Thursday, July 30, 2020

Xenobots: The first ever ‘living’ robots

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Charvi Trivedi

Article Title

Xenobots: The first ever ‘living’ robots

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 30, 2020

URL

A xenobot in simulation and reality

A xenobot in simulation and reality | Source: Sam Kriegman via Computer-Designed Organisms

Creating robots using artificial intelligence has become quite normal in this century. But a robot built with an amalgamation of artificial intelligence and biology is quite enthralling. Researchers from University of Vermont and Tufts University collaborated to conceive a living robot called ‘Xenobot’.

This astounding, millimeter-wide chunk of technology is considered to be ‘living’ as it is created by stem cells from the embryo of Xenopus laevis, an African frog species. These stem cells were selected in such a way that they grew out to be heart and skin cells.

Prior to this, computer scientists at the University of Vermont ran an evolutionary algorithm, which imitates natural selection, on their supercomputer, which yielded the most suitable structures of the robot. After selecting the best designs, biologists at the Tufts University moulded the skin and heart cells into the forms which closely resembled the outputs of the algorithm, through microsurgery.

The resulting biological bodies looked like tiny aliens. "They're neither a traditional robot nor a known species of animal. It's a new class of artifact: a living, programmable organism" said Joshua Bongard, a computer scientist and robotics expert at the University of Vermont, who was involved in the research. Detailed results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) research paper on January 13, 2020.

Newly created xenobots were found to swim in any liquid medium for at least 10 days (or more if put in a nutrient-rich environment) without being fed with any nourishment, since the cells have a reserve of embryonic energy.

Another incredible facet of this technology is that it can revamp any of its parts efficiently upon damage. While technological pieces made out of plastic and metal might cause a lot of pollution after they are disposed of, xenobots are completely biodegradable, causing no harm to the environment. "These xenobots are fully biodegradable, when they're done with their job after seven days, they're just dead skin cells" said Bongard.

One might wonder how these miniscule cell blotches are helpful to us. Well, Xenobots may be very small in size but they can achieve feats which almost no huge, metal-made robot can.

These living robots will be useful in certain fields like medicine wherein they could be utilized to clear plague from our arteries. They can also be modelled with pouches which enables them to carry certain substances. This property can be used for delivering drugs in specific parts of our bodies. Xenobots can also be a boon in the field of cancer biology as they can help reprogramming tumors into normal cells.

Additionally, these tiny biological bodies can be oceans’ best friends. With contaminants like radioactive chemicals, plastics and microplastics creating havoc in the marine world, an immediate need to clean up our water bodies arises. Many xenobots were observed to be moving in circles (an attribute of the beating heart cells), which resembled a ‘clean-up’ motion. Hence, these tiny robots can be a perfect tool to eradicate microplastics from the oceans as well as eliminating nuclear wastes.

Although this technology may be promising, certain ethical questions arise with every technological development, especially those involving biological manipulations. If programmed in a certain way, xenobots can also take over natural biological functions (maybe nerve cells to hamper brain function) and this can be used for nasty purposes.

Michael Levin who directs the Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts said, “That fear is not unreasonable. When we start to mess around with complex systems that we don't understand, we're going to get unintended consequences”. Levin and Bongard are extensively working towards understanding how complex systems work. "There's all of this innate creativity in life. We want to understand that more deeply—and how we can direct and push it toward new forms" said UVM's Josh Bongard.

Like any new disruptive technological innovation, the Xenobots also have the potential to prove boon or bane for the humankind. Let's hope it turns out more boon than bane.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More