PDA

View Full Version : The IRL Effects of Cybernetics



Conners
2011-05-29, 10:31 AM
I looked around the web. Oddly enough, I had trouble finding anything that would tell me the effects of cybernetics on the human body. I've heard a lot about different experiments which worked, but nothing of negative effects....

Generally, when you put something alien in the human body, you can suffer from pretty stiff symptoms (sometimes cancer)--this is what I've heard from organ transplants and implanting of things such as microchips/capsules. Doesn't this apply with cybernetics, putting a chip in your brain to communicate with your mechanical arm, or connecting a mechanical arm to your nerves?

All I've heard of, is games. Shadowrun has it that you start to lose your soul when you cyber up. Others have you go crazy I think. But then, I have no idea if they did any research, or are just doing something random which sounds cool.


Any idea as to after-effects caused by cybernetics, IRL? I'm quite curious of the matter, so any info or pointing to places I could look would be appreciated.

Yora
2011-05-29, 10:36 AM
I think the only problems you could get are rejections by the immune system. But since it seems to be a quite common practice to fix skulls with metal plates and such, I don't think the use of anorganic materials poses any actual problems.
The classic cybernetic implant is a pacemaker. Maybe you could find more when looking for complications from having a pacemaker installed. (Is "installed" the correct term here?) I'd expect the very same complications from any other types of cybernetics.

jiriku
2011-05-29, 11:02 AM
Implanted devices often develop a biofilm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm), which is a permanent, non-removable "slime" of biological material that houses micro-organisms. This often leads to infections at the site of the implant, and these infections can be very difficult to treat - in some cases, bacteria housed in a biofilm are 1,000 times more resistant to antibiotics than free-floating bacteria.

If the implant contains deadly compounds such as lead, mercury, or radioactive isotopes, and is damaged during combat, theoretically these compounds could be released into and poison the body.

It is theorized that if metal parts installed inside the body were to abrade against one another, small metal fragments could be broken off, and the body's reaction to these fragments could cause pain and inflammation in a condition called metallosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallosis). However, this condition has not been proven to actually occur, and may just be a fabrication of trial lawyers looking for a way to score cash off the surgical industry.

Aux-Ash
2011-05-29, 01:33 PM
It really depends on what kind of "cybernetic" implant/attachment we're talking about.

In general there are three things to consider with adding things to the body:
Infection
Coagulation
Rejection

The first is dealt with hyper-sterile enviroments for the surgery, lots of antiobitotics and not to do anything invasive when there is no need to. You don't need to connect a prosthetic to the neural network when sensors can be calibrated to read the magnetic fields generated by neural signals. No need to even open the body there.
A limb-prostethic need not be put into the body, just onto it.

For things that needs to be put inside the body, the biggest danger is coagulation. The endothelial cells in the body expresses proteins and compounds on the surface that inhibits the activation of trombocytes (platelets), stops certain key steps in the coagulation (such as heparin) and similar. This is what prevent the blood from clotting in our very veins.
These compunds cannot be put on a implant however, because in the body these systems are regulated and are "shut down" in the case of an injury to the bloodvessel (which thus enables clotting). An implant couldn't work this way and would either have to have a permanent layer of inhibitors on the surface (which is a problem since it's 1)depletable and 2) would cause mini-ruptures in the bloodveins around it to never heal).
This means that any inorganic (plastic, metal, glass) implant will cause some level of clotting of blood on it's surface which can lead to thromboses.

A way around that is quite simply to use organic implants. Organs and stuff grown in a body. Here the biggest problem is rejection, which is to say that the immunesystem flags one or more surface structures as alien and does what it always does: attacks it.
The immunesystem can only attack proteins (and to a lesser extent fats and carbonhydrates) but is very effective at doing so. The only ways around this is to kill off significant amounts of the immune-cells or to use something which it recognices entirely as a part of the self (ie. cloned material from the patient).

That's the shortened down and simplified version. If you want me to go into more detail I'll have to ask for a more specific case.

Starshade
2011-05-29, 01:53 PM
All the old cyberpunk games I know of had some sort of way for people to go crazy,or die, or turn mad in some fashion, to counterbalance the desire to just turn into an 90% machine cyborg, kick butts in all directions with super implants. I remember Mutant Chronicles had something like that too, think the evil force the Dark Symmetry, and the Dark Legion (a set of wery bad evil powers, with zombies, cyborgs, and all sort of odd underlings), think the way to go bonkers by cyberification was connected to them somehow... Cant remember the exact rule though..

Anyway, I think these mechanisms are for gameplay reasons, to make ppl not want to turn cyborgs easily. At least in Mutant Chronicles RPG world (ooold game, been dead for 18 years now, remember a GM with a ancient book I once met... :smallfrown: ), there IS an evil force, who simply corrupts technology; and making yourself a cyborg, is inviting it.

But for real life, augumenting the feets and arms is possible (we do some extrememly primive prostetics already, though without any nerve attachment as Shadowrun tech got). I also remember some research inidicated the human mind could adapt to accept a third hand as belonging to the body, so centaur/4 hands/wing implants "could" be possible to adapt to, for the brain, possibly.. What I doubt more, is the Shadowrun's memory/brain implants, and all sort of William Gibson ish "skill software" from old cyberpunk. That stems from the old logical parametres of artificial intelligence thinking, but; our human brain is an network, simmiliar to an neural network, how would you insert skills there? :smallconfused:

tyckspoon
2011-05-29, 02:30 PM
It is theorized that if metal parts installed inside the body were to abrade against one another, small metal fragments could be broken off, and the body's reaction to these fragments could cause pain and inflammation in a condition called metallosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallosis). However, this condition has not been proven to actually occur, and may just be a fabrication of trial lawyers looking for a way to score cash off the surgical industry.

There are some makes of hip replacements that have been FDA-pulled from the market for, at the least, very strong suspicion of doing exactly this, so I'd say this is a fair one- any kind of bone replacement or alteration could be at risk of similar failures.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-29, 02:37 PM
That's very accurate and superbly summed up, Aux-Ash, but I would like you to clarify something I'm not entirely sure I agree with:


For things that needs to be put inside the body, the biggest danger is coagulation. The endothelial cells in the body expresses proteins and compounds on the surface that inhibits the activation of trombocytes (platelets), stops certain key steps in the coagulation (such as heparin) and similar. This is what prevent the blood from clotting in our very veins.
These compunds cannot be put on a implant however, because in the body these systems are regulated and are "shut down" in the case of an injury to the bloodvessel (which thus enables clotting). An implant couldn't work this way and would either have to have a permanent layer of inhibitors on the surface (which is a problem since it's 1)depletable and 2) would cause mini-ruptures in the bloodveins around it to never heal).
This means that any inorganic (plastic, metal, glass) implant will cause some level of clotting of blood on it's surface which can lead to thromboses.

As I understand it, plastics are organic materials (but not biological materials) and as such, you can make implants out of organic materials that simulate or out-perform metallic compounds (Case in point: Teflon and polyethylene, which are organic materials of which many internal prosthetics are/were made). It's not too hard to imagine a cybernetic implant made of Teflon or similar that works as though it was made of metal (in regards to electrical conductivity and the like) or that it outright has (perhaps as a 'core' of sorts) an organometallic compound to do whatever electromagnetic functions it needs to do.

On the subject of coagulation, it actually depends a lot on the location of the cybernetic implant. If it's something that does not touch any blood vessel bigger than a capillary (like a sub-dermal or intramuscular implant), it's actually not that big of a deal. And if it absolutely must interfere with lots of endothelial tissue, it's not entirely crazy to think of tissue cultivation. Take tissue samples from the patient, cultivate them and cover the implant with the resulting tissue to avoid the problems you've listed. Granted, you'd have to develop a way to prevent the cultivated tissue from going immunologically haywire from being in contact with the implant itself, but that can be solved by using two "layers" of tissue. The one in contact with the implant can be ordinary skin and the one in contact with that can be whatever tissue(s) is/are normally found where it must be implanted.

randomhero00
2011-05-29, 02:53 PM
Interesting subject. As far as I know, putting something in the body that is non-organic (such as a microchip) generally won't cause much problems, if any.

The problems come from when you use bio-implants. Because each bio-implant has its own little ecosystem in a away (simplist way to describe it) it may interfere with your bodies greater bio-ecosystem. But inanimate things such as stomach stappling or pacemakers don't usually cause any auto-immune problems.

Analytica
2011-05-29, 08:22 PM
Presumably, if you have the technology to make bio-implants, you could grow them using modified cells from the receiving individual. This should make them similar enough to the body itself to prevent rejection. With enough knowledge, it might perhaps be possible for futuristic technology to reprogram the immune defense system to recognize specific new molecules as non-foreign, but I don't know immunology well enough to say.

As for biofilm microbes - interesting. There is ongoing work to characterize the microbiomes of the human body made available in recent years through improvements in sequencing technology - conceivably, technology powerful enough to build SF-style cybernetic implants might also mean ability to control the microbe flora well enough to prevent this.

Also consider non-organic implants being coated with surface matrix materials made to mimic the host body. It would certainly not be trivial, but I believe it would be solvable.

Much more of a problem with combat - breaking any implants should have potentially disastrous results if splinters, various chemicals and so forth goes into surrounding tissues. In D&D terms, there might be risks on critical hits that you get disease-like problems, even with the assumptions I made above on technology advanced enough to build complex implants.

EDIT: Note that present-day technology to my knowledge has not attempted any truly SF-style implants in humans. There are pacemakers and the like, and that British guy who put a chip in his arms, but most prosthetics read nerve impulses non-invasively. There are experiments on monkeys with implanted electrodes, though, where they were able to control remote machinery using them. No idea on the side effects.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-29, 11:56 PM
If they are metal or similarly conducting materials, the pain Full Metal Alchemist mentions during cold weather sounds logical. Also, a replacement limb is only as strong as its attachment point. Sure, your cybernetic arm might be able to lift 10 tonnes, but not without ripping itself off your shoulder in the process. Your new legs and hip might be able to support the weight, but your spine is going to snap like a rotten twig.

Yora
2011-05-30, 04:39 AM
But for real life, augumenting the feets and arms is possible (we do some extrememly primive prostetics already, though without any nerve attachment as Shadowrun tech got).
"Extremely primitive" would be peg legs and wearing glasses. Cybernetics has come a very long way in the past 30 years. When an athlete is not allowed to compete at the olympics because his artificial legs provide him with an unfair advantage against the other runners, that is far from primitive, even though those legs prothetics probably include no nerve controlled joints.
But speaking of which, the development of real cyborg arms has advanced a lot in recent years. They are not permanently grafted to the skeleton, so they can't carry the full weight a normal arm would but I think they can control each finger autonomously.

Connecting low resolution cameras to the ocular nerves has also been done years ago. The image quality is awful, but that's just a matter of perfecting the technology.But it works.

Conners
2011-05-31, 01:23 AM
Hmm.. one question is, with methods such as wrapping the injected material with skin and flesh: Aren't there cases where you need the inserted component to interact physically with the bloodstream/organ/bone around it? Obviously, this shouldn't be the case for things which send signals, like microchips used to track prisoners.

Wondering about the super-tiny nanomite technology, in how it might work inside a human body.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-31, 02:09 AM
Hmm.. one question is, with methods such as wrapping the injected material with skin and flesh: Aren't there cases where you need the inserted component to interact physically with the bloodstream/organ/bone around it? Obviously, this shouldn't be the case for things which send signals, like microchips used to track prisoners.

Wondering about the super-tiny nanomite technology, in how it might work inside a human body.

Microchips and the like are usually placed in sub-dermal tissue or other less irrigated areas (like adipose (fat) tissue). You don't really need to get fancy if you just want a piece of equipment that does not interact with the host (such as a tracking device, or perhaps a device that gives off heat and keeps the host alive in polar environments).

As for the rest, well, you can cover the entirety of the implant on skin and flesh except for the parts that touch the body part in question. One of the things to keep in mind here is that for "boosters" (things that improve performance and enhance characteristics, such as speed, strength, endurance, alertness and the like), it's FAR better to use chemicals applied via patches or injections. You do not want a cybernetic implant that "releases chemicals into the bloodstream," since you would either need to access it from the outside to replace the chemicals after use or find a way to miniaturise a complex chemical synthesiser. Which still needs compounds to transform into the products you want to release. And making it interact with the bloodstream on a normal basis (such as saying that they take compounds from the host's blood and use them to synthesise whatever booster chemicals you want) is just begging to give you the coagulation problems described before.

If you want things that replace bones, you're in luck, because that sort of thing already exists. Just extrapolate and exaggerate from what we already have and see what current complications exist.

If you want it to interact electrically with the body, then what I said originally applies: Make it so that the entire implant is covered in skin and tissue except for the bit that delivers the electric shock. And to expound on this, there are three (roughly... this can get a bit more complicated if you delve deeper into neurology) types of tissue that a nerve can "shock" in order to "make it do something." Another nerve (this is how electric impulse travels through the nervous system), a muscle (to generate motion) or a gland (to secrete a chemical).

Usually, you want the implant to "shock" either a muscle or a gland (unless the target is hard to reach and you'd rather "shock" a nerve... though this is not advised, since it may have unforeseen effects). If you have an implant that electrically stimulates a muscle, you can use it for a variety of things, from inducing pain on the subject to making them move in very specific ways (though it would be hard to imagine a reason for this). The most use this type of implant would get, I think, is stimulating a gland.

I would need to know more about the implant in question to say what kind of side effect it could have and whether it would need to be in contact with the body or not.

Nanotechnology: This one is... rather full of speculation. There's really not much that can be said with any sort of certainty, other than what risks might occur. If the nanomites are able to be identified by the immune system as antigens, you can be sure that you will have rejection problems, perhaps with symptoms similar to anaphylactic or septic shock (though for completely different reasons).

If the nanomites are not recognised by the immune system, then depending on their actual size, they might be "captured" by scavengers on the endothelial tissue and basically have the same consequences as eating lots and lots of low-quality fatty foods (increased risk of heart illnesses and strokes, etc).

If the nanomites are not captured or impeded in any way, they might still alter the viscosity of the blood, which will lead (eventually) to having an overdeveloped heart (from the increased effort of pumping more viscous blood) and this will eventually lead to heart failure and other heart conditions.

This is assuming the nanomites are travelling via bloodstream. If they're able to travel through the body... somehow, then... well, actually, I can't imagine what might happen. Perhaps the question would be, actually, "what are the nanomites asked to do while inside the body?" since that ought to have its consequences as well.

jseah
2011-05-31, 03:51 AM
With enough knowledge, it might perhaps be possible for futuristic technology to reprogram the immune defense system to recognize specific new molecules as non-foreign, but I don't know immunology well enough to say.
Doubt that will come any time soon. Immune system learns foreign/self identification very early in the embryo.
You'll probably need to replace the entire immune system once you've reprogrammed it.

Well, not impossible. Immune system replacements have been done.

Trekkin
2011-05-31, 06:24 AM
I wonder if it'd be fruitful to coat the surface of the implant with integrins and then a cellular scaffold filled with the compounds necessary for avid cellular ingrowth, then implant it and try to get the cells to grow right up to the implant surface and form tight junctions with it to physically limit the space to something too small for a bacterium to inhabit. It might be necessary to seed the scaffold with induced pluripotent stems differentiated into granulation tissue, depending on where the implant's going.

I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill here, but it seems to me that the effects of cybernetics on the body, at least those not endemic to the intended function of the implant on the system, could be minimized until it's more a case of getting used to being able to control and feel a robot arm (let alone some entirely new cybernetic function) neurally than overcoming a chemically stunted immune system. Then again, I'm more familiar with the ideas for endogenous limb regrowth than with those for prosthetic replacement.

Incidentally, if you want a source of information on what would probably be considered low-tech implants, you might look up the various problems with surface piercings, since the basic interactions of flesh on metal should carry over.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-31, 06:36 AM
I wonder if it'd be fruitful to coat the surface of the implant with integrins and then a cellular scaffold filled with the compounds necessary for avid cellular ingrowth, then implant it and try to get the cells to grow right up to the implant surface and form tight junctions with it to physically limit the space to something too small for a bacterium to inhabit. It might be necessary to seed the scaffold with induced pluripotent stems differentiated into granulation tissue, depending on where the implant's going.

Those integrins need something to "grab onto," I doubt you can just seed them. The rest is... sort of an extremely elaborate way of achieving what I suggested with a layer of cultivated tissue from the patient. Only that in your way, you don't really have a way to control the cellular growth, other than with local application of chemicals, I suppose. And even then it's just... hrm. I'm not saying that it wouldn't work, but I think it's too complicated and risky when you have simpler means of achieving the same effect.


I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill here, but it seems to me that the effects of cybernetics on the body, at least those not endemic to the intended function of the implant on the system, could be minimized until it's more a case of getting used to being able to control and feel a robot arm (let alone some entirely new cybernetic function) neurally than overcoming a chemically stunted immune system. Then again, I'm more familiar with the ideas for endogenous limb regrowth than with those for prosthetic replacement.

Yes, but the OP is looking for consequences of cybernetic implants and has posted this topic on the Roleplay forum, so I think it's safe to assume he's looking for roleplay material. :smalltongue:

Trekkin
2011-05-31, 06:56 AM
Yes, but the OP is looking for consequences of cybernetic implants and has posted this topic on the Roleplay forum, so I think it's safe to assume he's looking for roleplay material. :smalltongue:

Yes, but he asked after the IRL effects, so I was approaching it from a speculative perspective (since as far as I know, the farthest technology's gone in implanting limbs and so forth has been to implant wires, rather than the armature itself, as I assumed was meant by cybernetics), and it's my opinion that the chemical/systemic effects of any cybernetic component advanced enough to qualify would probably be negligible relative to the adaptation the psyche would have to go through, so it might be wise to work with it from that perspective rather than trying to work through the problems with the immune system. Sorry for the poor communication skills on my part.

hamishspence
2011-05-31, 09:54 AM
Cochlear implants might be a good example.

eepop
2011-05-31, 11:15 AM
If they are metal or similarly conducting materials, the pain during cold weather sounds logical

I can verify this, my wife had a metal rod placed in her back to help with an alignment issue, and any time the weather significantly changes it bothers her.

Aux-Ash
2011-05-31, 12:47 PM
If the nanomites are able to be identified by the immune system as antigens, you can be sure that you will have rejection problems, perhaps with symptoms similar to anaphylactic or septic shock (though for completely different reasons).
Thromboses due to aggregated antibodies are far more likely than a system-wide shock. Which is just as bad really


If the nanomites are not recognised by the immune system, then depending on their actual size, they might be "captured" by scavengers on the endothelial tissue and basically have the same consequences as eating lots and lots of low-quality fatty foods (increased risk of heart illnesses and strokes, etc).
This would mean they're recogniced by the unspecific immunesystem and "gobbled up" by macrophages. That is very likely if the nanomites are not made out of a biological material (thanks for the correction earlier by the way). The macrophages would however be unable to break the nanomites down and it'd result in a phenomenon not unlike mononucleosis or tuberculosis: An aggregattion of dying macrophages surrounding the nanomites. Especially bad in the bloodstream.


If the nanomites are not captured or impeded in any way, they might still alter the viscosity of the blood, which will lead (eventually) to having an overdeveloped heart (from the increased effort of pumping more viscous blood) and this will eventually lead to heart failure and other heart conditions.
Agreed. Not to mention that if they're metallic or plastic they could in theory tear holes in the smaller bloodveins.


If they're able to travel through the body... somehow, then... well, actually, I can't imagine what might happen.
This means they're either very small (comparative to ions and such), solouable in lipids or mimics the cells ability to pass through membranes.
The former two is potentionally bad since there's a risk the nanomites could end up where they really should not be (ín the nucleus) and the latter means they have to be very flexible or they'd risk harming the membranes.


I wonder if it'd be fruitful to coat the surface of the implant with integrins and then a cellular scaffold filled with the compounds necessary for avid cellular ingrowth, then implant it and try to get the cells to grow right up to the implant surface and form tight junctions with it to physically limit the space to something too small for a bacterium to inhabit. It might be necessary to seed the scaffold with induced pluripotent stems differentiated into granulation tissue, depending on where the implant's going.
Well... first of all. Integrins and cellular scaffolding are proteins and thus you can't put anything in them.
Secondly... one thing you really shouldn't do casually is add stuff that makes cells grow to the body. Our own systems for that are very finely tuned and frequently go wrong. You do not want the wrong cell to get a boost in it's growth. That's an instant cancer recipe.
Bacteria tend to like integrins too (something to latch onto) and prolifiate faster than cells as well...

That said... it could work. But one should be very careful when adding growth-boosting compounds and integrins to the body.

Telonius
2011-05-31, 12:55 PM
There's also a class of birth control devices that are surgically implanted. Most of them aren't intended to last more than a few years, so I'm not sure if they count as "cybernetics" exactly. Leaving aside any ethical questions, I believe some of them do have side effects relating to hormone levels (since hormones are generally what they're supposed to be regulating).

hamishspence
2011-05-31, 01:48 PM
There's also a class of birth control devices that are surgically implanted. Most of them aren't intended to last more than a few years, so I'm not sure if they count as "cybernetics" exactly. Leaving aside any ethical questions, I believe some of them do have side effects relating to hormone levels (since hormones are generally what they're supposed to be regulating).

Feedback might be the main feature that makes the being into a cyborg- so to speak.

From the Wikipedia cyborg page:

According to some definitions of the term, the metaphysical and physical attachments humanity has with even the most basic technologies have already made them cyborgs. In a typical example, a human fitted with a heart pacemaker or an insulin pump (if the person has diabetes) might be considered a cyborg, since these mechanical parts enhance the body's "natural" mechanisms through synthetic feedback mechanisms. Some theorists cite such modifications as contact lenses, hearing aids, or intraocular lenses as examples of fitting humans with technology to enhance their biological capabilities; however, these modifications are as cybernetic as a pen or a wooden leg. Cochlear implants that combine mechanical modification with any kind of feedback response are more accurately cyborg enhancements.

Yora
2011-05-31, 01:51 PM
Just out of curiosity: If you could artifically grow bone cells, could you cover an implant entirely in bone grown from the patients cells, so the immune system would not recognize them as foreign material? Or is bone still living tisue or too porous to allow the immune system to get in contact with the implant?

jseah
2011-05-31, 02:17 PM
Bone will let them in. Bone is a living tissue, not a dead lump of stuff.

If you can grow a bone, you might as well not use an external structure, just use bone! Grow your pacemaker's cover.

Aux-Ash
2011-05-31, 02:25 PM
Just out of curiosity: If you could artifically grow bone cells, could you cover an implant entirely in bone grown from the patients cells, so the immune system would not recognize them as foreign material? Or is bone still living tisue or too porous to allow the immune system to get in contact with the implant?

In theory it could work, if you'd manage to grow bone in-vitro (outside of the body). There's risk with this too... like the body actually confusing it with actual bone and starting to add to it.

The question is why though. You'd get a highly isolated implant.

Shadowknight12
2011-05-31, 02:41 PM
Yes, but he asked after the IRL effects, so I was approaching it from a speculative perspective (since as far as I know, the farthest technology's gone in implanting limbs and so forth has been to implant wires, rather than the armature itself, as I assumed was meant by cybernetics), and it's my opinion that the chemical/systemic effects of any cybernetic component advanced enough to qualify would probably be negligible relative to the adaptation the psyche would have to go through, so it might be wise to work with it from that perspective rather than trying to work through the problems with the immune system. Sorry for the poor communication skills on my part.

Ahhh, I get it now. Well, that's actually an interesting angle to take it from. If they've solved any major physiological problems that might arise in the future, it's a goldmine of roleplay material to focus on the psychological aspects of adapting to a cybernetic implant.


I can verify this, my wife had a metal rod placed in her back to help with an alignment issue, and any time the weather significantly changes it bothers her.

I would hazard a guess here and say that it's because the way metal expands with heat and contracts in cold temperatures.



Thromboses due to aggregated antibodies are far more likely than a system-wide shock. Which is just as bad really

Yeah, I had forgot about that one. And those generate tissue damage as well, on the places the aggregated antibodies end up (meaning, damaged blood vessels, kidney failure, etc).


This would mean they're recogniced by the unspecific immunesystem and "gobbled up" by macrophages. That is very likely if the nanomites are not made out of a biological material (thanks for the correction earlier by the way). The macrophages would however be unable to break the nanomites down and it'd result in a phenomenon not unlike mononucleosis or tuberculosis: An aggregattion of dying macrophages surrounding the nanomites. Especially bad in the bloodstream.


Agreed. Not to mention that if they're metallic or plastic they could in theory tear holes in the smaller bloodveins.

Huh, interesting points there, I hadn't considered what would happen if one were to go even further.


This means they're either very small (comparative to ions and such), solouable in lipids or mimics the cells ability to pass through membranes.
The former two is potentionally bad since there's a risk the nanomites could end up where they really should not be (ín the nucleus) and the latter means they have to be very flexible or they'd risk harming the membranes.

Well put. If they mimicked the neutrophils' ability to exit blood vessels, they would either end up causing inflammatory processes wherever they needed to go, or they might end up "stretching" the fenestrations in the blood vessels. I somehow don't think that'd be a good idea.


Just out of curiosity: If you could artifically grow bone cells, could you cover an implant entirely in bone grown from the patients cells, so the immune system would not recognize them as foreign material? Or is bone still living tisue or too porous to allow the immune system to get in contact with the implant?

You could, yes, but keep in mind that the body can reabsorb bone if it has a calcium (or Vitamin D) deficiency. This means that unless you carefully monitor the patient's blood calcium levels, you could end up with his body "eating up" the bone cover. And I'm still not entirely sure if the size of the pores (assuming we're using the densest type of bone tissue) would allow for blood cells to pass. I unfortunately forget how big these pores are.

Honestly, making things out of bone is very ill-advised. Regardless of the risks mentioned above, you're making it more rigid and susceptible to damage. You have to cover it with something soft that absorbs impact, like adipose/skin/muscular tissue. Covering it with bone just creates complications if something impacts it. The bone breaks and splinters, possibly damaging the implant and the area around it, and you've got quite a bit of trouble in your hands.


Bone will let them in. Bone is a living tissue, not a dead lump of stuff.

If you can grow a bone, you might as well not use an external structure, just use bone! Grow your pacemaker's cover.

Very, very bad idea. Mainly because of the things I've mentioned above.

MightyIgoo
2011-05-31, 04:56 PM
IRL science aside, d20 Modern dealt with this by limiting the number of cybernetic implants a character can take to 1 + Con bonus.

Analytica
2011-05-31, 05:00 PM
From a psychological perspective, you might want to look up things like the phantom sensations people sometimes get from amputated limbs.

Moreover, expect any neurally controlled devices to require a training period, potentially long. Effectively, you need to build up new brain pathways to control/receive information from them (or hack into existing ones). Might require drugs that alter synapse formation rates, which could in turn have... interesting and unpredictable broad-spectrum psychological side effects.

jseah
2011-05-31, 05:55 PM
Very, very bad idea. Mainly because of the things I've mentioned above.
The body controls normal bone pretty well. So long as you keep sufficient calcium (and are not suffering osteoporosis), it would be ok to make your artificial bone operate by the same things that limit normal bones.

The breakage is even better. Minor fractures of your implant casing and structure can be auto-repaired by the body. And anything that will cause a non-healable fracture will need repairs and surgery regardless.

Aux-Ash
2011-06-01, 01:03 AM
Moreover, expect any neurally controlled devices to require a training period, potentially long. Effectively, you need to build up new brain pathways to control/receive information from them (or hack into existing ones). Might require drugs that alter synapse formation rates, which could in turn have... interesting and unpredictable broad-spectrum psychological side effects.

If you don't feel a particular need for have a keen sense of touch in the implant, then having it read the nerves magnetically (like most neural examinations) is a good idea. No need to be invasive or mess with the nerve-system.
It'd need a training session yes. But not any massive neural reconfiguration. It'd be like the old arm.
You could even add an imput simulating the sense of touch by having the arm provide some sort of pressure/electrical signal to the body when appropriate.

And best of all: It'd be replaceable.


The body controls normal bone pretty well. So long as you keep sufficient calcium (and are not suffering osteoporosis), it would be ok to make your artificial bone operate by the same things that limit normal bones.

The breakage is even better. Minor fractures of your implant casing and structure can be auto-repaired by the body. And anything that will cause a non-healable fracture will need repairs and surgery regardless.

Thing is though, normal bone is supposed to be there. This hypothetical implant is not. There is no knowing what will happen to it once implanted. It might start to grow, it might be broken down for the calcium and so on.
The Osteoclasts and osteoblasts, the cells responsible for breaking bone down and building new bone respectively, are very delicately controlled through a number of enzymatic systems from kidneys, intestines, thyroidea and the skin itself. And you need those cells to have bone tissue in the first place (you also need chondrocytes, the ones responsible for cartilage). Imbedded into it.

There is another concern. Bone is contineously replaced by the osteclasts. These cells essentially secrete an acid to make bone dissolve. It is not unlikely that this acid could damage the implant itself. A little bit at a time.

Moreover, like all cells they'd need to be supplied by nutrients. That means bloodveins. So if the purpose was to separate the implant from contact with the blood then the premise is a bit flawed to begin with (I mean, blood is produced in the bonemarrow after all :smallwink:)

If you really want to separate the implant from the blood then something like the BBB (blood-brain barrier) or the BTB (blood-testes barrier) is perhaps a better idea. Or just cover it in epithelium.
The question is though... if you want to separate it from blood. WHy not insert it subdermally or better yet, not insert it at all but put it on the outside of the body?

Analytica
2011-06-01, 07:13 AM
If you don't feel a particular need for have a keen sense of touch in the implant, then having it read the nerves magnetically (like most neural examinations) is a good idea. No need to be invasive or mess with the nerve-system.
It'd need a training session yes. But not any massive neural reconfiguration. It'd be like the old arm.
You could even add an imput simulating the sense of touch by having the arm provide some sort of pressure/electrical signal to the body when appropriate.

And best of all: It'd be replaceable.


For replacement limbs, yes. For things that feed you strategic computer data or additional sensory information right into the cortex (including any kind of "perfect" virtual reality application), or lets you control some complex implanted tool directly, there might be more of an issue. Even for replacement limbs, if they could be made with the same degree of sensory acuity, I think there may be a demand for high-level integration with them. Of course, all the problems you mention are there, and might be so significant that the applications I mentioned become less popular, despite the opportunities they offer...

Skaven
2011-06-01, 08:43 AM
I never agreed with the take on 'go crazy' or 'start to lose your essence' that some systems enforce. I think the human mind is far stronger and more adaptable than that.

I think that at worse it might affect your manoeuvrability and provide you with a little extra defence/utility, like edward elric from FMA.

Beleriphon
2011-06-01, 09:28 AM
But speaking of which, the development of real cyborg arms has advanced a lot in recent years. They are not permanently grafted to the skeleton, so they can't carry the full weight a normal arm would but I think they can control each finger autonomously.

Connecting low resolution cameras to the ocular nerves has also been done years ago. The image quality is awful, but that's just a matter of perfecting the technology.But it works.

Limb replacement, at least digits, still only includes 5 degrees of motion, not the 30 or 40 needed to move individual digits. Basically right now a person with a prosthetic arm can rotate the wrist, open/close the hand, and move the elbow. Each finger moving on their own with three joints and a thumb with two joints and three degrees of motion are well beyond current prosthesis. The main issue is that you need a direct nerve connection to the manage that, so a skeletal graft. The current prosthesis work by either micro-muscle movement being detected in the attaching cuff to trigger switches, or by detecting micro-electrical impulses in the same cuff to trigger an electrical combo that runs on a battery.

For bio-implants though, and those are very much real (At least replacement organs), can be grown from original cell samples and literally printed on cell layer at a time. A lab in Virginia is doing this, and can create anything from a kidney to heart in about 9 weeks. They did say that hearts are kind of hard to make though.

Knaight
2011-06-01, 09:47 AM
For bio-implants though, and those are very much real (At least replacement organs), can be grown from original cell samples and literally printed on cell layer at a time. A lab in Virginia is doing this, and can create anything from a kidney to heart in about 9 weeks. They did say that hearts are kind of hard to make though.

Among the cooler things they can do are eyes, though I can't say I'm aware of the cost of these. The only person who I can say for sure has one of these is on the richer side (being a monarch and all).

jseah
2011-06-01, 11:25 AM
For bio-implants though, and those are very much real (At least replacement organs), can be grown from original cell samples and literally printed on cell layer at a time. A lab in Virginia is doing this, and can create anything from a kidney to heart in about 9 weeks. They did say that hearts are kind of hard to make though.
Got a link or reference? I haven't heard of this.

Trekkin
2011-06-01, 02:14 PM
Among the cooler things they can do are eyes, though I can't say I'm aware of the cost of these. The only person who I can say for sure has one of these is on the richer side (being a monarch and all).

I've never heard of a successful eye regrowth or transplant, although I've heard that snipped optic nerves have been reattached in lab mice. To whom do you refer?

jseah, this link might be relevant. (http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2010/07/gallery-bio-printing/all/1)

Spamotron
2011-06-01, 02:54 PM
On Planet Green (Relatively new Satellite/Cable Channel) a show started earlier this year called Dean of Invention. One of the episodes is dedicated to the current state of the art in prosthetics and cybernetics. One of the featured items was a new prosthetic arm that did in fact graft directly to the bone of the patients upper arm entering preliminary human trials. To overcome the infection/biofilm problem the connection point is made of a non-reactive material with millions of microscopic holes that has characteristics similar to bone. To allow blood vessels to connect through the implant between the bone and surrounding flesh integrating everything as a unit and allowing free access of the immune system without causing rejection.

Note: I saw the show months ago and may be misremembering the specifics.

Knaight
2011-06-01, 07:15 PM
I've never heard of a successful eye regrowth or transplant, although I've heard that snipped optic nerves have been reattached in lab mice. To whom do you refer?

jseah, this link might be relevant. (http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2010/07/gallery-bio-printing/all/1)

Bhumibol Adulyadej, the king of Thailand.

Semidi
2011-06-02, 12:44 AM
Here's an article on Wired about a woman who's going transhumanism DIY style: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/transcending-the-human-diy-style/ . I thought the article was really cool with some of the effects and strategies of doing cybernetics on yourself.

Trekkin
2011-06-03, 09:50 AM
Bhumibol Adulyadej, the king of Thailand.

Do you have a source on that? Everything I can find says he has a glass right eye, meaning he'd be blind on that side; it looks like a cosmetic rather than functional implant.

LibraryOgre
2011-06-03, 11:01 AM
Have you read Shadowrun's "Cybertechnology"? It's a 2nd edition source, but the opening fiction (at which Shadowrun EXCELS) and Shadowtalk gives some great insight into how humans might integrate cybernetics.