Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Reverse Engineer Animal Brains To Create Bionic Prosthetic Eyes

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the we-can-rebuild-him dept.

Medicine 96

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)."

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Science and Art (1)

wermske (1781984) | about 2 years ago | (#40999915)

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.

Re:Science and Art (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41000297)

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.

Re:Science and Art (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000621)

They should try this on Democrats to find out why they are so stupid.

Re:Science and Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000909)

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.

Re:Science and Art (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#41000851)

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.

Re:Science and Art (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41000981)

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?

Re:Science and Art (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 2 years ago | (#41003411)

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.

Re:Science and Art (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41000855)

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.

Re:Science and Art (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#41001443)

> 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)

Re:Science and Art (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41011189)

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)..

Re:Science and Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41007059)

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.

Re:Science and Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41008515)

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.

Re:Science and Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41026671)

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 [wikipedia.org] . I'm sure haven't thought about that old book for decades. Thanks for a brief resurrection of a pleasant childhood memory.

- T

Downside (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41008551)

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.

VISOR (1)

Halo1 (136547) | about 2 years ago | (#40999967)

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

Re:VISOR (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41000011)

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..

Re:VISOR (4, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about 2 years ago | (#41000067)

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

Re:VISOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000187)

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.

Re:VISOR (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41000385)

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.

Re:VISOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41002343)

X-Men's Cyclops LOL

Re:VISOR (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 2 years ago | (#41000607)

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.

Re:VISOR (1)

Fengpost (907072) | about 2 years ago | (#41007557)

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

I love you Taco! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000009)

I reverse engineered Rob Malda's penis to create the toothpick.

Re:I love you Taco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41001707)

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

Take Note (3, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41000017)

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

Re:Take Note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000099)

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 ...

Re:Take Note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000209)

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?

Re:Take Note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000277)

Women know what Borgs are?

My wife does (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 2 years ago | (#41000407)

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!

Re:My wife does (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 2 years ago | (#41000657)

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).

Don't worry (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 2 years ago | (#41014043)

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

Re:Take Note (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | about 2 years ago | (#41000219)

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

Re:Take Note (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | about 2 years ago | (#41009367)

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

Re:Take Note (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41000213)

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.

Re:Take Note (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41000293)

Why does it scare you if you are already blind?

Re:Take Note (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#41000367)

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).

Re:Take Note (1)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | about 2 years ago | (#41008027)

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.

Re:Take Note (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 2 years ago | (#41000789)

surgery isn't scary?

No, you're exactly right! (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 2 years ago | (#41000587)

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. [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:No, you're exactly right! (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41001085)

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.

Re:No, you're exactly right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41007531)

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

Re:No, you're exactly right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41002131)

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.

Re:No, you're exactly right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41047237)

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.

Joe Biden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000043)

Hey all you Obama supporters. Joe Biden, the stupidest VP to ever hold office came up with this today. The gift that just keeps on giving.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-folks-wheres-it-written-we-cant-lead-world-20th-century_650017.html

"Biden: 'Folks, Where's it Written We Cannot Lead the World in the 20th Century in Making Automobiles?'"

Aren't you proud of your statist heroes? Keep voting democrat people, the'yll keep sending you food stamps for government cheese.

Re:Joe Biden (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41000243)

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.

Re:Joe Biden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000453)

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

You know damn well if this was GWB the media would be running page one stories about this for weeks and it would be all we hear about. But Obama - 57 states... crickets, CORPSE man, crickets, Gaff-a-minute Biden, crickets.

Screw you drone, wipe the dribble off of your chin.

Re:Joe Biden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000593)

You're an imbecile for playing left-right politics. Politicians are humans and make mistakes (GWB included). GWB, Obama, Biden, and other politicians are idiots for completely different reasons. Relevant reasons.

Re:Joe Biden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000779)

No, you do not get to ignore this by calling me an imbecile, we all know how GWB was treated by the media and Obama and Biden are just to get a pass on all this? No. This is a double standard and either you agree with it or you reject it completely. What is it to be drone?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Re:Joe Biden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000955)

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

Re:Joe Biden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41002003)

We know that GWB was coddled by the media. After 9/11 everyone started editing his word-salad into English to hide the brain damage from all the booze and coke.

Re:Joe Biden (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about 2 years ago | (#41000665)

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.

Ok... (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41000069)

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

*crosses arms and taps foot*

--
BMO

Re:Ok... (3, Informative)

mikael (484) | about 2 years ago | (#41000189)

Re:Ok... (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41000231)

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

Re:Ok... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41000463)

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

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000511)

I think you meant to say [citation needed].

Re:Ok... (3, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41000899)

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.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000953)

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).

Re:Ok... (1)

h4x0t (1245872) | about 2 years ago | (#41000539)

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

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

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41002117)

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

Re:Ok... (1)

c (8461) | about 2 years ago | (#41000337)

> 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.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000355)

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.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41001265)

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.”

Re:Ok... (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41000395)

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?

Re:Ok... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41000767)

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.

. . .and like a scurvy politician. . . (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41000073)

. . .seem to see things thou dost not.

Having seen the talk (3, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#41000091)

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.

Re:Having seen the talk (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41001541)

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!

Never happen (2)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#41000251)

Obligitory XKCD [xkcd.com]

Finally I may get my eyesight back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000305)

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 ;-).

Re:Finally I may get my eyesight back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000659)

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.

Re:Finally I may get my eyesight back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41002085)

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

sound: na naa naaa naaa na na na na naaan naaaa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000351)

make that six million dollar man sound everyone

Judge Dredd replacement eyes! (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41000387)

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.

Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41000439)

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

Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! (2)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41000969)

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.

Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41001051)

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

Re:Judge Dredd replacement eyes! (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 2 years ago | (#41001285)

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...

paranoia (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41000531)

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

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

Re:paranoia (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#41002261)

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.

Advancement without damaing life would be better.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000533)

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.

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (4, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 2 years ago | (#41000755)

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!

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (3, Funny)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41001245)

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

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (2)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | about 2 years ago | (#41001753)

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

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41001943)

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.

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (1)

glebovitz (202712) | about 2 years ago | (#41001505)

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

Re:Advancement without damaing life would be bette (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#41002277)

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.

Implant eyes.... (1)

VAXcat (674775) | about 2 years ago | (#41000547)

"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."

Obligatory Blade Runner quote (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about 2 years ago | (#41000573)

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

Hope they didnt use ape brains. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000639)

If they did all the user would be able to see is malt liquor, crack, fried chicken and watermelon.

Awesome story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41000709)

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

WiFi Eyes (2)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41000723)

Now you can see what I mean!

Slashdot sociopaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41001161)

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?

Re:Slashdot sociopaths (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004521)

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.

BRAINS!!! (1)

Xiver (13712) | about 2 years ago | (#41002373)

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!!!".

Reverse Engineering violates the TOS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004165)

Lawyers will be contacting you before too long.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>