Slashdot Mirror
Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New Fovea
Al writes "A woman with a rare, inherited form of blindness is now able to read, thanks to a gene therapy that caused a new fovea — the part of the retina that is most densely populated with photoreceptors — to grow in her eye. The patient suffers from Leber congenital amaurosis, meaning an abnormal protein makes her photoreceptors have a severely impaired sensitivity to light. She received the experimental treatment twelve months ago when physicians injected a gene encoding a functional copy of the protein into a small part of one eye — about eight-to-nine millimeters in diameter. Along with two other patients receiving the same treatment, her eyesight improved after just a few weeks. Now the physicians report that this patient seems to have developed a new fovea, exactly where she received the injection. Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth, the results suggest that the brain is able to adapt to new visual stimuli remarkably quickly."
but when the new eyes achieve sentience and telepathically conspire to enslave humanity, don't tell me I didn't warn you against this sort of thing!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
This is very cool stuff. But in terms of adapting 'remarkably quickly' to visual stimuli after congenital blindness, I'm slightly dubious. There's been quite a bit of recent research done on this recently through Project Prakash (which is also a very cool humanitarian mission at the same time), which finds that adults who regain vision see things very differently than we do... For example that have major problems with depth, object segmentation (think two overlapping squares -- normal observers will typically say there are two squares, overlapping, while newly seeing adults will report 1 square, where the overlap occurs), full field motion etc.
an amazing achievement,
indeed but the real question is can this technology be used to make a man's penis longer, harder and lets not forget thicker. Until that day comes we will always be at war with our selves...
That's the current theory. This result may cast questions upon the current theory. Or perhaps it won't. We'd need more details to tell. But in any case if there's a conflict, experiment trumps theory.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I care quite a bit, since I study vision... and understanding the differences between a newly seeing adult and a seeing adult really help us understand a lot about brain development and theories of vision. Things like this, and Project Prakash which I've noted above have also shown that 'critical periods' in neural development, while they exist, are a lot less important in humans than say, cats (or barn owls), where most of the classic studies of critical period have been done. This leaves me optimistic that both genetic/stem cell approaches and neural prosthesis in general have a lot more promise than was thought several years ago.
The point of my comment though, was that the summary implied that she had gained essentially normal visual function, which I doubt is the case... and that while this is an amazing treatment that can probably help quite a few people, we still have a lot of work we can do to improve it -- especially on the low-tech side such as better visual displays and therapy regimens that improve final post-operative function.
Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth, the results suggest that the brain is able to adapt to new visual stimuli remarkably quickly.
We knew that already. People have been equipped with a camera and an actuator that "projects" an image through the tactile nerves on a patch of skin.... Those people similarly report being able to "see" using that hardware.
This leads me to believe that our brains are not hardwired to interpret visual information only on just the optical nerve. During the first few years, we learn what nerves are connected where. And our brains are flexible, and will be able to adapt to changes in what-connects-where.
In an experiment, a long time ago(*), a person was equipped with glasses that flipped the image in his eyes upside-down. In about two weeks he didn't notice the difference anymore. Also, learned skills, like skiing, were instantly possible with the re-wired visual hardware. Adapting to the original situation (no flipping glasses) was quicker than adapting to the flipping glasses.
(*) http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html I intended "a long time ago" to mean something like "in the 19-seventies", turns out the original experiment dates back to 1896!
It can be a slippery slope if you treat these kinds of operations as "fixing people", but I think if you treat it instead as enabling them to do something new (to them, at least), you don't run the risk of "fixing" people who don't feel that they are broken.
Dude, if something about me doesn't work, it's broken. If they make it so it does work, it's then fixed. That's what these words mean. "But I like it like that" doesn't change anything.
Now, if you were talking about "fixing people" who have non-functionally-impairing differences (skin/hair/eye colour, accent, etc.) then that would be different.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.