Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Reverse Engineer Animal Brains To Create Bionic Prosthetic Eyes

MrSeb writes "Utilizing neuroscience, gene therapy, and optogenetics, a pair of researchers from Cornell University have created a bionic prosthetic eye that can restore almost-normal vision to animals blinded by destroyed retinas. Prosthetic eyes have been created before, but for the most part these have been dumb prosthetics — chips that wire themselves into the ganglion cells behind the retina, which are the interface between the retina and optic nerve. These chips receive optical stimuli (via a CMOS sensor, for example), which they transmit as electrical signals to the ganglion cells. These prosthetic eyes can produce a low-resolution grayscale field that the brain can then interpret — which is probably better than being completely blind — but they don't actually restore sight. The Cornell prosthetic eye however, developed by Sheila Nirenberg and Chethan Pandarinath, is a much closer analog to a real eye, almost completely restoring sight in mice — and within 1 or 2 years, humans (PDF)."

96 comments

  1. Science and Art by wermske · · Score: 1

    Art and science constantly seem to follow and build upon the advances of each other. Great ideas... the results of imagineering or "the big, fantastic think," seem to emerge in one to support or catalyze forward motion in the other.

    While I'm not eager to incorporate bioengineering into my person, I also am not a position where my quality of life would be marginally improved by such. I'm confident that my perspective is colored by my current capabilities and would necessarily change if my capabilities were different. This is the stuff of science fiction... and science.

    1. Re:Science and Art by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      You may not be eager, but for me, I am just sad that this '2 years for humans' probably means more like 10-15 for use on the large/public scale. I could really use this.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Science and Art by jxander · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more to bioengineering than putting eyes in mice.

      The first wave of these advancements will be to help those lacking sight or hearing, possibly limb replacement, and bringing them up to human standard ... but after that, the sky is the limit. We could go the Lee Majors route and upgrade to long-range telescopic eyes, and immensely powerful arms/legs. Or how about engineering a better lung, that we might either hold our breath underwater for hours at a time, or so that we can better filter the air we breathe (HEPA-lungs). Imagine augmenting your own memory with a few gigs of flash memory (or whatever we have by then) You'd never forget another Birthday, Anniversary, Phone number, etc.

      Of course, these are a long way off ... but to write off bioengineering because you are healthy seems rather short sighted.

      --
      This signature is false.
    3. Re:Science and Art by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I'm not eager to incorporate bioengineering into my person, I also am not a position where my quality of life would be marginally improved by such.

      The last half of that sentence is insightful. Would I get invasive eye surgery to get an internet-enabled HUD? Hell no. But I was severely nearsighted all my life, legally blind without my glassses. After my CrystaLens implant (an artificial lens implanted in the eye that focuses naturally, like a young person's eyes) I no longer need corrective lenses, not even reading glasses, and I turned 60 this year.

      If your retina was deteriorated to the point that you were blind, you would indeed be assimilated, just like I was. This is excellent news for a woman I know who used to tend bar at Felbers. Her diabetes and resultant retinal degeneration finally made her unable to work, even as a bartender. This would help her immensely.

      However, I didn't read TFA but I did read about this a day or two ago, and the summary is a lot more optomistic than the FA I read. Of course, it may be the one Google News served up was a stinker and the one linked here is a good one... that happens, sometimes.

      This is the stuff of science fiction... and science.

      At my age, stuff you have been familiar with all your life is science fiction to me. Cell phones, flat screen computers, space shuttles, manned space stations, robots on Mars, space telescopes, even my implant were all science fiction when Star Trek came out. Now, McCoy would be jealous of a modern hospital, Star Trek IV notwithstanding; I mean McCoy on TV, not the movies that came two decades later. And even then, in Star Trek II McCoy gave Kirk reading glasses, when he could have simply transported Kirk's lenses out of his eyes and implanted (via the transporter of course) a pair of CrystaLens. My implant was beyond science fiction in 1982, but approved by the FDA in 2003.

      You young people are going to be amazed at the technology that will be here when you're my age. You will see the impossible happen. You will see stuff that costs millions of dollars today for a couple hundred, and better -- when I was 12 I saw my first computer, a huge building sized thing. Nobody ever imagined that there would be notebook computers far more powerful than anything that existed then in most people's homes and cost a few hundred bucks. Not in a million years did I ever think I'd not only not need glasses, but have better than 20/20 vision.

    4. Re:Science and Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the grab Republicans and Libertarians and find out why they are also so stupid, seems good to me.

      We should be fair, they all deserve to live a less stupid life.

    5. Re:Science and Art by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more to bioengineering than putting eyes in mice.

      The first wave of these advancements will be [...] bringing them up to human standard

      Woah, woah, hold on there buddy. Are you trying to get Earth demolished to make room for a hyperspace bypass?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:Science and Art by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Would I get invasive eye surgery to get an internet-enabled HUD? Hell no. But I was severely
      > nearsighted all my life, legally blind without my glassses. After my CrystaLens implant (an artificial
      > lens implanted in the eye that focuses naturally, like a young person's eyes) I no longer need
      > corrective lenses, not even reading glasses, and I turned 60 this year.

      With the caveat that others had already done it and the surgery had a very high success rate (or at least a very low "oops you are blind (or dead...it is surgery) now" rate....I might have an internet enabled HUD installed....

      That said... my mother is about your age and sadly wasn't so lucky. Her vision was never really that correctable (I believe she was 20-50 corrected in the "good eye")... then suffered retinal detachements. Eventually they injected silicone into her "bad eye" to keep the retina together, on the idea that the other one might go, and if it does, they can restore that one as sort of "warm spare".

      Of course, from dissuse (she could only see light or dark blobs from it), it atrophied and she eventually decided to have it removed for mostly cosmetic reasons.... which almost made me cry when I saw some of the more recent developments that may have been able to reuse the old nerves...and so shortly after she had them take her other eye out.

      This is great to see, even for someone who lucked out and got his father's near perfect vision...my eye doctor handed me a prescription last I saw him saying "you don't really need them, its just that this instrument is really so sensitive" (he has one of those machines that images your eyes)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Science and Art by slick7 · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more to bioengineering than putting eyes in mice.

      Why would you want to put eyes in mice? There's already an "i" in mice.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    8. Re:Science and Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to say that I'm really happy for you.

      It puts me to ease to read that humanity has actually created an honest-to-goodness actually GOOD thing and that its being put to use.

    9. Re:Science and Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, I'm almost as old as you, and I've got a different take.

      When I was a kid, one of my favorite picture books was about a moon trip. It described how "you will go to the moon!" I wish I knew the name of it, but it is lost to time. When I was in elementary school, an astronaut visited our school. We asked, will regular people go to space in our lifetime? He said almost certainly. When I was a teenager, O'Neill cylinders were right around the corner. A common theme in science fiction was that self-aware computers were just a function of size, and that they'd be our friends.

    10. Re:Science and Art by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear about your mom. I had to have surgery for a detached retina as well, but I got lucky there, too. I wound up with slightly better vision after my vitrectomy simply because all the floaters were gone.

      I haven't heard of the silicone thing before, what they did for my detachment was to replace the vitrious with nitrogen gas, and I had to keep my head down for a week and a half afterward until the nitrogen was replaced naturally with new fluid.

      Neither surgery was exactly fun, although neither was painful (the vitrectomy was painful, but it was from the arthritis in my neck aching because my head was bolted to the table)..

    11. Re:Science and Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, one of my favorite picture books was about a moon trip. It described how "you will go to the moon!" I wish I knew the name of it, but it is lost to time.

      Assuming it's the same book I read as a kid, then it seems you do recall the title. I'm sure haven't thought about that old book for decades. Thanks for a brief resurrection of a pleasant childhood memory.

      - T

  2. VISOR by Halo1 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't we have to invent the VISOR before we start creating prosthetic eyes?

    --
    Donate free food here
    1. Re:VISOR by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I don't see why we should. I think they made it apparent in Star Trek that Giordi had a peculiar condition that made the fictional conventional cures for blindness impossible/unappealing..

    2. Re:VISOR by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I think they said he had "Optical PlotDeviceocis".

    3. Re:VISOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the area of his brain responsible for sight had problems. Synthetic eyes won't be able to help people like that. Well, not sure if a VISOR would, either.

    4. Re:VISOR by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      I don't see why we should. I think they made it apparent in Star Trek that Giordi had a peculiar condition that made the fictional conventional cures for blindness impossible/unappealing..

      Yeah, reversing the polarity of his eyes was probably an unappealing option.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:VISOR by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      RTFA - or just skim the pretty picture at the bottom. The initial implementation will be a "visor" (ok glasses, but I'm sure the newly sighted cosplayers will go nuts) that holds the camera equipment and beams the info to the back of the eye (which has been genetically altered to receive the information).

      But I think the VISOR went directly into the brain, not the eyeballs.

    6. Re:VISOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X-Men's Cyclops LOL

    7. Re:VISOR by Fengpost · · Score: 1

      Another Star Trek technology come true. Now, when do we get the FTL warp drive!

      --
      The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
  3. Take Note by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would like mine with a HUD, infrared/night vision, and 50x zoom.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combined with Google Goggles functionality, so I get built-in facial recognition, pop-ups with relationship status, lie detection and stress measurements of any subject I am looking at ...

    2. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? So you'd know that single women were telling the truth when they call you a fat Borg wannabe and scream at you to leave them alone?

    3. Re:Take Note by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I would like mine with a HUD, infrared/night vision, and 50x zoom.

      On the other hand .. I am blind in one eye due to a retinal problem. I'd be happy just to have normal vision again in that eye. And I bet so would every other person who has some sort of blindness. So I was excited to see this.
       
      On the other hand the very idea of retinal surgery always scares the hell out of me.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Take Note by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

      You guys are small game. I want mine to fire lasers everytime I glare at someone.

    5. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women know what Borgs are?

    6. Re:Take Note by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Why does it scare you if you are already blind?

    7. Re:Take Note by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Why does it scare you if you are already blind?

      The image in my mind that in order to perform the surgery they have to pull my eyeball out of my head.
       
        Plus I am not 100% blind in that eye .. just the critical central vision. So if things go wrong I could lose the rest of my vision in that eye. Its thoughts like this that dissuade me from using contact lenses as there is a small chance that you can get an infection in your eye from them that could cause more vision loss (yes I know its small but it it still exists).

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re:Take Note by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      surgery isn't scary?

    9. Re:Take Note by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      I also have lost central vision in one eye, though my good eye is headed that way as well. In any case, the procedure for this technology is just gene therapy. It does involve sticking a needle into your eye, so I'm not thrilled about having it done, but there's no knife involved. You have at least three kinds of very important cells in your retina. Rods and cones are the ones most people know about, but ganglion cells in your retina are required to pass signals from rods and cones to your optic nerve. There's a very cool gene therapy under development that turns those ganglion cells into photo receptors, similar to rods. So, after one shot in your eye, you're ready for the visor.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    10. Re:Take Note by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      You'd have to be a shark to get those...

  4. Ok... by bmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now tell me how we could have simulated this and tested it in a computer model, PETA guys.

    *crosses arms and taps foot*

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Ok... by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Ok... by bmo · · Score: 1

      Nope, not good enough.

      It's one thing to simulate a brain in a box with a large enough neural network. It's entirely something different to simulate all the biochemical reactions and physiology *and* be able to hook up your bionic eyeball to it and test it in real world (for as much a lab is real world) conditions.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Ok... by c · · Score: 1

      > Now tell me how we could have simulated this and tested it in a computer model, PETA guys.

      Uh... you do realize that animal rights extremists don't give a shit about people (except, probably, themselves). Their preferred scenario is the extinction of the human race and all animals returning to the idylic pre-human environment documented by Disney's Lion King.

      So PETA would prefer that people go/stay blind than have their eyes fixed via animal research.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on I'm sure the fine folks at PETA are moer than willing to test out drugs that have worked out well in simulated tests. I mean look at the Morpheus rocket, the simulations ran perfectly. Obviously we should strap some astronauts in and shoot them off to the moon on one right now.

    5. Re:Ok... by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Now tell me how we could have simulated this and tested it in a computer model, PETA guys.

      I'm not PETA but why wouldn't we be using humans for these experiment? Ohh to grotesque? Too inhumane?

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    6. Re:Ok... by Desler · · Score: 1

      And your evidence that it couldn't be done is what exactly? Just because you say so is not evidence.

    7. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say [citation needed].

    8. Re:Ok... by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Well BMO, if we did all that, then we should still feel bad for cutting into it.

      Pain, love, virtue... all brain chemistry.

    9. Re:Ok... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'm not PETA but why wouldn't we be using humans for these experiment? Ohh to grotesque? Too inhumane?

      Humans have legal rights and can sue when experimented on, even when they sign on the dotted line.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    10. Re:Ok... by Jeng · · Score: 3, Informative

      And your evidence that it couldn't be done is what exactly? Just because you say so is not evidence.

      If you are disputing what he said then you have to prove it can be done to say he is wrong.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    11. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that in the current way medical research works you need vivisection. Some animal rights activists claim that the same results can be achieved without vivisection, but don't accept that they have the burden of proof on their claims (most likely because most of them have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about medical research).

    12. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      92% of drugs which pass animal tests FAIL in human experiments. What do you say about that?

      Another idiot who hasn't bothered to research any of this, and just goes along with the 'party line', thinking it will let you off the hook.

      Here you are, Einstein - or any of the other Slashdot vivisection supporters - you can earn £250,000:

      http://www.vernoncoleman.com/challenge3.htm

      "I challenge vivisectors to produce one patient (just one) whose life they can prove has been saved as a direct result of animal experiments - and whom they can prove would now be dead if it had not been for animal experiments."

      Nobody's taken him up on it yet- those vivisectionists sure must be paid a lot (and they are), if £250,000 is chump change.

      LOL at the sociopaths on here making out that PETA are 'bad'. And you're 'good', I suppose, for supporting the torture and murder of hundreds of millions of animals every year, in fraudulent, fruitless 'research'.

      "Most laboratory cancer studies cannot be replicated, study shows"
      http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2555

      "Most laboratory studies of cancer are wrong, says a former head of global cancer research at the biotechnology company Amgen. Of 53 “landmark” publications in the literature that Glenn Begley and colleagues attempted to double check, only six could be successfully replicated.

      “It was shocking,” he told Reuters. “These are the studies that the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you’re going to place a $1m or $2m or $5m bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced that you can’t take anything at face value.”

    13. Re:Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you make that simulation without knowing what cat, mouse, and rat brains look like?

  5. . . .and like a scurvy politician. . . by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    . . .seem to see things thou dost not.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  6. Having seen the talk by maroberts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My jaw dropped in amazement. The fact the technique is extensible to other sensory and brain malfunctions seems to be just icing on the cake.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Having seen the talk by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      My jaw dropped in amazement. The fact the technique is extensible to other sensory and brain malfunctions seems to be just icing on the cake.

      Eureka, now we can actually create penis enlargement technology! It would be fully customizable and detachable! A baker could even have theirs eject delicious icing all over your cake!

  7. Re:Joe Biden by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    He slipped up a single number by a factor of one? For Joe Biden that's a very good day. And you didn't even bring up the part where he gave BJs to his Hollywood masters later in the day. You're just terrible at trolling.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Never happen by 0racle · · Score: 2
    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  9. Finally I may get my eyesight back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my case, my eye was injured in a bad car wreck 20 years ago (the entire eye orbit was shattered, the muscles were damaged, and the optic nerve was nearly severed). The eye itself is still close to 20/20 vision, but is out of alignment with the other eye, and most of the signal doesn't get through (blurry and strange vision). Now there will finally be a way for me to have stereo vision once again (I would prefer my old eye working again, but I'll take what I can get). For the first time in 20 years, I won't be embarrassed to shoot hoops, play tennis, or play volleyball ;-).

    1. Re:Finally I may get my eyesight back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny you mention that, I had a teacher in high school with a similiar condition from a car wreck where he was the sole capable survivor (other person to survive was mentally impaired after it.) They were actually planning to remove his damaged eye, but being forward thinking he kept it knowing they'd have the technology before he died. Mine you he's like probably 60 now, but he might get it back while it'd still be useful.

    2. Re:Finally I may get my eyesight back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the downside, you'll no longer be able to justify a bitchin pirate eyepatch.

  10. sound: na naa naaa naaa na na na na naaan naaaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make that six million dollar man sound everyone

  11. Judge Dredd replacement eyes! by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    I want the eyes that Judge Dredd got when his eyes got damaged.

    Ability to see from deep in the microwave to high UV.
    Micro and telescopic lens function
    Access to information (like Google's glasses)

    And I think targeting interface to his Law Giver if I'm not mistaken.

    1. Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Just curious, what does UV vision do for you? I get IR vision.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      A lot of flowers have UV markings that insects can see. He'll be able to determine which blooms have the best nectar reserves.

      In WWII, UV lights were used to signal to boats offshore - they made sure to take someone who'd had their cataracts removed along, because it's the lens that filters out the UV light. In a similar vein, bomber crews liked to carry someone with red/green colour blindness, because they could see right through common forms of camouflage.

      Who knows what UV light could show you... well, apart from bees.

    3. Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some flowers have patters visible only in UV (presumably because the insects that pollinate them can see it).

    4. Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      The other two comments give you a good reason, but the biggest reason is this: *why not* ?

      if you are building something, why artificially limit yourself, especially since in cases like this, you might not want them to go back and "upgrade" it later...

  12. My wife does by Dareth · · Score: 1

    My wife does. She also went to a Star Trek convention this year and left at home to watch our child! I think I have been assimilated!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:My wife does by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      If your second one comes....out...talking...in...short...sentences...and......has great hair.....I'd....be suspicious!

      (And/or extremely proud, depending on how much of a super fan you are).

  13. paranoia by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Can I get one right on the back of my head?

    Oh, and one on each foot, facing upwards. Just in case.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:paranoia by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      There shouldn't be any major obstacles to any of those once a video stream can be injected. We are already fully capable of transmitting video from a shoecam or back of the headcam to a receiver placed at the face.

  14. Advancement without damaing life would be better.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to be all /crymore PETA but; "vision to animals blinded by destroyed retinas." Is really a downer for me on this. When we as a race can advance our civilization without the need to purposely harm other subjugated species on this planet for our betterment as nothing more than lab medium, then I'll be impressed.

  15. Implant eyes.... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    "Blue. Tally Isham blue. The clear trademark blue they're famous for, Zeiss Ikon ringing each iris in tiny capitals, the letters suspended there like flecks of gold."

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  16. Obligatory Blade Runner quote by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!"

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  17. No, you're exactly right! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was my first thought.

    Okay. These researchers figured out the coding sequence for the retina/nerve interface. Basically they figured out TCP/IP for your eyes. And they designed an "honest" retina that mimics a regular retina.

    I'll stop there for a moment and say WOW. Nicely done, absolutely thoroughly amazing.

    But then let's up the ante and have the circuitry they are using employ infrared detection. Not too difficult to do, we've been making these kinds of devices for many decades. And the same goes for a x50 zoom. Easy peasy.

    A HUD display would be possible too. Watch the TED lecture at the bottom of the article. This lady KNOWS THE ENCODING that your eyes use! She can actually take the pulses transmitted to the brain and solve them backwards to see what you were looking at! With that kind of knowledge making something that transmits a generated image would be simple.

    This is a *gigantic* breakthrough.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:No, you're exactly right! by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      The only catch is you need to pluck out a physical eye in order to get the upgrade. No catch at all for blind people I guess, but maybe I want cyborg eyes too! Perhaps I could just get one done, like Warden Dios, that guy rocked harder than heavy metal.

    2. Re:No, you're exactly right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we've been able to deal with the encoding issue for a while. The fact that the brain is realllllllly good at pattern recognition means you have a LOT of slack in terms of what nerves you use and how you encode things - see Bach-y-Rita's sensory substitution papers, for instance. You can stick electrodes on the tongue and get the brain to treat it as visual input.

    3. Re:No, you're exactly right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I intensely hope the first company to commercialize this is called Vecna.

    4. Re:No, you're exactly right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait for someone to figure out how to remotely listen in to what is transmitted from your eye to your brain and and then figure out how to transmit their own signal to override what you're seeing with what they want you to see. Group blindness induced by policing agencies, forced advertisements when entering shopping centers, customized delivery of personalized optical content anywhere in your home.

  18. Re:Joe Biden by localman57 · · Score: 1

    Ohhh excuses excuses excuses, you leftists and your lying double standards make me want to throw up.

    I'm sorry you feel that way about us. Here, you can borrow my "NPR Donor" tote-bag to catch the vomit. Then just wash it with an environmentally friendly phosphate free soap, and return it to me when you can.

  19. Awesome story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every story on slashdot should being with "Utilizing science, ...."

  20. WiFi Eyes by na1led · · Score: 2

    Now you can see what I mean!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  21. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are you talking about? She was given three rescued and sightless mice to work with, who's tails had been cruelly shortened by their previous caretaker (the bitter spouse of a guy working at a meat processing facility). Now she was able to restore sight to them, and you should see how they run now! See how they run!

  22. Re:Joe Biden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GWB was an imbecile, much like you, and he was ridiculed for it, much like you should be.

  23. Slashdot sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not one of you can even consider the suffering of the animals in this 'research', can you. Not one of you is capable of empathy, yet no doubt consider yourselves to be really 'mature' and 'grown up'.

    "animals blinded by destroyed retinas".

    Doesn't that sound nice and 'technical'. Try being the innocent victim who is being tortured. Do you know what pain is? Ever experienced it?

    What makes you think your life is worth more than that of a mouse? Do mice torture billions of human beings to death every year? Isn't it the other way round? But human beings are the 'worthy' ones, and mice are nothing, apparently.

    IF this technology ever works in humans, it will be SOLELY because of HUMAN experiments, the first of which will FAIL. The researchers will learn from the HUMAN experiments, and gradually improve it, always reminding us that it's only "because of the animal experiments" that they could do the human experiments - which is untrue. It's true from a legal standpoint - because most people are too stupid to investigate the fraud that is vivisection, they believe that it works, and predicts human outcomes (which it does not), so they therefore think that these aren't human experiments, they're 'clinical trials', but they ARE human experiments. 92% of drugs which pass animal experiments FAIL human experiments, AKA 'clinical trials'. What does that tell you about the predictive qualities of animal experiments.

    LOL at the idiot who's going to say "What's the solution then? To experiment on humans?"

    They're ALREADY experimenting on humans! With every drug and every new medical procedure that they've already tried in animals (completely without any merit), when they test them on humans, they ARE experimenting on humans, because they don't know the result, and 92% of the drugs will FAIL. Does it need to be any clearer than that?

    1. Re:Slashdot sociopaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      92% of drugs which pass animal experiments FAIL human experiments, AKA 'clinical trials'. What does that tell you about the predictive qualities of animal experiments.

      It tells me that the animal experiments whittled down a much larger field of candidate drugs, saving us the time and human suffering that would otherwise result from 99.99...% of drugs failing human experiments.

      Your (or your anonymous, cowardly comrades') repeated reposting of this disjointed factoid also tells me that you're not especially good at logical thought.

  24. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by Jeng · · Score: 3, Funny

    The monkey used was also a rescue who has two siblings, one who cannot hear, and one who cannot make vocal noise.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  25. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by glebovitz · · Score: 1

    I think that was actually a agricultural workers wife who took retribution on the poor little blind creatures for giver her such a fright.

  26. Re:I love you Taco! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and Rob Malda's penis is still 10x bigger than your brain.

  27. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by PenquinCoder · · Score: 2

    I like your signature. How did you come up with it??

  28. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by Jeng · · Score: 1

    For a while on every story was a post by someone asking what a word in the summary was and why was that word not explained.

    In each case it would have been easier for the person to look it up rather than ask.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  29. Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    That would be impressive. It would be almost as impressive as you living without the need to purposely harm other subjugated species on this planet for you betterment.

  30. BRAINS!!! by Xiver · · Score: 1

    Zombie movies have ruined me for life. I read the headline and now all I can think about is a bunch of scientist shuffling through a lab screaming "BRAINS!!!".

    --
    10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
    20: GOTO 10
  31. Reverse Engineering violates the TOS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers will be contacting you before too long.

  32. Downside by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    At the rapidly accelerating rate of fascism in the US and elsewhere (written on the eve of the British government invading the Ecuadorian embassy), the only high tech us proles will experience will be the tools of oppression; the cool tech - bio included - will be reserved soley for the 1% power elite.

  33. Don't worry by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, I told her to watch out for Riker!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling