Redesigning the human individual

As I was browsing the web today I found an article from the British Medical Journal that really made me think of what it means to be human. The article came into being after the Human Genome Project ended – it was like: “ok, we have this load of information, what are we going to do with it? simply, change it!”. So a bunch of scientists, artists were asked to give their impressions on what they would redesign to the human species. Each description was very unique. The article also included drawings of small children from several places on the globe – most wanted more sensors – like more eyes, more ears and even more than one head. It seems like children are indeed overwhelmed by the new world they were plunged into without their will!

Still just because we have identified the genes, does not mean we have identified their role – and even if we did just that, our genes express or silence themselves according to the environment. They are not fixed. Speaking of that I just found out from Scientific American that we have about 10 times more microbe cells than human cells so we are indeed a superorganism made of several species.  This just adds to the complexity of who of we are .

There is a saying I heard in engineering school : if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We could argue that the human body is full of broken parts , especially as age advances, but until we know humans better I would avoid playing with this design. I do not say this on religious terms, because I do not have any religion. I just speak on safety terms meaning redesigning healthy individuals, not trying to find a cure for a disease that is already clinical.

In order to answer the question of what I would redesign at the human individual I will start with what I wouldn’t change. I love how the brain spreads information in several places to protect itself in the form of memory redundancy – although it could improve this aspect. I appreciate how the brain’s surface folds so that it occupies the same volume – of course this folding can’t take place forever because then the signals would interfere. I also find neuroplasticity amazing – but there is a lot to improve here too, in case one specialized center is damaged. I consider myself very lucky to be human because I have access to culture – you would probably laugh at me, but I was seriously feeling pity for fish and dogs for getting bored because they don’t know how to read Yet the access to information has the effect of an enriched environment over this noble tissue and I think that people are getting smarter with each generation.

Still I would change the skin – it is wonderful that it can repair itself , at least during childhood, but it can easily burn, freeze, suffer from radiations and get cut. I would make the neurons regenerate maintaining at least the same number of neurons all life so that the individual can truly experience life no matter the age. The human locomotion is already improved by all means of transport so no need to tinker in here.  I would add more enzymes to the human genome so that humans can use a variety of fuel types and no one would starve anymore no matter where one might live.

What would you change at the human individual? What would you keep from the current design?

neural engineering jobs

I just found a blog that regularly details jobs for neural engineers – both in industry and academia. Knowing how hard it is to search for such a specialized field, here is the link.

The FFI curse

FFI means fatal familial insomnia. It is a genetic disease that manifests itself after the age of procreation – we’re talking about a smart gene, right?

I got interested in this rare disease as the last year of medical school approaches and I need a good subject for the final medical thesis. I am looking for a mathematical model for this disease or at least for the thalamic degeneration that is central to it, but meanwhile I found this documentary made by the Prion Information Center:

Mathematical models in neuroscience

Mathematical models are mandatory for designing neural prostheses that can close the nervous circuit in order to treat a neurological disorder. Here are some sites that shared their mathematical models for the rest of us in order to use and improve them!

SenseLab – This is a project funded by The Human Brain Project and it includes these databases:

- neuronal databases: CellPropDB, NeuronDB, ModelDB,  MicrocircuitDB

- olfactory databases: ORDB, OdorDB, OdorMapDB

- disease databases: BrainPharm

If you need a mathematical model of a certain brain region, here is a very useful list.

In order to run these models, I advise you to download the NEURON software. In order to learn how to use it, here is an online version of exercises from the 2008 summer course.

Visiome is a database where you can find a lot of mathamatical models related to vision.

CellML is being developed by the Auckland Bioengineering Institute at the University of Auckland.

A free software to open the CellML files is Cellular Open Resource .

BioModels Database is a database of mathematical models of biological interest.

If you know of any good database of such mathematical models, please leave a comment!

Protective brain hypothesis

This hypothesis says that an organism with a  large brain comparing to its size increases its lifespan although it implies higher energetic costs. This hypothesis was finally confirmed – take a look!

Artificial organs getting better each day!

People can’t yet replace all their organs with artificial ones, but researchers are making huge progresses: artificial organs

I also just discovered a magazine only about artificial organs! How awesome is that!

Have we been looking for consciousness in the wrong place?

Consciousness equals awareness of self and of the exterior environment. While studying neurology, I learnt about the Glasgow Coma Scale to identify consciousness states by measuring 3 outputs:

- the verbal response

- the eye response

- the motor response

The neural doctrine prevails in the mainstream literature , but some articles in the Journal of Consciousness Studies by Johnjoe McFadden made me think whether we have been looking in the wrong place for the neural correlates of consciousness.

While the neural doctrine asserts the neural synapses as the physical storage of memory and information transmission being made with the help of action potentials and chemical neurotransmitters, it does not identify the physical equivalent of consciousness. The electromagnetic field theories of consciousness identify the brain’s endogenous electromagnetic field as the substrate of consciousness.

An electromagnetic field is produced by electrically charged objects and can be described by the Maxwell’s equations :

and by the Lorentz force law:

In Seven Clues to the Origin of Consciousness, Johnjoe McFadden identified these clues to the origin of consciousness:

Clue 1: Consciousness generates phenomena in the world. It is a cause of effects.

Clue 2: Consciousness is a property of living (human) brains. As far as we know, it is not a property of any other structure.

Clue 3: Brain activity can be conscious or unconscious.

Clue 4: The unconscious mind can perform parallel computations but conscious appears to be serial.

Clue 5: Learning and memory require consciousness but recall may be unconscious.

Clue 6: Information that is encoded by widely distributed neurons in our brain is somehow bound together to form unified conscious percepts.

Clue 7: Consciousness and awareness are associated not with neural firing per se but with neurons that fire in synchrony.

The main arguments for this specific theory – the cemi theory- are:

- the relationship between firing synchrony of neurons and consciousness

- the research techniques that influence the nervous system or identify its endogenous electromagnetic field with the help of static charges or dynamic charges (currents).

These include:

- transcranial direct current stimulation

- transcranial alternating current stimulation

- transcranial magnetic stimulation

with their cranial equivalents and:

- electroencephalography

- electrocorticography which is intracranial EEG

- magnetoencephalography

When I first read about this theory I thought it is very suitable to experiments. Indeed the author makes a series of testable predictions detailed in cemi_theory_paper from which I quote:

(1) Stimuli that reach conscious awareness will be associated with em field
modulations that are strong enough to directly influence the firing of motor
neurones.
(2) Stimuli that do not reach conscious awareness will not be associated with em
field modulations that affect motor neurone firing.
(3) The cemi field theory claims that consciousness represents a stream of infor-
mation passing through the brain’s em field. Increased complexity of con-
scious thinking should therefore correlate with increased complexity of the
brain’s em field.
(4) Agents that disrupt the interaction between the brain’s em field and neurones
will induce unconsciousness.
(5) Arousal and alertness will correlate with conditions in which em field fluctu-
ations are most likely to influence neurone firing; conversely, low arousal
and unconsciousness will correlate with conditions when em fields are least
likely to influence neurone firing.
(6) The brain’s em field should be relatively insulated to perturbation from
exogenous em fields encountered in normal environments.
(7) The evolution of consciousness in animals should correlate with an increas-
ing level of electrical coupling between the brain’s endogenous em field and
(receiver) neurone firing.
(8) Consciousness should demonstrate field-level dynamics.

In the end, these 2 videos present an intracranial EEG after right frontal craniotomy and a transcranial magnetic stimulation.