Nanofuture's Bionic Eyes

[Image: John Pezaris, adapted with permission from D.H. Hubel]

One of the scenarios envisioned by the Center for Nanotechnology and Society is the creation of highly advanced bionic eyes, utilizing fully developed thin-film technology.

The Center describes a situation in which a company offers a visual enhancement system to help the blind to see again – at least at first it is intended just for the visually impaired. The system, called Opti-scan, has its capabilities described as follows: “Opti-scan is capable not only of restoring sight to the blind but also of providing them with additional capabilities beyond those of the normally sighted.”

Opti-scan, essentially, would be able to route visual information directly to the genicuate nucleus – where the optic nerve connects to the visual cortex in the brain. So, one can imagine, it would be very easy to alter the types of information Opti-scan would be capable of sending to the visual cortex.

Night vision, thermal vision, virtual reality and a number of other enhancements to ordinary visual light information could be added to the system. The Center also imagines that this information could be downloaded onto personal computers, the Internet or Bluetooth.

Some possible side effects of the system are also discussed in the scenario.

Overall, there are two major philosophical issues that this particular scenario deals with, in relation to the impact of nanotechnology on society. First, there is the debate over the encroachment of technology on the human beings mental and physical functions.

Basically, there is a question as to how bionic human beings should be allowed to get, from a moral standpoint. Of course, in theory, there is nothing suggesting that it is impossible to alter every single human motor and mental function with technology. But is there a point at which we believe enough is enough? Is there a point at which human beings cease to be human beings? And, if so, do we have moral objections to this?

Second, this scenario begins to introduce the issue of personal privacy in the age of nanotechnology. It is not difficult to imagine individuals possessing thermal vision capabilities using this to spy on other people – or for other potentially devious means. In short, if everyone was granted such superhuman abilities, it is easy to imagine that an individual’s “right to privacy” would be largely surrendered.

This is why the Nanofutures experiment is so important toward developing a coherent and publicly-driven nanotechnology policy of the future: It is not altogether apparent how the public would react, on a moral level, to these advancements. And yet, they may be just a few decades away.

Take a look, and let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-bioniceyes.php.

The Center describes a situation in which a company offers a visual enhancement system to help the blind to see again – at least at first it is intended just for the visually impaired. The system, called Opti-scan, has its capabilities described as follows: “Opti-scan is capable not only of restoring sight to the blind but also of providing them with additional capabilities beyond those of the normally sighted.”

Opti-scan, essentially, would be able to route visual information directly to the genicuate nucleus – where the optic nerve connects to the visual cortex in the brain. So, one can imagine, it would be very easy to alter the types of information Opti-scan would be capable of sending to the visual cortex.

Night vision, thermal vision, virtual reality and a number of other enhancements to ordinary visual light information could be added to the system. The Center also imagines that this information could be downloaded onto personal computers, the Internet or Bluetooth.

Some possible side effects of the system are also discussed in the scenario.

Overall, there are two major philosophical issues that this particular scenario deals with, in relation to the impact of nanotechnology on society. First, there is the debate over the encroachment of technology on the human beings mental and physical functions.

Basically, there is a question as to how bionic human beings should be allowed to get, from a moral standpoint. Of course, in theory, there is nothing suggesting that it is impossible to alter every single human motor and mental function with technology. But is there a point at which we believe enough is enough? Is there a point at which human beings cease to be human beings? And, if so, do we have moral objections to this?

Second, this scenario begins to introduce the issue of personal privacy in the age of nanotechnology. It is not difficult to imagine individuals possessing thermal vision capabilities using this to spy on other people – or for other potentially devious means. In short, if everyone was granted such superhuman abilities, it is easy to imagine that an individual’s “right to privacy” would be largely surrendered.

This is why the Nanofutures experiment is so important toward developing a coherent and publicly-driven nanotechnology policy of the future: It is not altogether apparent how the public would react, on a moral level, to these advancements. And yet, they may be just a few decades away.

Take a look, and let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-bioniceyes.php