Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Professor Rejects Camera Implanted In His Head

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the bad-ideas dept.

Idle 138

Stenchwarrior writes "A New York University professor temporarily removed the camera he had surgically installed in the back of his head to get rid of one of the apparatus' parts after his body rejected it, myFOXny.com reported Wednesday. Photography professor Wafaa Bilal was in near constant pain after part of a thumb-nail-size camera, implanted in December as part of an art project commissioned by a new museum in Qatar, was rejected by his body."

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ouch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35173822)

All in the name of Art!

Why didn't he wear a strap on? (4)

Jophish (1489121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35173842)

Did it never occur to him to just strap a camera to his head? Or just wear a hat with a camera on. Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35173916)

Art isn't practical, reasonable or logical. It's art.

Captcha: "congress", also not practical, reasonable or logical.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35173986)

Art is not practical, reasonable or logical.

Thus, everything that is neither practical, reasonable or logical must be art!

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174044)

That, sir, is a brilliant literary masterpiece.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174446)

Non sequitur.

Things that are neither practical, reasonable or logical may be art, but they may as well be simply stupid.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174618)

Ssh! Don't explain the joke!

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174930)

In a majority of cases though it is both art and stupid.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176918)

Or it may be simply stupid art.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174592)

Your words are so artistic.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174836)

Thus, everything that is neither practical, reasonable or logical must be art!

Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art.

Just don't confuse "art" with "art that's worth a damn" or "art that isn't complete shit" and this won't bother you. :)

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

noodler (724788) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176872)

"Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art."

So me pissing on someones head from a bridge must be pure art then?
O.M.G. i'm an artist!

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177400)

"Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art."

So me pissing on someones head from a bridge must be pure art then?

Could be, actually. Why not?

Whether anybody wants to come see your performances, or the gallery opening where you exhibit photos of yourself doing this is another matter entirely.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175488)

I dunno, what about architecture? You know, having a building look good and have a style but also be ultimately functional?

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177976)

This is very clear: architecture becomes art exactly where you fail to do the things one normally expects a building to do. Have a river running through the house? Art. Have all the walls transparant so there's no privacy? Art. (These are real-world examples, of course.)

If a building or car or whatever is quite functional, but looks appealing, that's marketing.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

SnowHog (1944314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174396)

That wouldn't have been creepy enough. Unless by strap-on you mean that other kind...

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177448)

That wouldn't have been creepy enough. Unless by strap-on you mean that other kind...

Surely the porn industry must, by now, have created a strap-on with a camera in it...

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (3, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174470)

Did it never occur to him to just strap a camera to his head? Or just wear a hat with a camera on. Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

I think you nailed it. Only an attention whore would do this and it sounds like the bugger got his attention too. And a septic head.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175772)

It's plain stupid. Now he has no choice but to stare at people behind him all day long. How uncomfortable is that. I think he'll end up removing it permanently at some point, or wearing a beanie cap to cover it until times when he "needs" it.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176226)

It's plain stupid. Now he has no choice but to stare at people behind him all day long.

That is the whole point. If he just wore it like a backwards headlamp, he could take it off at his convenience, which would defeat the purpose of committing to live with it as if it were natural. Even if he had the discipline to never take it off, his audience couldn't be sure. That does matter in an art project.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (2)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177922)

That is the whole point. If he just wore it like a backwards headlamp, he could take it off at his convenience.

He could cover the installed camera at his convenience just as easily. The only point is publicity.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

nautsch (1186995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174816)

Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

You think?

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174976)

That was the first thing I thought of when I first heard about this teacher. How much did it cost him in medical bills to implant a camera in his head? I'm sure insurance didn't cover that. (If it did, what kind of plan is he on?!!) How much less would it have cost for him to take a $5 hat and install a camera in it? Then, when you inevitably needed to replace some camera part (or the entire camera for an upgrade), it would be relatively easy to do. Either remove/replace camera or just get a new hat. No additional surgery/recovery required!

Sometimes the super-cool sounding high tech approach isn't the best approach.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35175900)

he's a freak!!!

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (2)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175906)

Why didn't he wear a strap on?

I swear, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that... well .... *uncomfortable silence*

The Body doesn't reject non-living tissue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35176486)

The only time the body rejects anything, is when donor tissue is of a different immunologic background - thus the need for immune supression drugs after organ transplants.
Metal and plastic items don't typically mount an immune response, but rather either become infected, or becomes encased in scar tissue which might bother some local nerves.
    Seeing that this camera was mounted with part of it outside his body, I'd say that it became infected, which tends to hurt a lot.

Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177588)

A big cowboy hat that buzzes?

Stupid art tricks (4, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35173882)

This is right up there with locking yourself in a cage for month - a totally meaningless, useless trick meant only to get attention.

Re:Stupid art tricks (3, Interesting)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174002)

Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I'm clearly no art critic and claim no deep understanding of art, but what does this bring as "art"? This brings no insights and adds nothing. And frankly, the fact that it's funded by a new museum in Qatar makes it worse in my eyes. Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another. This "art" project is about as artful as having a toddler splatter his spaghetti on a canvas.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

Lakitu (136170) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174654)

Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another.

People have said the same thing about America for almost as long as it has existed.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177866)

Interesting, seeing as how America has been a "rich" country for less than a century...

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

Omega Hacker (6676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175308)

Given the fact that these days absolutely anything can be called "art", I think it's entirely fair to say that absolutely everybody is fully qualified as an "art critic".

If this moron can call his publicity stunt "art", then I feel fully justified in critiquing it as "complete idiocy". More importantly, as per above, nobody can dispute my opinion (not fact!) as invalid in any way.

Re:Stupid art tricks (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176304)

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion about any piece of art, yes. Whether you are qualified as an "art critic" is something for the audience of your criticism to decide. Do you have any insight that others have found worthy of listening to and/or paying for?

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

spxero (782496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176526)

People listening/paying or not is not a defining attribute to being an art critic. It is to being a popular art critic, but not just being an art critic (or critic of anything else, for that matter). If the audience is only himself, he is still a critic.

Just as it is completely in the "artist's" right to call it art, it is in our individual rights to determine if we consider it art. And likewise it is up to the population as a whole to determine if it is important or inane art.

Personally, I consider this inane.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175750)

Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another.

I agree with what you're saying, but that particular part just makes it sound like the rich guys in Qatar and Abu Dhabi care quite a lot about art.

Re:Stupid art tricks (2)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175984)

This brings no insights and adds nothing.

Your failure to derive insight from this only speaks about you, not the work.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176802)

My insight is that the man was a moron for dickering with his brain case for an 'art project'.

Re:Stupid art tricks (2)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176380)

Let's change the subject slightly

Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I'm clearly no astronomer and claim no deep understanding of the stars, but what does this bring as "science"? This [routine observation] brings no insights and adds nothing. And frankly, the fact that it's funded by a new observatory in California makes it worse in my eyes. Places like California and New Mexico have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless telescope after another. This "science" project is about as scientific as having a toddler point to the night sky and gurgle.

Same ideas, different subject. We can't know in advance what we will see or discover when we look into the telescope. That's why we look at all. A similar thing can be said of art. We cannot know the impact or impression of a work until it is created.

Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint, and frankly I have a low opinion of modern artists. But this professor went out on a limb to create something entirely unprecedented, and that's about as close to creative research as I think art professors can get. So I'm willing to cut him some slack here.

In short, If I can spend time investigating the Goldbach Conjecture, I don't see why this guy can't bolt a camera to the back of his head.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174286)

This is right up there with locking yourself in a cage for month - a totally meaningless, useless trick meant only to get attention.

In the US, hundreds of thousands lock themselves in a cage every year by committing misdemeanors and getting jailed.

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175764)

Or getting a job..

Re:Stupid art tricks (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177388)

Or getting a job..

No... that's much longer than a month for most people.

If you are constrained by the job, that could be a life sentence.

The rumors of "release" (also called retirement) are vastly overstated

Re:Stupid art tricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174938)

Oh, like a Moon mission? Got it.

Typical new age disconnect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35173888)

His body rejects the camera that the professor had implanted. You know, they're totally not one and the same, the professor and his body. How dare you disobey your master, body? Perhaps the news should read "Professor apparently dumber than his pierced students, mutilates body for art project, suffers as expected."

Re:Typical new age disconnect (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174694)

I wonder if it really was rejection or just an infection. A Google [google.com] searched showed every site using the term "rejection", but since they just copy-paste from one another, I don't take it as evidence. Rejection is an immune reaction against an implanted tissue/organ. It is usually against certain proteins on cells, so it is a bit strange to have a rejection to a few screws in the head. OTOH, any foreign body can harbor bacteria and cause in infection - which would cause "near-constant pain".
But I guess "reject" sounds cooler, facts be damned.

Re:Typical new age disconnect (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175552)

Everyone is used to body modifications through hardware. Piercings, dental fittings, artificial joints, etc are all very mundane. This camera isn't much more exotic than dentures that snap in to a titanium post. It's certainly less impressive than an artificial hip. However, if you use the word, "rejected", you make it sound like it's somehow more tightly integrated with his body. You further the hype that this guy is somehow more of a cyborg than if i were to hang an ipod nano from my earring.

Re:Typical new age disconnect (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175716)

Or there is a third option. The body does attempt to expel forign objects, or failing that to encapsulate them in a covering in order to prevent poisoning. Even non-living objects. They end up inside cysts. That's why implants have to be made of or at least coated with bioinert materials - you can't use just any old metal. It took many years of research just to find a way to transfuse blood without it clotting in the needle or tube. If that's whats happening, I imagine that the dumbing-down in reporting would turn it into simple 'rejection.'

Re:Typical new age disconnect (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177316)

What you refer to is called Foreign Body Reaction [wikipedia.org] which is pretty much how you described it: a reaction that encapsulates the foreign body so it is effectively "outside" of the body (i.e. separated from it). I am not sure this is related to what causes blood to clot outside of blood vessels.

Well.. (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35173966)

...I guess he didn't see that coming.

.

Re:Well.. (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174050)

Sir, how do I best remove coffee from keyboards and monitors?

Re:Coffee (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174092)

Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!

Re:Coffee (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174674)

Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!

You, sir, owe me a new keyboard... because mind spat the hot coffee back on me. Please send new keyboard to the burn ward, or my lawyer's office.

Re:Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174426)

Pee on it and shake it (the keyboard!) out.

Ah, but hindsight... (5, Funny)

Randwulf (997659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174250)

Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174418)

Then a hindsight camera would have served him better. Where did he install the camera?

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35175038)

Is he a manager?

Most managers leave their hindsight cameras at the factory, next to their foresight cameras.

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175268)

Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!

Wait. Don't you mean 20/20 is hindsight?

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (3, Funny)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175550)

it looks like his idea didn't... *glasses*... develop well.

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177518)

it looks like his idea didn't... *glasses*... develop well.

Huh? I don't get it...

Re:Ah, but hindsight... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177022)

Or in this case, hindsight is 20 Megapixels

Re:Well.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174602)

He should have seen it going though.

Re:Well.. (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177120)

It's just as well, I hear the camera adds ten pounds, his neck was probably getting tired.

The cia will just need find a new pain free one (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35173992)

The cia will just need find a new pain free one

Surprised Mann wasn't first (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174024)

I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann [wikimedia.org] has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174734)

This seems more like something stupid Kevin Warwick [kevinwarwick.com] would do.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175916)

I think this technology may be too sophisticated for him.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175926)

I've always suspected that Steve Mann was at least somewhat an inspiration for the character Manfred Maxx in Charles Stross's Accelerando.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175928)

I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann [wikimedia.org] has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

I read that as Steve MARTIN at first. It made perfect sense. [youtube.com] Well, except I thought that you were a bit off on your decades count.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177192)

Better link http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/ [toronto.edu]

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177248)

I'm not sure a page last updated in 2003 is better than a Wikipedia article that still gets additions from time to time.

Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first (1)

Destoo (530123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177988)

He's already low on Essence, so he's waiting for Cybermancy to catch up before doing it too.

I am reminded of the words of Red Forman, who said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174062)

"Dumbass."

Cool insight... (3, Insightful)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174068)

While many may say "this is just a stunt" or whatever, regardless if it is or not it was interesting none-the-less. There have been many instances of technology being implanted into people lately, especially in and [bbc.co.uk] around the head [reuters.com] . While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner. This sort of trial and error with the implanting of hardware on the human body is necessary for us to get an idea of what the human body will accept and reject, and what procedures of implantation can help reduce the chances of rejection.

Re:Cool insight... (1)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174562)

I believe that infinitely more insight on what the human body will accept and reject comes from clinical studies and research on implants then from art projects, especially those actually implant technology (i.e. try to connect technology to nerves). From a medicinal standpoint, this professor could as well have implanted a plastic globe.

Re:Cool insight... (1)

crackspackle (759472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176144)

While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner.

I doubt we have enough knowledge of human physiology to start doing ad hoc implants where not medically necessary. We still don't know why some people reject implants and others don't or even what causes rejection completely. This guy may be in for a lifetime of horrible medical consequences for what he did. Taking the camera out may only partially mitigate it. Even for common implants today like lap bands or pacemakers, the complications are numerous. To consider an implant simply to enhance your abilities is akin to taking steroids and hoping you balls don't fall off or you don't grow man boobs.

Re:Cool insight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35176460)

While you're right about everything you just said.. that was totally off-scope in relationship to this article.. This article was about him doing it for art... He was an "art" professor. If scientist want to research technological implants, then they need to stop doing it for "art" and get serious about it..

Re:Cool insight... (1)

fermat1313 (927331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177576)

While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner.

I think we're a very long way from that type of technology. Yeah, we can build chips and sensors and what not. Doesn't matter if we can't effectively create a technology/brain interface. I've seen nothing to indicate we're even close to this type of a breakthrough. We simply no too little about how the brain actually works.

Groucho (4, Funny)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174098)

Man goes to a doctor and says, "Doctor, I hurts when I do this!"
Doctor says, "Well, don't do that."

I'm reminded of the Ren & Stimpy episode: (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174158)

The one where Stimpy's brain falls out.

No sh*t (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174204)

Idiot, he thought he could keep that sh*t this long inside his body without rejection.....funny man!

Re:No sh*t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35176372)

Your body doesn't reject inorganic materials. My wife had a kidney/pancreas transplant and I have metal hips. Guess which one of us has to take anti-rejection drugs, you fuckin' moron.

Eye of the beholder (4, Funny)

varmittang (849469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174226)

Not everyone likes your artwork. Including your own body.

Re:Eye of the beholder (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174310)

Not everyone likes your artwork. Including your own body.

Well, they say everyone's a critic

Re:Eye of the beholder (3, Funny)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175514)

Well, they say everybody's a critic.

FTFY

Re:Eye of the beholder (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174360)

I would even go as far as to say that no body likes his artwork.

Camera Mount - Not A Camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174408)

The only thing "implanted" in his brain were 3 screws to hold a camera mount.
There was no camera implanted into his brain.

Re:Camera Mount - Not A Camera (1)

Script Cat (832717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174630)

Is hanging on clips really implanted. I think implanted would be unremovable like an eye. I sounds like he can just detatch it. At any rate it dosn't send signals directly in to his brain or anything like that. If I were doing this project I would forgo the whole implantation mumbojumbo and just put it on a strap. Also it would have a heads up diaplay and wireless uplink. Maybe throw in some haptics for good measure.

Re:Camera Mount - Not A Camera (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174648)

Perhaps he had a screw loose that caused the infection.

QUICK! BEHIND YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174474)

Hindsight is 20/20.

Not a big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35174730)

Not a big surprise. open skin penetrations, particularly in the hair have a tendency to get infected. Really a bad idea honestly. Maybe after we perfect getting nail or horn material around the implant site, being durable and a barrier to infection the same way our fingernails or a deer antler is. Otherwise, No thanks.

Dear mom (1)

Ribbons Almark (1648843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174740)

I may not have eyes in the back of my head BUT I HAVE A CAMERA! LOL. But the fact that this was rejected by the body does not bode well for some future tech implementations, im hoping that the material was just faulty. Cause I would hate to think that if we created a bionic leg or arm that it would be rejected by the body.

A touch surprising... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35174774)

I'm a bit surprised that he ran into trouble, my understanding was that titanium/bone interfacing, while still a bit more brutal than would be ideal, was a more or less solved problem. All sorts of rods, plates, screws, and whatnot get used routinely to patch together assorted horrors of skeletal misfortune, and remain implanted for the life of the patient.

Perhaps it was an issue with having the implant protruding through the skin, or carrying a load that probably got bumped and jostled from time to time?

unsolved (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175266)

Implants are OK, for both bones and pace makers.

But anything that protrudes through the skin is asking for trouble: it's tough to get a seal even with natural substances, let alone anything artificial. Note that in a healthy human, the skin is one continuous sheet, covering your insides and outsides, with no holes anywhere.

The only animals I can think of that have stuff sticking through their skin are animals with antlers or horns. People are trying to figure out how to replicate that. But the point of antlers/horns is that they are risky to the animal, so even they may not have solved the problem completely.

Re:unsolved (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176612)

You may be interested in this story [huffingtonpost.com] . There, veterinarians attached titanium pegs to the leg bones of a cat that had lost its feet; they were designed to mimic deer antlers, and protruded through the skin in such a way that the skin would grow into a groove in the metal and, it was hoped, form a tight seal. I haven't heard any updates on this story, so hopefully the project has been successful and the cat hasn't been getting infections.

Looks like an active research area.

Not surprising at all (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175580)

It's actually not very surprising at all. If you look at, say, tooth implants, they require a dental hygiene taken to OCD extremes and have a MTBF of just a few years. Then an infection happens. Anything that goes through the skin can do just that.

A future revolution (1)

ItsIllak (95786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35175136)

I strongly believe this is going to be a future social revolution along the same lines of the Internet and Social Media.

The point at which we have all got our mobile phone/camera embedded in our body with the ability to record at at thought will be a revolution in personal security. It will no longer be possible to commit crime against the person without serious risk of being identified.

This may come as a wearable device or it may come as an implanted device. Hell, as we're blue sky thinking it may simply interface to the retina, but I think it's the next logical step in convergent devices - converge with the user. This is a step towards that.

Re:A future revolution (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176074)

Providing it's also affordable for everyone to continually stream the data to a server elsewhere over the future version of the cellphone network. Otherwise any criminal only need learn exactly where he needs to smash the sock-full-of-rocks in order to destroy the implant.

Obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35176270)

Everything isn't art.. If i took a sh*t on the sidewalk of some major city street because it was different, socially odd and not logical could I call that pile of poo art?
N

Which doctor decided this was medically necessary? (1)

n7ytd (230708) | more than 3 years ago | (#35176644)

I'm curious if the surgeon that assisted with this "art project" is still licensed to practice medicine. I'm no MD, but if I were on an ethics board reviewing his malpractice insurance application or continued employment at my hospital, it would be a tough sell to justify to me attaching an experimental camera to a normally-sighted man's skull for the entertainment value.

Re:Which doctor decided this was medically necessa (1)

Richard_J_N (631241) | more than 3 years ago | (#35177672)

It may be a stupid idea, but presumably the patient gave his informed consent. Much cosmetic surgery isn't medically necessary either.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>