Television shows such as "Lexx," "Farscape," and "Babylon 5" have all presented the viewer with a relatively new concept in mainstream science fiction—machines that are biologically alive, combining robotic technology with genetics. These shows tend to be campy nerd fare, built much more on speculation, conjecture, and pop philosophy than on actual science. Nonetheless, actual science has recently provided us with a real life bio-mechanical device. In the nonscholarly media, it has gained the name "roborat."

The technology is surprisingly simple, involving three radio-controlled electrodes and (of course) a rat. Rats sense touch through sensors in their whiskers. These sensors help steer them away from obstacles. The region of the rat's brain responsible for these sensations is the somatosensory cortex. Two electrode patches are implanted in the cortex, one to stimulate the right set of whiskers, and one to stimulate the left. Activated by remote controls, these patches steer the rat in one direction or the other. The third electrode is placed in the rat's medial forebrain bundle (MFB). The MFB is believed to be an emotional controller, responsible for the senses of motivation and reward in rats. This electrode is activated via remote when the rat is successfully steered to its destination.¹

It is an unconventional twist on animal training. Rather than physically guiding an animal with blinders, bits, spurs, or yokes, the scientists overseeing this project steer the animal by transmitting illusory internal signals into the brain. Likewise, rather than rewarding the animal with a biscuit, a fish, or a dangling carrot, the scientists in question are transmitting the illusion or reward directly into the animal's brain.

The potential uses for this are varied. Robo-rats could be used on rescue missions, bringing food and provisions to people trapped beneath rubble. Equipped with remote cameras or microphones, rats could be used for espionage. Moreover, Dr. Sanjiv Talwar, the leader of ratbot research at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, asserts that the technology can be used on other animals. "...Birds, for example," says Talwar. "So you could have a carrier that can do anything you want."²

This technology is also a potential stepping stone to future breakthroughs in prosthetics. In the future, perhaps artificial limbs with some tactile abilities would be able to transmit sense of pressure or touch to electrodes in the brains of amputees or paralysis victims. Perhaps signals could even be sent back from the brain in kind, allowing control of such false limbs. Indeed, Dr. Steve M. Potter of the Laboratory for Neuroengineering in Georgia Tech has already devised a metal robot whose processor consists of a mass of living rat neurons grown over a bundle of electrodes. The neurons are able to respond to light taken in by the robot's electronic sensors, and the robot is able to respond to movement impulses from the living, biological neurons, turning its wheels.³

Although rescue and intelligence gathering are the most commonly proposed uses for this new technology, there are concerns that this technology is unethical or could be abused. Some fear that larger animals could be forced into use as minesweepers. Others fear the implications for free will in animals and even humans. "Are we going to see people who are terrorists or people who are soldiers programmed to do things they wouldn't normally do?" asks Art Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania's center for Bioethics.

No, says Dr, Talwar. Talwar asserts that the rats remain able to make their own decisions if need be. He reports that the rats will flinch and turn away from obvious danger even when steered in such a direction. "Our animals were completely happy and treated well and in no sense was there any cruelty involved," Talwar claims.⁴

Talwar expounds the importance of his research, saying "Rats have native intelligence which is a lot better than artificial intelligence."4 However, some would disagree. Among Talwar's detractors is Dr. Robin Murphy, director of the Center For Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue. Murphy's research center designed and worked on the robots that combed through the rubble of the recently-attacked World Trade Center. Murphy points out that roborats could become easily distracted by external stimuli common at disaster sites, such as the smell of smoke or rotting garbage. Rats also can only go out to a site for about an hour at a time, while robots can last seven to twelve hours. Moreover, rubble could easily interfere with a roborat's remote transmitting system. Rescue missions also often require long falls or exposure to hot and fiery places roborats may be unable or unwilling to go. It should be pointed out that the range of broadcast for roborats cannot exceed 1700 feet.⁵

Bio-mechanical technology, while a far throw from the stuff of science fiction, is here to stay. Whether it will lead to increased efficiency in rescue missions, advances in prosthetics, more sophisticated means of committing crimes, or headaches for animal rights activists remains to be seen.

Footnotes:
1 The Economist. The brain-in-a-rat problem. May 2, 2002
2 Arent, Lindsey. Roborats Prompt Question on Ethics. Tech Live. October 15, 1992
3 Eisenberg, Anne. Wired to the Brain of a Rat, a Robot Takes On the World. New York Times. May 15, 2003
4 Whitehouse, David. Here come the ratbots. BBC news. May 1, 2002
5 Robin R. Murphy. Roborats Revisited.