CBS2 has learned that prescription medications as we know them may soon be a thing in the past.
As CBS2’s Kristine Johnson reported, they could be replaced with tiny, implantable microchips that can treat, and potentially cure, dozens of chronic diseases with “high-tech healing.”
“The chip will cure some diseases, and the chip will prevent others,” said Dr. Kevin Tracey of the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research on Long Island.
The chip is implanted in the body, where it sends little electrical currents telling the nervous system to tell the body to heal itself.
“The diseases that can be treated by this approach is a lengthy list — cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s,” Tracey said.
The chip is Tracey’s brainchild. He is a neurosurgeon with the institute, and his efforts have launched a new field in healthcare–known as bioelectronics.
“The promise of bioelectronic medicine is to restore the activity of nerves whose function, for whatever reason — disease or aging — are not functioning properly,” he said.
Tracey said the technology is extremely precise, and there are no side effects. He compares it to how a pacemaker controls the nerves of the heart, except these new devices will control the nerves of the immune system.
“Potentially nerves to tumors, to cancer cells; nerves to the bowel and bladder,” Tracey said.
Clinical trials for multiple chips are currently underway, and positive results have already been reported in treating conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and even appetite control.
“I figured, what did I have to lose?” said Virginia Valles, who participated in a clinical trial.
Virginia Valles was one of the first to test a bioelectronic device for weight loss. Since starting the trial four years ago, she has lost nearly 100 pounds.
“You get this feeling of fullness. It’s like you just ate a nice, big meal,” said Dr. Ken Fujikoa, a weight-loss researcher at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego.
Instead of disappearing, drug makers such as Glaxo Smith Kline are looking ahead and funding research in this next frontier.
“Every single disease that we have looked at, we have found we could make medicines bioelectronically,” said Dr. Moncef Slaoui of Glaxo Smith Kline.
Bioelectronic devices are controlled by a smartphone or tablet that is programmed and monitored by the patient’s doctor.
The Apple Watch heralds a brave new world of digital living
“The Watch is here” touts Apple’s slogan for its wearable computer, implying that the one and only time-piece that really matters has arrived. So much for the Rolex Cosmograph and Seiko Astron when you can buy a stylish digital Apple Watch Sport, or even Apple Watch Edition crafted with 18-karat gold.
If we believe the hype, one in four Australians plan to buy a wearable device by the end of the year.
Of its many features and functions, the Apple Watch is a music player, fitness tracker, communications device, payment token and digital key. And it also tells the time. We were surprised that no one claimed that it will also help look after our kids. But not for long. There’s an app for that. So is there anything this device cannot do?
Who would have thought that the power of an internet-enabled laptop computer, mobile phone, iPod, fitness tracker, bank card and set of keys could be neatly packaged and strapped around your wrist?
And unlike other futuristic visions of hand-held communicators, the Apple Watch won’t leave you stranded in perilous situations because it’s dropped, stolen or falls out of range because it’s literally always connected to you.
This raises a key question: how will we change our behaviour based on the fact that we are walking around with a fully-fledged computer – one that sits in contact with our bodies and communicates wirelessly with machines around us without us being explicitly aware of it?
According to the marketing spiel, we’ll have a lot more convenience at our fingertips. But, in actuality, we may find ourselves reaching for the mute button, longing to be disconnected, and fed up with all the notifications interrupting us. That’s when the novelty effect wears off.
We have probably witnessed people who cannot resist the urge of pulling out their mobile phone to interact with it at the most inopportune times or who pass their idle time simply looking down at a screen.
Most do not realise they are even interacting with their personal computer devices for hours each day. The repetitive behaviour has almost become a type of tic disorder which is neurobehavioural.
We get a message, it makes us feel important. We reply and get a buzz the very next time it happens again. It’s kind of like digital ping pong. And the game can get tangible fast. The main reason this repetitive behaviour remains hidden is that the majority of smartphone users suffer from this, so it looks normal.
You can see people in public spaces immersed in virtual places. These Wi-Fi-enabled mobile contraptions can also trigger a host of internet-related addictions, whether used for gaming, answering mail, web surfing, online transactions, social media, we-chatting, or taking a tonne of photographs.
According to experts, internet addiction disorder (IAD) can ruin lives by causing neurological complications, psychological disturbances and social problems. This is not to mention the potential for accidents when people are not looking where they are going or not paying attention to what they should be doing. In short, our need to be always online and connected has become a kind of cybernarcotic drug.
Little device, big data
Very few of us are immune to this yearning for “feedback loops”, so telecommunications operators and service providers pounce on this response. Information is money. And while we are busy interacting with our device, the companies are busy pocketing big money using our big data.
We are fast becoming a piece of digital information ourselves, sold to the highest bidder. And while we are busy rating ourselves and one another, the technology companies are not only using our ratings to learn more about our preferences and sentiments, but rating us as humans. In sociological terms it’s called social sorting, and in policing terms it’s called proactive profiling.
In days gone by, mobile communications could tell data collectors about our identity, location, even our condition. This is not new. But the real-time access and precision of this level of granularity of data gathered is something we should be all aware of as potentially impinging on our fundamental human rights.
Because they interface directly with the human body, watches have the capacity to tell a third party much more about you than just where you’ve been and where you are likely to be going. They can:
Determine time, distance, speed and altitude information derived from onboard sensors
Identify which apps you are using and how and why you are using them, minute by minute
Oversee the kinds of questions you are asking via search engines and text-based messages you are sending via social media.
All in all, private corporations can glean what you are thinking, the problems you are facing, and they know your personal context. What is disturbing is that they can divulge some of your innermost personal thoughts, intentions and actions, and have evidence for the reasons we do things.
Many people immersed in the virtual world are too busy to be thinking about the very act of inputting information onto the internet. People value a life of convenience over privacy too much to be genuinely concerned what information is being logged by a company and shared with hundreds of other potential partners and affiliates.
And consumers are often oblivious to the fact that, even if they are doing nothing at all, the smart device they are carrying or wearing is creating a type of digital DNA about their uniqueness.
Today, we are asking to be monitored and are partying in the panopticon. We have fallen in love with the idea of being told about ourselves and don’t discern that we have become like prison inmates who are being tracked with electronic bracelets.
By the time we wake up to this technological trajectory, it may be all too late. Our health insurance provider might be Samsung, our telecoms provider may be Google, and our unique lifetime identifier could come from Apple. At present, these are the archetypal tech providers. But tomorrow, who knows?
And by that time, we will likely be heralding in the age of uberveillance where we posit that cellphones and wristwatches are not enough, that the human-computer interface should go deeper, penetrating the skin and into the body.
“You can’t live without it”, may soon no longer be just figurative, but a reality.
Katina Michael is Associate Professor, School of Information Systems and Technology at University of Wollongong.
MG Michael is Honorary Associate Professor, School of Information Systems and Technology at University of Wollongong.
"By day there were tech entrepreneurs, students, web designers and IT consultants - but that night they were going to be transformed into cyborgs.
It may sound like the beginning of a science-fiction novel, but in fact it is a recollection of real events, by bio-hacker Hannes Sjoblad.
He organised the so-called implant party, which took place in late November and was one of several he has arranged. At it, eight volunteers were implanted with a small RFID (radio frequency identification) chip under the skin in their hand. Mr Sjoblad also has one.
He is starting small, aiming to get 100 volunteers signed up in the coming few months, with 50 people already implanted. But his vision is much bigger.
"Then will be a 1,000, then 10,000. I am convinced that this technology is here to stay and we will think it nothing strange to have an implant in their hand."
Thanks for the link SB.
This "conversation" and "debate" began a long time ago... it is not new. Just take a look at http://ro.uow.edu.au/kmichael and http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/about-katherine/books-and-book-chapters/first-chapter-of-spychips/
"Mr Sjoblad also hopes that his implant party will spark a conversation about our possible cyborg future.
"The idea is to become a community that is why they get implants done together," he says.
"People bond over the experience and start asking questions about what it means to be a man and machine.
"Curiosity is one of the biggest drivers for us humans. I come from a maker hacker culture and I just want to see what I can do with this."
For those who decide life as a cyborg isn't for them, the procedure Mr Sjoblad uses is reversible and takes just five minutes.
But he has no intention of removing his.
"We've been putting chips in animals for 20 years," he points out.
Now it is the turn of the humans.
"This is a fun thing, a conversation starter. It opens up interesting discussions about what it means to be human. This is not just for opening doors."
Thanks OG and KMA.
My observation? How long before this technology becomes mainstream? And then even the body-modders might be asking themselves that the 'group' they identify with is no longer unique... implantables, like tattoos, like piercing are about being 'different' but also the 'same'... But when everybody has one, even the boring old banks, will the body-modders really want one? "Yes" if it means customisation, and "no" if they think it means conformity to the masses.
"Ils portent le nom de leur amour sous leur peau
Un studio de tatouage à Zürich propose l'implant de micropuces électroniques lisibles via un smartphone. Une première en Suisse qui fait débat.
Mis à jour le 13.09.2014
"Remember, Google introduced Calico to the world with the bold ambition of "curing death." CEO Larry Page, Google Ventures head honcho Bill Maris, and futurist Ray Kurzweil, who Google hired as its director of engineering, have all expressed a deep interest in radical life extension and the Singularity. Up until today we haven't had a lot of detail about how Calico would pursue that goal. Page had told Time, "One of the things I thought was amazing is that if you solve cancer, you’d add about three years to people’s average life expectancy. We think of solving cancer as this huge thing that’ll totally change the world. But when you really take a step back and look at it, yeah, there are many, many tragic cases of cancer, and it’s very, very sad, but in the aggregate, it’s not as big an advance as you might think.""
"“Glass is very aware of the user,” he said. “There’s consequences to that, and things to consider and be careful about. But there’s also opportunity for a computer that’s very close to the person.”"
"Google has big hopes for its Glass head-mounted computer, chief among them a desire to make the unit smaller and more comfortable to wear.
Those were just a couple of the goals for a polished version of the device laid out Tuesday by Babak Parviz, the creator of Glass, who is also the director of Google’s “X” special projects division.
“Essentially we’d like to make the technology disappear,” he said during a conference on wearable technology in San Francisco.
“It should be non-intrusive” and as comfortable to wear as regular glasses or a wristwatch, he said.
Shrinking the unit would require advances in optics and photonics, he said. More computing power is also needed to make the device faster at answering people’s questions on the fly, Parviz said.
"Smart pills that monitor events in the body and transmit information to medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and family members are raising legal and ethical questions that will need to be addressed, according to The Washington Post.
Ingestible nanosensors likely to be commercially available within five years, are capable of monitoring whether a person takes their medication. Experts say half of all patients don’t take their medicines as prescribed. The smart pills can also stream data on temperature, heart rate, and level of activity, the Post reported.
GODSEND OR INVASION OF PRIVACY
Such information, while a godsend to concerned family members of the elderly, also raises civil liberties issues. Among these is whether patients can maintain ultimate control over what information they share with outsiders. How can personal medical data be kept out of the hands of government including law enforcement? Can government compel patients to have their medical records implanted for their own protection as in the case of those suffering from dementia?"
"...What do you get when you mix Google Glass and EEG? That’s the question that the people at Ottawa-based Personal Neuro are on their way to answering. Given the buzz around how Google Glass can be used in healthcare, and our longstanding interest in brain-computer interface, we took the opportunity to speak with Personal Neuro’s CEO, Steve Denison, about his company and what they’re building."
"...The $99 kit ships with the xNT capsule contained in a sterile syringe, so you can insert it yourself, or head to a piercing or body modification specialist to give you a hand. Dangerous Things even sells a special “pain management kit” if you’re not sure whether you’re tough enough to handle the procedure.
Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/soon-well-cyborgs-crowdfunded-xnt-biohacking-implant-ships-month/#ixzz2yXsnwaH2
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
"....Within The Human Locomotome Project, we have created a new technology utilizing mathematical models and diagnostics tools that can identify risks of age-related diseases on early stages through analysis of everyday activity movement. Access to this data provides awareness of your health factors, allowing for early prevention and lifestyle changes."
We're moving closer to the ultimate ID... it not only moves with you, but will be in you.
It is with great joy that MG and I write to let you know that the Uberveillance edited volume is finally in stores and available for purchase. We encourage you to ask your libraries to purchase the volume. Of significance are the coming together of well-known voices in the surveillance field to discuss the definition and impact of uberveillance, including Katherine Albrecht, Roger Clarke, Mark Gasson, Kevin Haggerty, Steve Mann, Ellen McGee, Kevin Warwick, Marcus Wigan and numerous authorities on the topic of microchipping people. This volume contains 17 book chapters, and 7 interviews and panel presentations as well as full referencing of source materials in some 500 pages.
PART A The Veillances
Chapter 1 Introduction: On the “Birth” of Uberveillance (pages 1-31) M. G. Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)
Chapter 2 Veillance: Beyond Surveillance, Dataveillance, Uberveillance, and the Hypocrisy of One-Sided Watching (pages 32-45) Steve Mann (University of Toronto, Canada)
Chapter 3 Uberveillance: Where Wear and Educative Arrangement (pages 46-62) Alexander Hayes (University of Wollongong, Australia)
PART B Applications of Humancentric Implantables
Chapter 4 Practical Experimentation with Human Implants (pages 64-132) Kevin Warwick (University of Reading, UK), Mark N. Gasson (University of Reading, UK)
Chapter 5 Knowledge Recovery: Applications of Technology and Memory (pages 133-142) Maria E. Burke (University of Salford, UK), Chris Speed (University of Edinburgh, UK)
PART C Adoption of RFID Implants for Humans
Chapter 6 Willingness to Adopt RFID Implants: Do Personality Factors Play a Role in the Acceptance of Uberveillance? (pages 144-168) Christine Perakslis (Johnson and Wales University, USA)
Chapter 7 Surveilling the Elderly: Emerging Demographic Needs and Social Implications of RFID Chip Technology Use (pages 169-185) Randy Basham (University of Texas – Arlington, USA)
PART D Tracking and Tracing Laws, Directives, Regulations, and Standards
Chapter 8 Towards the Blanket Coverage DNA Profiling and Sampling of Citizens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (pages 187-207) Katina Michael (University of Wollongong, Australia)
Chapter 9 ID Scanners and Überveillance in the Night-Time Economy: Crime Prevention or Invasion of Privacy? (pages 208-225) Darren Palmer (Deakin University, Australia), Ian Warren (Deakin University, Australia), Peter Miller (Deakin University, Australia)
Chapter 10 Global Tracking Systems in the Australian Interstate Trucking Industry (pages 226-234) Jann Karp (C.C.C. Australia, Australia)
Chapter 11 Tracking Legislative Developments in Relation to “Do Not Track” Initiatives (pages 235-259) Brigette Garbin (University of Queensland, Australia), Kelly Staunton (University of Queensland, Australia), Mark Burdon (University of Queensland, Australia)
Chapter 12 Uberveillance, Standards, and Anticipation: A Case Study on Nanobiosensors in U.S. Cattle (pages 260-279) Kyle Powys Whyte (Michigan State University, USA), Monica List (Michigan State University, USA), John V. Stone (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Grooms (Michigan State University, USA), Stephen Gasteyer (Michigan State University, USA), Paul B. Thompson (Michigan State University, USA), Lawrence Busch (Michigan State University, USA), Daniel Buskirk (Michigan State University, USA), Erica Giorda (Michigan State University, USA), Hilda Bouri (Michigan State University, USA)
PART E Health Implications of Microchipping Living Things
Chapter 13 Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006 (pages 281-317) Katherine Albrecht (CASPIAN Consumer Privacy, USA)
PART F Socio-Ethical Implications of RFID Tags and Transponders
Chapter 14 Privacy and Pervasive Surveillance: A Philosophical Analysis (pages 319-350) Alan Rubel (University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA)
Chapter 15 Neuroethics and Implanted Brain Machine Interfaces (pages 351-365) Ellen M. McGee (Independent Researcher, USA)
Chapter 16 We Are the Borg! Human Assimilation into Cellular Society (pages 366-407) Ronnie D. Lipschutz (University of California - Santa Cruz, USA), Rebecca J. Hester (University of Texas Medical Branch, USA)
Chapter 17 Uberveillance and Faith-Based Organizations: A Renewed Moral Imperative (pages 408-416) Marcus Wigan (Oxford Systematics, Australia & Edinburgh Napier University, UK)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Compilation of References
About the Contributors
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Roba Abbas, University of Wollongong, Australia
Greg Adamson, University of Melbourne, Australia
Katherine Albrecht, CASPIAN, USA
Anas Aloudat, University of Jordan, Jordan
Michael V. Arnold, University of Melbourne, Australia
Emilia Belleboni, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain
Rafael Capurro, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, USA
Kenneth Foster, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Amal Graafstra, Amal.net, USA
Mireille Hildebrandt, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Peter Hyland, University of Wollongong, Australia
Nicholas Huber, Accenture, Australia
Indrawati, Institut Manajemen Telkom, Indonesia
Eleni Kosta, K. U. Leuven, Belgium
Ronald Leenes, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Avner Levin, Ryerson University, Canada
Michael Loui, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, USA
Noëmi Manders-Huits, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Keith W. Miller, University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA
Lyria Bennett Moses, University of New South Wales, Australia
Christine Perakslis, Johnson and Wales University, USA
Laura Perusco, Macquarie Bank, UK
Kenneth Pimple, Indiana University – Bloomington, USA
Joseph Savirimuthu, University of Liverpool, UK
Alan D. Smith, Robert Morris University, USA
Charles Smith, Mesa State College Alumni, USA
Judith Symonds, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Samuel Fosso Wamba, Rouen Business School, France
John Weckert, Charles Sturt University, Australia
HOW TO CITE THE VOLUME
Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." IGI Global, 2014. 1-509. Web. 24 Dec. 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0
Michael, M., & Michael, K. (2014). Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-509). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0
Michael, M.G. and Katina Michael. "Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies." 1-509 (2014), accessed December 24, 2013. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4582-0