Slashdot Mirror
Professor Rejects Camera Implanted In His Head
Stenchwarrior writes "A New York University professor temporarily removed the camera he had surgically installed in the back of his head to get rid of one of the apparatus' parts after his body rejected it, myFOXny.com reported Wednesday. Photography professor Wafaa Bilal was in near constant pain after part of a thumb-nail-size camera, implanted in December as part of an art project commissioned by a new museum in Qatar, was rejected by his body."
Did it never occur to him to just strap a camera to his head? Or just wear a hat with a camera on. Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.
This is right up there with locking yourself in a cage for month - a totally meaningless, useless trick meant only to get attention.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
His body rejects the camera that the professor had implanted. You know, they're totally not one and the same, the professor and his body. How dare you disobey your master, body? Perhaps the news should read "Professor apparently dumber than his pierced students, mutilates body for art project, suffers as expected."
...I guess he didn't see that coming.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.
No matter how much web2.0, augmented reality, buzz, money, etc ... we're only human http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlQ6Ka4yg_8
While many may say "this is just a stunt" or whatever, regardless if it is or not it was interesting none-the-less. There have been many instances of technology being implanted into people lately, especially in and around the head. While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner. This sort of trial and error with the implanting of hardware on the human body is necessary for us to get an idea of what the human body will accept and reject, and what procedures of implantation can help reduce the chances of rejection.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Man goes to a doctor and says, "Doctor, I hurts when I do this!"
Doctor says, "Well, don't do that."
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The one where Stimpy's brain falls out.
Idiot, he thought he could keep that sh*t this long inside his body without rejection.....funny man!
Not everyone likes your artwork. Including your own body.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!
Is hanging on clips really implanted. I think implanted would be unremovable like an eye. I sounds like he can just detatch it. At any rate it dosn't send signals directly in to his brain or anything like that. If I were doing this project I would forgo the whole implantation mumbojumbo and just put it on a strap. Also it would have a heads up diaplay and wireless uplink. Maybe throw in some haptics for good measure.
Perhaps he had a screw loose that caused the infection.
You, sir, owe me a new keyboard... because mind spat the hot coffee back on me. Please send new keyboard to the burn ward, or my lawyer's office.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
I may not have eyes in the back of my head BUT I HAVE A CAMERA! LOL. But the fact that this was rejected by the body does not bode well for some future tech implementations, im hoping that the material was just faulty. Cause I would hate to think that if we created a bionic leg or arm that it would be rejected by the body.
I'm a bit surprised that he ran into trouble, my understanding was that titanium/bone interfacing, while still a bit more brutal than would be ideal, was a more or less solved problem. All sorts of rods, plates, screws, and whatnot get used routinely to patch together assorted horrors of skeletal misfortune, and remain implanted for the life of the patient.
Perhaps it was an issue with having the implant protruding through the skin, or carrying a load that probably got bumped and jostled from time to time?
I strongly believe this is going to be a future social revolution along the same lines of the Internet and Social Media.
The point at which we have all got our mobile phone/camera embedded in our body with the ability to record at at thought will be a revolution in personal security. It will no longer be possible to commit crime against the person without serious risk of being identified.
This may come as a wearable device or it may come as an implanted device. Hell, as we're blue sky thinking it may simply interface to the retina, but I think it's the next logical step in convergent devices - converge with the user. This is a step towards that.
Implants are OK, for both bones and pace makers.
But anything that protrudes through the skin is asking for trouble: it's tough to get a seal even with natural substances, let alone anything artificial. Note that in a healthy human, the skin is one continuous sheet, covering your insides and outsides, with no holes anywhere.
The only animals I can think of that have stuff sticking through their skin are animals with antlers or horns. People are trying to figure out how to replicate that. But the point of antlers/horns is that they are risky to the animal, so even they may not have solved the problem completely.
It's actually not very surprising at all. If you look at, say, tooth implants, they require a dental hygiene taken to OCD extremes and have a MTBF of just a few years. Then an infection happens. Anything that goes through the skin can do just that.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The only time the body rejects anything, is when donor tissue is of a different immunologic background - thus the need for immune supression drugs after organ transplants.
Metal and plastic items don't typically mount an immune response, but rather either become infected, or becomes encased in scar tissue which might bother some local nerves.
Seeing that this camera was mounted with part of it outside his body, I'd say that it became infected, which tends to hurt a lot.
I'm curious if the surgeon that assisted with this "art project" is still licensed to practice medicine. I'm no MD, but if I were on an ethics board reviewing his malpractice insurance application or continued employment at my hospital, it would be a tough sell to justify to me attaching an experimental camera to a normally-sighted man's skull for the entertainment value.
It may be a stupid idea, but presumably the patient gave his informed consent. Much cosmetic surgery isn't medically necessary either.
Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!
That's easy, surgically implant the display and keys on the opposite side of the devices, then they will be protected from splashes.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Everything isn't art.. If i took a sh*t on the sidewalk of some major city street because it was different, socially odd and not logical could I call that pile of poo art?
N
Sure, why not? Take whatever you like, call it art. There aren't any strict rules about what you can call "art". So go ahead, create a body of work, write an elaborate load of bullshit to accompany it ("artist's statement") and see if you have any success showing and selling it, if that's what you want.
Will it be well-received? Who knows? Maybe people will see the work in the spirit in which you apparently intend it - a harsh criticism of the art world in general. "I can do this and it's art and you'll love me for it and buy it - that's what's wrong with art." Some may buy it because they feel the art world richly deserves that kind of treatment. Some may enjoy the fact that you're pissing people off, and support the work so they can piss people off, too. Some may think your work is popular, or that it could one day be valuable, and buy it because of that. You can game the system that you don't respect. Some people have been rather successful at this.
And some may just say, "Oh, this again," point to a dozen artists who did the same thing, devise rationalizations for why their version was better than yours, etc. In reality it's possible the novelty of the idea has just worn off.
The point is, "art" doesn't imply "good art" or "worthwhile art" or "interesting art" or "popular art". Really, all those subsets of "art" are largely independent of one another. You can create whatever you want and call it "art". You may find this personally rewarding or you may hope to profit from it... The term "art" doesn't actually convey any special status.
Bow-ties are cool.
"Professor's Head Differentiates Itself from London Citizenry"
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
You must not have read the article. It was done by a body piercing shop because all local doctors had refused to implant it.
Whoops! This all important tidbit is not in the linked article, I was confusing it with the article I just read on BBC on the same subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12429353
This is what could possibly go wrong.
I'm just saying ...
http://xkcd.com/644/
That’s rejection for you
[This space is NotForRent]