Story by Big Think
We live in strange times, when the technology we depend on the most is also that which we fear the most. We celebrate cutting-edge achievements even as we recoil in fear at how they could be used to hurt us. From genetic engineering and AI to nuclear technology and nanobots, the list of awe-inspiring, fast-developing technologies is long.
However, this fear of the machine is not as new as it may seem. Technology has a longstanding alliance with power and the state. The dark side of human history can be told as a series of wars whose victors are often those with the most advanced technology. (There are exceptions, of course.) Science, and its technological offspring, follows the money.
This fear of the machine seems to be misplaced. The machine has no intent: only its maker does. The fear of the machine is, in essence, the fear we have of each other — of what we are capable of doing to one another.
How AI changes things
Sure, you would reply, but AI changes everything. With artificial intelligence, the machine itself will develop some sort of autonomy, however ill-defined. It will have a will of its own. And this will, if it reflects anything that seems human, will not be benevolent. With AI, the claim goes, the machine will somehow know what it must do to get rid of us. It will threaten us as a species.
Well, this fear is also not new. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1818 to warn us of what science could do if it served the wrong calling. In the case of her novel, Dr. Frankenstein’s call was to win the battle against death — to reverse the course of nature. Granted, any cure of an illness interferes with the normal workings of nature, yet we are justly proud of having developed cures for our ailments, prolonging life and increasing its quality. Science can achieve nothing more noble. What messes things up is when the pursuit of good is confused with that of power. In this distorted scale, the more powerful the better. The ultimate goal is to be as powerful as gods — masters of time, of life and death.
Should countries create a World Mind Organization that controls the technologies that develop AI?
Back to AI, there is no doubt the technology will help us tremendously. We will have better medical diagnostics, better traffic control, better bridge designs, and better pedagogical animations to teach in the classroom and virtually. But we will also have better winnings in the stock market, better war strategies, and better soldiers and remote ways of killing. This grants real power to those who control the best technologies. It increases the take of the winners of wars — those fought with weapons, and those fought with money.
A story as old as civilization
The question is how to move forward. This is where things get interesting and complicated. We hear over and over again that there is an urgent need for safeguards, for controls and legislation to deal with the AI revolution. Great. But if these machines are essentially functioning in a semi-black box of self-teaching neural nets, how exactly are we going to make safeguards that are sure to remain effective? How are we to ensure that the AI, with its unlimited ability to gather data, will not come up with new ways to bypass our safeguards, the same way that people break into safes?
The second question is that of global control. As I wrote before, overseeing new technology is complex. Should countries create a World Mind Organization that controls the technologies that develop AI? If so, how do we organize this planet-wide governing board? Who should be a part of its governing structure? What mechanisms will ensure that governments and private companies do not secretly break the rules, especially when to do so would put the most advanced weapons in the hands of the rule breakers? They will need those, after all, if other actors break the rules as well.
As before, the countries with the best scientists and engineers will have a great advantage. A new international détente will emerge in the molds of the nuclear détente of the Cold War. Again, we will fear destructive technology falling into the wrong hands. This can happen easily. AI machines will not need to be built at an industrial scale, as nuclear capabilities were, and AI-based terrorism will be a force to reckon with.
So here we are, afraid of our own technology all over again.
What is missing from this picture? It continues to illustrate the same destructive pattern of greed and power that has defined so much of our civilization. The failure it shows is moral, and only we can change it. We define civilization by the accumulation of wealth, and this worldview is killing us. The project of civilization we invented has become self-cannibalizing. As long as we do not see this, and we keep on following the same route we have trodden for the past 10,000 years, it will be very hard to legislate the technology to come and to ensure such legislation is followed. Unless, of course, AI helps us become better humans, perhaps by teaching us how stupid we have been for so long. This sounds far-fetched, given who this AI will be serving. But one can always hope.
This article originally appeared on Big Think, home of the brightest minds and biggest ideas of all time.
Miniature lab-grown models of human organs have major advantages over standard animal testing.
But he wasn't the only one to follow this train of thought. In the year since the pandemic began, many researchers have been using organoids to study how the coronavirus infects human cells, and find potential treatments. Beumer's pivot represents a remarkable and fast-emerging paradigm shift in how drugs and diseases will be studied in the coming decades. With future pandemics likely to be more frequent and deadlier, such a shift is necessary to reduce the average clinical development time of 5.9 years for antiviral agents.
Part of that shift means developing models that replicate human biology in the lab. Animal models, which are the current standard in biomedical research, fail to do so—96% of drugs that pass animal testing, for example, fail to make it to market. Injecting potentially toxic drugs into living creatures, before eventually slaughtering them, also raises ethical concerns for some. Organoids, on the other hand, respond to infectious diseases, or potential treatments, in a way that is relevant to humans, in addition to being slaughter-free.
Human intestinal organoids infected with SARS-CoV-2 (white).
Credit: Joep Beumer/Clevers group/Hubrecht Institute
Urgency Sparked Momentum
Though brain organoids were previously used to study the Zika virus during the 2015-16 epidemic, it wasn't until COVID-19 that the field really started to change. "The organoid field has advanced a lot in the last year. The speed at which it happened is crazy," says Shuibing Chen, an associate professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She adds that many federal and private funding agencies have now seen the benefits of organoids, and are starting to appreciate their potential in the biomedical field.
Last summer, the Organo-Strat (OS) network—a German network that uses human organoid models to study COVID-19's effects—received 3.2 million euros in funding from the German government. "When the pandemic started, we became aware that we didn't have the right models to immediately investigate the effects of the virus," says Andreas Hocke, professor of infectious diseases at the Charité Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, Germany, and coordinator of the OS network. Hocke explained that while the World Health Organization's animal models showed an "overlap of symptoms'' with humans, there was "no clear reflection" of the same disease.
"The network functions as a way of connecting organoid experts with infectious disease experts across Germany," Hocke continues. "Having organoid models on demand means we can understand how a virus infects human cells from the first moment it's isolated." Overall, OS aims to create infrastructure that could be applied to future pandemics. There are 28 sub-projects involved in the network, covering a wide assortment of individual organoids.
Cost, however, remains an obstacle to scaling up, says Chen. She says there is also a limit to what we can learn from organoids, given that they only represent a single organ. "We can add drugs to organoids to see how the cells respond, but these tests don't tell us anything about drug metabolism, for example," she explains.
A Related "Leaps" in Progress
One way to solve this issue is to use an organ-on-a-chip system. These are miniature chips containing a variety of human cells, as well as small channels along which functions like blood or air flow can be recreated. This allows scientists to perform more complex experiments, like studying drug metabolism, while producing results that are relevant to humans.
An organ-on-a-chip system.
Credit: Fraunhofer IGB
Such systems are also able to elicit an immune response. The FDA has even entered into an agreement with Wyss Institute spinoff Emulate to use their lung-on-a-chip system to test COVID-19 vaccines. Representing multiple organs in one system is also possible. Berlin-based TissUse are aiming to make a so-called 'human on a chip' system commercially available. But TissUse senior scientist Ilka Maschmeyer warns that there is a limit to how far the technology can go. "The system will not think or feel, so it wouldn't be possible to test for illnesses affecting these abilities," she says.
Some challenges also remain in the usability of organs-on-a-chip. "Specialized training is required to use them as they are so complex," says Peter Loskill, assistant professor and head of the organ-on-a-chip group at the University of Tübingen, Germany. Hocke agrees with this. "Cell culture scientists would easily understand how to use organoids in a lab, but when using a chip, you need additional biotechnology knowledge," he says.
One major advantage of both technologies is the possibility of personalized medicine: Cells can be taken from a patient and put onto a chip, for example, to test their individual response to a treatment. Loskill also says there are other uses outside of the biomedical field, such as cosmetic and chemical testing.
"Although these technologies offer a lot of possibilities, they need time to develop," Loskill continues. He stresses, however, that it's not just the technology that needs to change. "There's a lot of conservative thinking in biomedical research that says this is how we've always done things. To really study human biology means approaching research questions in a completely new way."
Even so, he thinks that the pandemic marked a shift in people's thinking—no one cared how the results were found, as long as it was done quickly. But Loskill adds that it's important to balance promise, potential, and expectations when it comes to these new models. "Maybe in 15 years' time we will have a limited number of animal models in comparison to now, but the timescale depends on many factors," he says.
Beumer, now a post-doc, was eventually allowed to return to the lab to develop his coronavirus model, and found working on it to be an eye-opening experience. He saw first-hand how his research could have an impact on something that was affecting the entire human race, as well as the pressure that comes with studying potential treatments. Though he doesn't see a future for himself in infectious diseases, he hopes to stick with organoids. "I've now gotten really excited about the prospect of using organoids for drug discovery," he says.
The coronavirus pandemic has slowed society down in many respects, but it has flung biomedical research into the future—from mRNA vaccines to healthcare models based on human biology. It may be difficult to fully eradicate animal models, but over the coming years, organoids and organs-on-a-chip may become the standard for the sake of efficacy -- and ethics.
