving, or even through plain bad luck.

  46. You don't have to build accelerators or reactors by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    This is the sort of science that can be done without huge capital costs. A few million dollars will go a long way when spent on salaries and salamanders.

  47. I'm way ahead of them by beeblebrox · · Score: 1

    what the subject said.

  48. just grow a spare parts clone by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    The serious issue your joke illuminates is the possibility of people growing a clone for the purpose of "spare parts." No risk of rejection when you do the transplantation, see?

    1. Re:just grow a spare parts clone by DoubleRing · · Score: 1

      You really should read Nancy Farmer's The House of the Scorpion. It's all about growing clones for transplants. It even talks about drug lords and even has a less than savory solution to the US's illegal immigrant problem! All for only $12.21!

      In all honesty, it's a good book. Go check it out at the library. I commmand you!

      --
      Before you die, you see DoubleRing...
  49. Related DARPA research by jesstheaussie · · Score: 1

    I read in the New Scientist (around March) about some research into implants that allow scientists to provide basic stimulus to mammalian brains and get some feedback too. They mentioned DARPA were experimenting with implants in sharks brains that could allow them to steer them with an eventual view to using them for stealthy underwater spying (sorry, no lasers). The article also mentioned that some of that research would have implications in the field of prosthetics as it has to do with interfaces between electronics and nerves.

  50. Re-grow a heart by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If the Republicans stay in control of congress come November,I hope DARPA can figure out how to grow a new moral reputation for the USA.

    And maybe a new Constitution, because the one we started with has been battered badly by 6 years of the Bush Administration.

    Can you believe we're even discussing torture, secret prisons, domestic wiretapping?

    Yeah, they better learn how to grow a new conscience for the great Nation.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  51. Why? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    The traditional solution is to grow completely new soldiers as gun fodder - these are generally called babies. I don't see the strategic advantage in growing only partial soldiers, unless one can do it very quickly and get say a 14 day turn around on a limb, which could be better than the current 18 year production cycle...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  52. Blastemas and Anime by deek · · Score: 1

    Now finally, we can name the effect used in anime, when they do near-instant limb regeneration. You know what I'm talking about ... that bubbly organic extrusion that happens when chopped off limbs are regenerated. This shall now be called a "Blastema". Also used when organic bodies are psychically mutated, as in Akira.

  53. It is about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too Many Men and Women coming back missing legs, arms, eyes, etc...

    Fix it already.

  54. Clonus by Mike_ya · · Score: 1

    Why not just create clones.
    When you need a body part just tell them they are going to 'America'.

  55. Talk about going for cheap karma points by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Only if he's a lawyer.

    In the same vein, all engineers are nerds who can't get a date. All designers are homosexuals. All male programmers are socially inept, and there are no female programmers. All doctors have a God Complex. All firefighters, of course, are heroes ;-) .

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  56. Re:the Real cost of war by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    "You know, it's a number."

    - White House spokesman Tony Snow, in response to a question about the President's reaction to 2500 troop deaths in Iraq.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  57. Old News From Last May by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This story was news this past May; is there anything new here?

    Here's an article with better details, particularly the science teams.

    Move along, nothing to see here....

  58. New to NewSpeak anyway by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1
    Apparently this is a relatively new area of research,

    Complete Bull Shit.

    The Body Electric, Robert O. Becker, copyrighted 1985.

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  59. DARPA - Advanced Prosthesis by Smitty+McSmith · · Score: 1

    DARPA currently has a program called "Revolutionizing Prosthetics" http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/biosci/revprost.ht m which is intended to create a brain machine interface to a prosthetic limb controllable on 23 different axes simultaneously with both efferent and afferent information to and from the limb to the brain (tactile sensation) all by 2010.

    --
    Dont fuck with it unless you can fix it
  60. hundreds? try tens of thousands. by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    i'm so tired of everyone casting a good light on GWB and his stupid, idiotic war to raise profits for the oil companies and destabilize the globe, bringing even greater profits for arms dealers. a lot more people are getting messed up in this iraq conflict, so we need to be vigilant and make sure we recognize that a lot more people than ever before are coming back wounded and traumatized for life all for a big freakin' WMD lie.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  61. Didnt the French already do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard somewhere that frogs can regenerate limbs.

  62. Prosthetics ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Prosthetics are getting better all the time, but they will never be as good as the limbs we were born with.

    This is an arbitrary affirmation. The cyberpunk geek in me firmly disagrees.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  63. Stem cells by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Maybe, only maybe... this could be a good use for stem cell research ? And public funding ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  64. Politicians Heads by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    Nice idea. Although the main problem is the politicians that send soldiers to pointless wars in the first place. Once the research is complete, I would suggest we just chop off the heads of the current government. The heads that regrow may make better decisions.

  65. My wife would love this! by Builder · · Score: 1

    My wife had a boating accident and lost a large portion of her right thumb. As she is right handed, this is even more of an issue.

    About a year later she finally got her prosthetic through the NHS, and while it's functional, it's visibly unattractive. She prefers to struggle without the thumb rather than have the extension on. People seem to notice the prosthetic more than they do the abscence of her thumb.

    On a side note, she would pay very good money for someone who built a console controller with the buttons on the left and the analog stick on the right!

  66. Actually =learn= from the past by Circlotron · · Score: 1
    "How would a human mind cope with the increased memory requirements? - It would distort the psychology somewhat to have centuries or millennia of experience."
    The last World War was long enough ago that many of the people that experienced it first-hand are now dead, in particular those that were old enough to have had positions of power and authority. A new generation of leaders has grown up and probably there is some among them that thinks a world war could be won, not having seen a real one. If people actually lived a thousand years perhaps it would reduce the frequency of world wars to a comparable figure. Pffft. Nah...
  67. Norbert Weiner by nicestepauthor · · Score: 1

    When I was in High School I remember being deeply impressed by something Norbert Weiner (originator of the term "Cybernetics") said, which was more or less that for the cost of another Manhattan Project we could give soldiers who had lost limbs in war better arms and legs than they were born with. Bernard Wolfe Took this idea and ran with it in the novel "Limbo", which is probably out of print but a great read if you can find it. Sounds like this is an idea that we've pretty much given up on.

  68. Re:One shambling step closer... by cno3 · · Score: 1

    Zombie army? Forget that. The politicians are all hankering for zombie voters.

  69. Depends on the limb and who you ask by Dareth · · Score: 1

    "want part of their body replaced with robotics if they could have the option of a new, real limb."

    In some cases, if you ask the significant other, they like the robotic replacement better than the original one... but only for injuries lower than the waist, but higher than the thigh, on the front.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  70. I hope they aren't using stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... cuz we don't want to save our injured solidiers, who fought for our freedom, with dead babies!

  71. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An independent study has concluded that another method has an even greater and proactive effect:

    Peace.