Monkeys have been able to control robotic arms using only their thoughts. The monkeys were able to feed themselves using a prosthetic arm that was controlled by their brain activity
Monkeys have been able to control robotic arms using only their thoughts. The monkeys were able to feed themselves using a prosthetic arm that was controlled by their brain activity.
Components as small as the width of a human hair were inserted into the cerebral cortex of the monkeys - the area where the brain controls movements. In an article published in the journal Nature, the authors said their work could eventually help restore independence to paralyzed people.
The lead researcher on the project, Dr. Andrew Schwartz from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine said: "We are beginning to understand how the brain works through the use of a technological interface between the brain and machines. "The better we understand the brain, the more we can expand our range of treatment for brain injuries, everything from Parkinson's disease, through paralysis and eventually Alzheimer's and maybe even mental illness.
After the components were inserted into the brains of the monkeys, the researchers used computer software to translate the electrical pulses of the brain into the movements of the robotic arm. The arms were joined in a manner similar to that of human arms and at the ends were grippers simulating the palms of the hands.
After training, two monkeys with their hands tied were able to feed themselves marshmallows and pieces of fruit using the robotic arm. The researchers said that the movement was smooth and natural. The monkeys were even able to use their minds to change the speed and direction of the arm and gripper, indicating that the monkeys treated the robotic arm as part of their body. However the success rate in the experiment was only 61%.
According to Schwartz, "in our research we demonstrated a high level of accuracy, skill and ability to learn". He added that the research could eventually lead to the development of a prosthetic arm for people with complete paralysis, including those with spinal cord injuries or amputees.
26 תגובות
If you have already brought up this terrible subject for further discussion, I will express my firm opinion about it:
I am with the good ones, among those who comment here, and this time with those who deny, from any and every experiment on any living creature
Whatever it is, when it comes to an invasion of his body, without the creature being able to express his nature and will. And I will detail:
A. The inability to communicate with another type of species does not mean that he is inferior to man, to man if he is
Seeing himself, as a "superior race", mercifully a clown, is assigned an acquired moral duty to learn the language of the creature in question, and not to take advantage of it by force.
B. The prevailing assumption that human life is more sacred than any other creature is fundamentally wrong and mistaken.
C. In the case presented in this article, I would suggest the "ambitious" researcher to put himself in the chair, the one in question
And to examine his own mind, but, if so, another researcher, an additional one, expresses his answer to be the subject, the researched, and this is already a matter of voluntary consideration.
D. Do not tempt and exploit any person or other innocent creature for the purpose of experiments, when they are not sharing the secrets, the purpose of the research.
The ignorance of the laws of fate: readable, the recurring boomerang in nature, from the feedback of the law returning to the offender, does not solve.. but, that its results, are seen in long, or, shorter, surrounding and larger time spans, depending on where this person is or Another., at the levels of the evolutionary pyramid.
The more developed a person is, the more obligated he is, and as the saying goes: nobility is obligatory.
And to the point, this, if the blood of a certain race flows in you, bound in its veins, from the root of its genetic birth
Even if he sees himself as a free person, or as belonging and belonging to the Universal, all the more so,
Fate sits on his back, warning him, teaching him, and testing him to the limits of himself and his flesh.
As a matter of principle, fate does not protect anyone, not even God, himself or herself.
North with the same legality..
That's it for this time, about it.
But why should this unfortunate monkey suffer even if (let's say) it will help millions of other humans? It's not his fault. The fact that it wasn't meant to hurt him or abuse him doesn't matter because that's what it actually does.
Would you cause suffering to one random, unrelated human to prevent the suffering of millions of monkeys? I do not think so. So why is it justified when it's a monkey and the help (supposedly) is for humans?
Morality is certainly not measured only by the amount of individuals who suffer, but there are many other variables in it. One of them is the "blame" of the victim. This is why, for example, the enlightened society prefers that hundreds of criminals go free than that a righteous person sits in prison. In cases of human trafficking, the victim is not at fault, he is a living creature that needs to grow up in its natural environment and not be subject to the whims of another species that acts only for its own benefit.
Nadav,
The experiments are done on the monkey not with the intention of hurting or abusing, but with the aim of rehabilitating millions of disabled people. It seems to me much more moral than your last sentence, in which you refuse to cause a monkey to suffer, but you have no problem with millions of people suffering.
This poor monkey who is chained to a chair and electrodes in the lab should run freely in the jungle and jump between the trees. It is a highly intelligent creature that is aware of exactly what is being done to it.
What moral justification do humans have for taking it from its natural environment and experimenting on it?? Just because they can?
Even if it prevents the suffering of millions of people, there can be no justification for it, certainly not morally.
At least perhaps it can be said in summary that today we are aware of the matter of preventing suffering to animals, which was not common 15 years ago or more.
The question is to what extent methods of preventing suffering are applied and how many experiments are designed in such a way that as few animals as possible are sacrificed, or that only models or tissues are used, rather than the use of animals.
A. Ben-Ner:
As I wrote, I agree with you regarding animal research, but I think that the idea that arises from section 3 of your response should be reserved. Just because something is the result of evolution does not make it moral or just. Everything must be examined individually because evolution in general justifies "every Dalim is a man" and we do not want to justify it.
1. Developed mammals feel and express emotions, including suffering.
2. The experiments must be carried out, for the benefit of man, with an awareness of the suffering of the animals and within
An attempt to reduce it to the minimum necessary, and not a bit more.
3. And one more small and not so politically correct thing:
Evolution also has a cultural side. The person who uses animals for his own benefit, in different ways
And many, whether for food or for scientific research, this is also part of evolution.
point-
It is enough to raise a dog to understand this (admittedly from our point of view - but it is always from our point of view, isn't it?) and the distance between a dog and developed monkeys is a little greater than between the monkeys and man, so all the more
point:
I know this as much as I know you are capable of suffering.
Not only are all the relevant brain mechanisms present in these animals, but also all their behavior betrays it.
It is too short to detail the multitude of findings that indicate this, but there is very convincing evidence even that they identify immoral (unfair) actions and bother to punish their perpetrator even if they have no personal gain from it. They also mourn their dead, play just for fun and much more. In my heart the feeling of pain is so clear that it is really hard to believe that anyone doubts the matter. Not only do they feel pain, but they also cry to evoke pity, which indicates that they are even aware of others' awareness of their pain (because otherwise there would be no use in crying).
Amber - "Be sure" - why?
Michael- "I have no doubt", so it's time to doubt.
Hanan:
For me too, and this despite the fact that I do not agree with the point that animals in general are not aware of suffering.
Unfortunately, I have no doubt that in many cases (although, probably, not necessarily in the case before us) they are aware of suffering just like we are. That's why I'm a vegetarian and that's why I think everything possible should be done to spare them the suffering, but "everything possible" does not include human sacrifice.
Hanan,
It is my pleasure to agree with you.
May I add a little:
1. I must point out here, that a device for operating a computer using brain waves has already existed since 1997, and was recently put into more widespread use for the use of disabled people. The existing instrumentation is worn and attached to the head and not inserted directly into the brain. In any case, this is a very important development with huge implications in the future.
2. The term "abuse" seems as if it is a deliberate abuse of animals and as if the researchers are really "looking" for these experiments. This is not so and the truth is completely different. I agree that there are experiments that can be demonstrated by other means, or waived if it is for educational purposes and nothing else, but animal experiments cannot be waived in any case.
A classic example is AIDS. Animals can carry the virus but not get sick. This is one of the factors that make drug development and research on the subject difficult.
3. I would be interested in knowing a person who would agree to give himself, his children and his family vaccines or medicines that have never been tried on a living being. In that case, I guess there won't be many of them.
Experiments on animals are a very important part of biological research, and except for cases where they can be dispensed with and replaced with other models, at this stage, these experiments cannot be dispensed with when it comes to the development of drugs or tests such as those mentioned in the article. What's more, in this case, it certainly doesn't seem to me that the monkeys were abused.
And in conclusion, every day both humans and animals are abused all over the world (except for the ones we eat). In these cases, there is no abuse for the sake of abuse and nowadays researchers are much more aware of this matter than before. Therefore, the attempt to present them as bloodthirsty monsters borders on incitement in my opinion.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Let's start small:
I am interested to know who among the opponents of animal experiments is a vegetarian.
To the point - be sure that yes, by the way, humans are also a developed animal.
To Aviv - a person who is paralyzed, sick, etc. may agree to have experiments done on humans as well if it can help him get out of it, so your argument is really irrelevant unless you also support such experiments.
ofri,
The goal never justifies the means. But when the choice is made between animal suffering and human suffering, what would you choose?
Spring:
The goal here does not justify all means.
Let the scientists try it on themselves.
His brother, even if animals are abused here, think about the fact that later the paralyzed people will be able to live more comfortably
This is animal abuse, everything else is justification.
not to worry. The monkeys do not suffer at all. The injury due to the implantation of the electrodes is zero. The monkeys will be completely normal after the experiment. I believe that they also show great interest in the research processes.
Ilan - it's not similar, it's exactly biofeedback.
Amazing, that sounds really similar to biofeedback therapy.
Regarding the abuse
Do the (developed) animals even suffer (= be aware of suffering)? I believe they are not.
oak,
You understand right, and wrong. You have to do experiments on animals to understand the workings of the body. They must not be abused.
An interview with the Israeli student who participated in the research will soon be published on the website, and his point of view on the subject will be presented.
I understand that it is necessary to abuse other animals in order to discover and understand...
I just hope that those researchers treat them with respect and love and see to it that they retire with dignity....