There has been a flurry of debate in the military, industrial, and privacy sectors on “smartdust” and the concept of “souveillance” - but no one has yet realized this technology is poised to springboard into medicine and transform medical diagnostics.  Here I wanted to give you an overview of what this idea is and why you should keep your eye on it. 

First the general concept background:

“Smartdust” refers to micro devices (called motes) which are detection microchips each potentially the size of a speck of dust.  These grains of sand however can automatically self-network.  So far people have conceived of these low-power distributed sensing networks as having functions for climate control systems, entertainment devices and especially for big brother type surveillance systems.  

Wikipedia wrote “the smartdust concept was introduced by Kristofer S. J. Pister (University of California) in 2001 , though similar ideas existed in science fiction before then. A recent review discusses various techniques to take smartdust in sensor networks beyond millimeter dimensions to the micrometre level.  A typical application scenario is scattering a hundred of these sensors around a building or around a hospital to monitor temperature or humidity, track patient movements, or inform of disasters, such as earthquakes. In the military, they can perform as a remote sensor chip to track enemy movements, detect poisonous gas or radioactivity. The ease and low cost of such applications have raised privacy concerns.”  Beyond web 2.0 vast networks of these real time sensors are once possible technology leap of the yet inknown web 3.0.

General concept - What is Souveillance?:  is a term from Steve Mann that refers to “bottom up” surveillance using smart dust as opposed to “top down” big brother networks looking at us little people.  Here instead activities are recorded from the “perspective of a participant in the activity, typically by way of small portable or wearable recording devices that often stream continuous live video to the Internet.”  Remember the impact of the Rodney King video and of all the user generated video content on the web.  Now fast forward to a world where a large segment or even a majority of the populice had real time streaming video devices on all the time (no we are not going to discuss the porn angle on this).   This has also been called “inverse surveillance”.

Privacy advocates have been debating the merits or horrors of this type of sensor technology.   I serve on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Lifeboat Foundation which is dedicated to protecting us from future technological threats through advocacy research and education.  They have been having a heated debate on the “paradox of smart dust: we may not live without the greater security provided by smart dust, but many think they could not live with smart dust impinging on our privacy.’  

Medical Implications:  I have a vision that once this type of low power networked microsensor technology exists it will logically lead to medical sensor technology.  Potential uses I see include:

1. mass screening for infectious disease or bioterror agents.  Subjects walking into screening areas could be checked for signature molecules associated with infectious agents.  Just as we have metal detectors and now have molecular signature detectors (the litle wipe test for explosives at the airport) we will have such biological screening techology.
2. The next step will be similar screening for disease states.  Metabolomics is one such technology. Metabolomics is the study of the small-molecule metabolite byproducts left behind from cellular processes.  In simple terms it’s like examining poop.  The concept is that by measuring the collection of all the byproducts of the cells metabolism you can get a snapshot of the physiology of a cell or organism that translates to health.  One such sensor is being developed as a breath sensor for disease.  This could lead to Star Trek like medical sensors. 
3. Similarly, such technology will lead to individual genetic screening for disease risk using chips that interact with the tiny bits of DNA we shed every time we touch something. Companies commercializing this approach also already exist and have products. 
4. Taking a clue from smart dust we will then inject such sensors into our bodies where thy could circulate in the bloodstream or sit in the abdminal cavity silently sensing for disease, infectious agents, or the DNA or signature molecules of a cancer cell.  Alternative chips could exist that sit and slowly release drugs when such cell reappear once a patient is diagnosed.

I will be writing more about the details of these concepts and devices being developed in future posts now that I have introducted the concepts.  Let me know what you think! 

 I am honored and excited to have been invited to guest blog on the Lifeboat Foundation Blog.  My first post is on the new DARPA 2007 focus plan and its relation to medical technology. 

For those unfamiliar with them, their mission statements sums it up:

The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential risks and possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies, including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics/AI, as we move towards a technological singularity.
 
Lifeboat Foundation is pursuing a variety of options, including helping to accelerate the development of technologies to defend humanity, including new methods to combat viruses (such as RNA interference and new vaccine methods), effective nanotechnological defensive strategies, and even self-sustaining space colonies in case the other defensive strategies fail.
 
We believe that, in some situations, it might be feasible to relinquish technological capacity in the public interest (for example, we are against the U.S. government posting the recipe for the 1918 flu virus on the internet). We have some of the best minds on the planet working on programs to enable our survival.

They have an impressive Scientific Advisory Board including a large helping of professors and Nobel Laureats (and me).  You can read more about them here.  

Is the TechDoc  Evil?

Technology is neither good nor evil, it’s the use that crosses the moral boundaries.

As technology is leaping forward an unprecedented pace, this old question is more pressing now than ever. (If you’re short on time skip to the last paragraph for my conclusions)

A review of this debate can be found here including this question:

As we have seen, technology can be neutral, and … “can act as a catalyst to engender trust” … It is also clear that in many situations, technology is certainly not neutral; technology can marginalize people, incite divisiveness, block knowledge flow… Is technology a neutral “tool” that is designed to carry out the will of the user? 

Ars technica in a post ipods at war related this debate to the Myth of Icarus.  Unfortunately, their conclusion is so far off the mark.  They claim we are victims of technology that we have become addicted to.  War ravages as the American Army is shaped by video games and movies to kill.  Sorry, folks, the Ozzy Osbourne made me kill myself lawsuit just didn’t hold up. 

I really like the inference they make that the Icarus myth is really a story about technology; “when father Daedalus creates the artificial wings for himself and his son, he makes it possible for them to experience something new, but the technology also makes it easy for Icarus to destroy himself.” 

ICtforpeace goes on to argue that technology is not morally neutral (and the military is inherently evil). 

A Walther PPK would make, I am sure, a pretty good paper-weight, but it was made for a specific purpose and it is rather good when used for its intended purpose, and less elegant when used for others.

They mistakenly suggest

many technologies can be used for both good and bad purposes. But usually neutrality is taken to have a stronger meaning, such as that technologies are equally easy to use for different purposes, which is not helpful when comparing compact disks and cruise missiles.

Philosophical theories on this point can be found on this webpage

Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that “guns don’t kill people, people do”, or that a knife can be used to “cook, kill, or cure.” Those who believe the opposite counter with evidence that technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum and that there are traits common to all technological developments: (1) technological objects are unique; they are designed to function in a particular and limited way, and (2) technological objects are intertwined with their environment; they interact in unique ways with the rest of reality.

More philosophical musings on the neutrality question can be found here.

I believe in technological neutrality.  While it seems that in some scenarios (such as weapons) technology is clearly more likely to be used in one way rather than another, it is just that particular application of the technology that sets off our reaction.  There is no better example than the work of DARPA which I have written about.  Nuclear technology did not just lead to the bomb it also can be used for medicine and energy.  The knowledge of the technology is not that is evil. 

While many lament the development of expensive military technology I see the beneficial medical applications inherent in these projects.  While one person might see evil and death I can see good and life come from the exact same technologies.  Read about the medical uses of military technology here, here, and here.

As my friend Dr. Rick Satava (surgeon, colonel, and Program Manager at DARPA) said:

Technology is Neutral - it is neither good or evil

It is up to us to breathe the moral and ethical life into these technologies

And then apply them with empathy and compassion for each and every patient

I was excited to see the announcement that the Lifeboat Foundation has started a blog which can be found here.  There frst posts incude some excellent commentary on nanotechnology.

For those unfamiliar with them, their mission statements sums it up:

The Lifeboat Foundation is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential risks and possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies, including genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics/AI, as we move towards a technological singularity.
 
Lifeboat Foundation is pursuing a variety of options, including helping to accelerate the development of technologies to defend humanity, including new methods to combat viruses (such as RNA interference and new vaccine methods), effective nanotechnological defensive strategies, and even self-sustaining space colonies in case the other defensive strategies fail.
 
We believe that, in some situations, it might be feasible to relinquish technological capacity in the public interest (for example, we are against the U.S. government posting the recipe for the 1918 flu virus on the internet). We have some of the best minds on the planet working on programs to enable our survival.

They have an impressive Scientific Advisory Board including a large helping of professors and Nobel Laureats (and me).  You can read more about them here.