You Know You Are Living In The 21st Century When.....

[Maximius]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_...face_transplant

 

This is really incredible stuff, not just for this particular case but in the sense that we as human beings are really starting to tamper with our physical beings, now literally taking parts and swapping them out when needed. I realize we have been doing this stuff with some organs and limbs for years but there is a symbolic and material difference when you start to move around faces. Its not just a medical feat, it rips open an entire bag of questions about what kinds of creatures we are and what we could become.

 

Perhaps the day will come when we can, as William Gibson put it, leave the "meat" behind. Undoubtably we will see cosmetic, umm, face lifts for the Hollywood set, black markets in human faces similar to the black market in organs that exist today, a tightening of security measures that depend on facial recognition to work.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Maximius

[OrbWeaver]

She's not going to be the next Miss World, but it's better than nothing.

[Maximius]

She's not going to be the next Miss World, but it's better than nothing.

 

 

She could definitely do with some transplanted teeth for her next job.

[_Atti_]

Damn TV showed this at dinnertime they couldnt resist showing the pic of how she looked before her new face was attached.

[c777]

Perhaps the day will come when we can, as William Gibson put it, leave the "meat" behind

 

leave sex?

[Springheel]

Did it mention that she lost her face after attempting suicide and passing out on her daughter's dog? Or that one of the first things she did after getting her new mouth was lighting up a cigarette against her doctor's advice? I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.

[obscurus]

They must have been desparate for a test subject - normally surgeons won't perform transplants on people who have attempted suicide in the recent past, or who are smokers, or drug-users. Not worth wasting the donor's organs on them, someone else will surely need the organs who actually has a decent chance of getting full value out of them...

 

I too have absolutely no sympathy for her. I am personally more in favour of cybernetic replacements or regeneration of the body's own tissue than transplants. Both technologies are being developed at a reasonable pace, and I would expect that by the time I am getting old, there is a good chance I'll be able to get some funky bionic arms or regenerate a missing leg from my own tissue. I don't see transplants being performed at all once either one of these technologies is perfected.

 

I especially don't see face transplants taking off...

[Maximius]

They must have been desparate for a test subject - normally surgeons won't perform transplants on people who have attempted suicide in the recent past, or who are smokers, or drug-users. Not worth wasting the donor's organs on them, someone else will surely need the organs who actually has a decent chance of getting full value out of them...

 

I too have absolutely no sympathy for her. I am personally more in favour of cybernetic replacements or regeneration of the body's own tissue than transplants. Both technologies are being developed at a reasonable pace, and I would expect that by the time I am getting old, there is a good chance I'll be able to get some funky bionic arms or regenerate a missing leg from my own tissue. I don't see transplants being performed at all once either one of these technologies is perfected.

 

I especially don't see face transplants taking off...

 

Actually, most face transplants are taking off.......

 

Im not particularily sympthetic for her either, I sure didnt know she lost her face because she collapsed on top of a dog, I had assumed it was an attack. I'd probably bite her too if she was laying on top of me.

 

Obscurus do you have any good articles on those technologies you mentioned? You make good points about the utility of face transplants if other methods come along, though I suspect there will be someone who finds a use for such stuff. Maybe when Cher dies her face will be put up for auction or something ungodly like that.

[obscurus]

I'll have to track down some links - I've got bookmarks on my home computer, but not here at work. At the moment, one of the interesting technologies is the discovery that you can print living cells with modified inkjet printer technology, and there are schemes to develop a 3d tissue printing technology with it, the idea being you culture various cell types and 'print' whole organs which can then be transplanted. Most tissue regeneration techniques involve triggering stem cells to replace missing tissues, or culturing say, liver cells, in an artificial scaffold which then becomes a new liver.

 

Big advancements have been made in tooth regeneration - we aren't there yet, but we can get tooth-like structures growing, and presumably it is just a matter of time before the process is perfected.

 

Check out the New Scientist website, American Scientist, Discover magazine etc - they will probably have some good links, otherwise google around, see where you get.

 

Very promising stuff, I would expect that I'll live to see it happen, maybe even make use of it (though I hope I won't have to)...

[Ishtvan]

Artificial eyes are coming along nicely, although they are pretty low-res still.

[Domarius]

I saw this in the paper. They showed the girl who's face was donated, and she was such a pretty young girl, long black hair and rosey lips and a gorgeous smile. They didn't say what happened to her.

 

They did say how this woman passed out from a drug overdose from attempted suicide, etc. etc. as Spring said.

 

I find it all very sad.

[obscurus]

Artificial eyes are coming along nicely, although they are pretty low-res still.

 

 

I am hanging out for the day when you can get a 'shine job' like Riddick in Pitch Black (basically an artificial tapetum behind the retina), so I can see in the dark really well... Or having my eyes modified to see different parts of the light spectrum, or a big increase in distance vision. Actually, this is possible now in a limited way - the cones in the human eye can respond to ultraviolet light, but the lens of the eye is opaque to UV light, so we can't normally see it. But people who have had artificial lenses put in their eyes suddenly can see UV light (though their brains take a while to interpret it). I don't know if I would be game to have people messing with my eyes, but if I already had serious eyesight problems for some reason, I guess the risk would be worth it...

 

Artificial sensory enhancement is already being proposed as part of next-gen military equipment - ear pieces that filter out very loud sounds and amplify very quiet sounds are already in existence, I wouldn't be surprised if such technology migrated into the realm of surgicla implants.

[Ishtvan]

What is the photo-absorption mechanism in the rods and cones anyway? I've always wondered about that. I deal with direct-bandgap absorption in semiconductors every day, but have no idea how the eyes do it, and distinguish different wavelengths to boot.

[sparhawk]

Anybody knows what happened to her dog? Somehow this sounds strange, that a dog would simply start to nip on her owner, so I wonder if there is some background to this.

[OrbWeaver]

The dog was put down against the family's wishes.

 

The donor was brain-dead, but there is an ethical question regarding whether a relative can authorise the removal of the face of a brain-dead but still living person.

[sparhawk]

There is an articel about this in Scientifc American. Not about the brain surgery, but about the determination when somebody is dead. According to this, if a person is brain dead, then it is really only an empty shell with no chance of recuperation Basically, it's similar to havign a piece of meat in the fridge, only that it stays intact without the fridge.

 

I still wonder about the dogs motivation. If it was not fed I can understand it, especially if the dog has to assume that it's owner was dead. On the other handm, if the dog was agrgessive, I wonder why the family would object to putting it down (is that the phrase in english to kill it?).

[OrbWeaver]

There is an articel about this in Scientifc American. Not about the brain surgery, but about the determination when somebody is dead. According to this, if a person is brain dead, then it is really only an empty shell with no chance of recuperation Basically, it's similar to havign a piece of meat in the fridge, only that it stays intact without the fridge.

 

The problem is that it is difficult if not impossible to determine if somebody is truly brain-dead while they are still alive (hence the Terry Schiavo case). People do wake up from comas, and you wouldn't want to wake up and find somebody had removed your face.

 

I still wonder about the dogs motivation. If it was not fed I can understand it, especially if the dog has to assume that it's owner was dead. On the other handm, if the dog was agrgessive, I wonder why the family would object to putting it down (is that the phrase in english to kill it?).

 

I think the dog was actually trying to wake her up - it might have panicked because its owner appeared unconscious. Even a well-trained dog may not understand the damage it can do through its jaws, and based on the woman's lifestyle I would not be very confident that the dog was well-trained.

[sparhawk]

The problem is that it is difficult if not impossible to determine if somebody is truly brain-dead while they are still alive (hence the Terry Schiavo case). People do wake up from comas, and you wouldn't want to wake up and find somebody had removed your face.

 

There is a big difference between brain dead people and comatose patients. You can see the difference pretty well on the scanner, ebcause people who are brain dead literary look like empty shells on the scanner, while comatose patients don't. I don't know wether the Terry case was one or the other, but they are not to be mixed up.

 

I think the dog was actually trying to wake her up - it might have panicked because its owner appeared unconscious.

 

That's what I also think, but licking until half her face is gone?

 

Even a well-trained dog may not understand the damage it can do through its jaws, and based on the woman's lifestyle I would not be very confident that the dog was well-trained.

 

Personally, I think the dog tried to lick her awake, and after some time it might have turned around. Especially if the dog was hungry it could be.

 

Maybe that's the primary reason why dogs lick your face. To check wether they already can start feeding. Hmmm ... That gives me a new perspective on when my dog licks my face. I always thought it would be showing affection, but in truth it just wants to know when I'm 'well-done'.

[Maximius]

A few months back Harpers magazine had a little blurb in its interesting facts section. Researchers in I think Pittsburgh killed a dog, replaced its blood with ice water, let it stay that way for +three hours+, and then brought it back to life with no apparent ill effects. I cant find more info on the net about it but Ill keep looking. The researchers were saying that it may be possible to have this technology in the battlefield of Iraq after a year or two.

[sparhawk]

Yes. I read this in the Scientific America as well. It was an article about live preservation research for accidents and the likes, where people are severly injured and the metabolism has to be slowed down in order to let them survive. Interstingly, the article claimed that a lot of animals have hibernations during winter time and that human cells can do the same, even though we don't use this feature anymore. From the cell perspective it should work without an damage to the person.

[Maximius]

Yes. I read this in the Scientific America as well. It was an article about live preservation research for accidents and the likes, where people are severly injured and the metabolism has to be slowed down in order to let them survive. Interstingly, the article claimed that a lot of animals have hibernations during winter time and that human cells can do the same, even though we don't use this feature anymore. From the cell perspective it should work without an damage to the person.

 

 

Thanks for identifying the source, Id really like to read that. Im usually quite cynical about the world as I see it and its future prospects but I have to say its a fascinating time to be alive. As you all know Im not religious nor even "spiritual" whatever the heck that means, but I do get a strange bubbling excitement in my bones when I read of such things.

[obscurus]

What is the photo-absorption mechanism in the rods and cones anyway? I've always wondered about that. I deal with direct-bandgap absorption in semiconductors every day, but have no idea how the eyes do it, and distinguish different wavelengths to boot.

 

 

Hope this gets you started...

 

http://www.biologymad.com/NervousSystem/eyenotes.htm

[Ishtvan]

Thanks for the reference Obscurus.

 

Yeah I read that article about "suspended animation" in Scientific American as well. I think they've been trying to do it for a while, but the recent breakthrough had something to do with regulating the amount of oxygen present in the blood when they chilled the test subjects down. I don't remember the details, but it was something like if there was too much oxygen present, the cells would get damaged, but if they reduced oxygen levels way below normal that would let the cells "hibernate" without as much damage.

 

People do wake up from comas, and you wouldn't want to wake up and find somebody had removed your face.

 

Or you might have the urge to find and wear that person's old face, impersonate them at their job, hit on their hot daughter, and eventually try to shoot them with a harpoon gun!

[obscurus]

Another bit of trivia about eyes is the myth of colour blindness in various animals. Most mammals are dichromats, that is they have two types of cones, green (544nm) peak and blue (440nm peak). Primates are the only mammals to have three types of cones, an extra one that sees red (580nm peak). Technically, humans have a fourth pigment sensitive to UV, but the lens blocks this out, so we don't see it unless the lens is replaced with an artificial one that lets UV through. Most other mammals also have a few cones sensitive to UV, but the mammalian lens blocks it out. Reptiles are typically trichromatic or tetrachromatic.

 

Most highly or exclusively nocturnal animals have so few (if any) cones that they are functional monochromats (completely colourblind).

 

Your family dog has few cones, but has enough to see the difference between green and blue. They cannot see red. Cats have mmore cones than dogs, and can very easily see the differnce between blues and greens (but like most mammals, they are blind to red). Cattle have very few cones, but still have enough to vaguely tell the difference between, you guessed it, green and blue, but a red flag will appear black to a bull, while they would be quite startled by a yellowish green flag, or a purplish blue one. The bull has very sensitive rods that dectect movement, if you don't want to be charged by a bull, stay downwind and move very slowly and quietly, it won't see you.

 

Birds have tetrachromatic vision (additional sensitivity to ultraviolet light) and can detect light polarisation - birds have by far the best daytime vision of any trrestrial animals. Pigeons are thought to be pentachromats. Fish are very variable, ranging from monochromatic to octochromatic.

 

 

The absolute king of vision though is the mantis shrimp (a stomatopod crustacean), which has 16 classes of colour pigment (hexadecochromatic), and more than 8 polarisation classes. Mantis shrimps have by far the best vision of any animal, with a visual range from 300nm to over 700nm (ultraviolet to deep infrared). Its eyes are very complex and sophisticated, and allow the shrimps to see with great clarity in a huge range of depths and water conditions.

 

If anyone was curious...

[Darkness_Falls]

And you're not on Jeopardyyyyyy... -why?