Category Robotics Classification

If you had asked Adama Sesay as a child what she wanted to be when she grew up, the answer would have been a doctor, an architect, and a firefighter. Now a Senior Engineer specializing in sensors and microsystems, you may think she’s gone in a completely different direction, but by following the passions that led her to those ideas – science, design, and saving lives – she’s found a career she loves. At the Wyss, Adama is a member of the Advanced Technology Team and works on a wide range of projects that span from sensor-integrated Organ Chips to make drugs safer to an enzyme that converts sugar to fiber to make food healthier, while simultaneously leading the Women’s Health Catalyst. Learn more about Adama and her work in this month’s Humans of the Wyss.

What projects are you involved with?

I specialize in biosensing, microfluidics, and microsystems, and my projects span over quite a diverse area. The first project I’ve been managing is a BARDA project, which is a federally funded project looking at integrating sensors to measure biomarkers like cytokines, from a lymph node tissue model, or a lymphoid follicle (LF) Chip. In this project, I’ve mostly concentrated on the instrumentation side, providing the actual hardware (which is a sort of sensor-integrated cartridge) and retrofitting it into a commercial Organ Chip system.

Then I have another project where we’re developing an enzyme-encapsulated particle that reduces sugar in food once it’s consumed, converting it to dietary fiber. Basically, this would be a “smart food” ingredient, where the enzyme is only activated once you consume it. That way, the food tastes the same, but the actual amount of sugar your body metabolizes is lower.

I’m working on a third project where we are developing and microfabricating a microfluidic Blood Clotting Chip to study clotting time for patients that have mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. We’re collaborating with Massachusetts General Hospital and Boston Children’s Hospital.

What are biosensors, microfluidics, and microsystems?

A biosensor is a device that combines a biological component with a sensor transducer and can measure a biological or chemical reaction by producing signals to indicate the concentration of the analyte, or component of interest, in the monitored sample. Microfluidics refers to a system that has small channels that can move and deliver low volumes of fluid. The concept is that fabrication-wise, a microfluidic channel is anything that has dimensions in the micrometer range. The advantage of microfluidics is that you can deliver very low volumes to different areas and manipulate those flows a classic example is a an Organ Chip. A microsystem device in this context takes it a bit further and is the integration of sensors, microfluidics, and application. The three are a closely integrated package.

What real-world problems do these projects address?

With the BARDA project, we can use the LF Chips to monitor the immune system’s reaction to different types of drugs. We can use patient samples to get time resolved data about the inflammation response. In addition to helping screen drugs for safety, this could help us determine which therapies can be used on immuno-compromised patients or what a vaccine response will be in a certain population.

The sugar fiber project will help address America’s ever-growing problems with obesity and diabetes. Despite these issues, there is a big food industry here that relies on refined sugars, especially high fructose corn syrup. In addition to those other issues, high fructose diets contribute to metabolic syndrome. Plus, the American diet is low in fiber. We started this project looking at how to make food more enjoyable while also being responsible. Our enzyme encapsulation will hopefully address diabetes and metabolic syndrome, while increasing fiber, which will make people’s gut microbiomes healthier.

We hope to use the Blood Clotting Chip to understand the clotting time and the thrombosis factors of mesothelioma. It can also be used as a diagnostic tool. Understanding a patient’s blood clotting factor is essential when they go into surgery, even beyond those suffering from this disease. This became even more apparent to me recently when my father needed to have emergency surgery, but they had to wait until he could be off blood thinners for a period of time. If we could use this as a diagnostic test, surgeons would know when a patient’s clotting factor was such that they were ready for surgery.

What is your specific role on the team?

I’m a Senior Engineer here and part of the Advanced Technology Team, I lead the biosensing, microfluidics, and microsystems effort at the Wyss. I am also responsible for the microfabrication room and efforts, and work closely with Pawan Jolly, who is the lead on sensors. That entails but is not limited to research project management, writing funding proposals, mentorship, and overseeing relationships with internal and external collaborator.

How are you helping to advance women’s health at the Wyss?

One of my biggest interests at the moment is to build up the Women’s Health Catalyst. In a place like the Wyss that’s looking at unmet needs, it’s natural that we have quite a lot of projects already in our pipeline dedicated to women’s health because therapeutics and diagnostics specifically aimed at women’s health issues are one of the biggest unmet clinical needs in the world. All this work is being done within our existing Focus Areas. Many of our researchers are incredibly dedicated to increasing our knowledge and finding real-world solutions.

So, right now we’re aiming to coalesce all these projects to bring together our brilliant scientists, clinicians, and technology teams to advance research and make drugs and devices to help people. We aim to be able to highlight these projects to attract external collaborators to work with our Wyss technology translation engine, and one day become a world-class beacon where people want to come and really make advances in women’s health.

How are you helping to bridge the gap between academia and industry at the Wyss?

I have a diverse group of researchers on my team including biologists, biotechnologists, biomedical engineers, and mechanical engineers who look at challenges very differently, while I look at the industrial need and see how we can translate the science into something to address the gaps. I think what it boils down to is facilitating the communication between scientists and engineers on the research side and translating that acquired knowledge into know-how, services, and products on the business and industrial sides.

“I think what it boils down to is facilitating the communication between scientists and engineers on the research side and translating that acquired knowledge into know-how, services, and products on the business and industrial sides.”

– Adama Sesay

For example, if I’m designing a diagnostic device, I will listen to the scientists about how the fundamental biology works in their system and use my experience in sensor development, microsystems, and developing point-of-care devices to speak to more practically minded engineers about how to build the device, finding a common language between the two. Then, we need to communicate why this device is useful to a business audience in order to successfully commercialize it.

What brought you to the Wyss?

I wanted to be in a place that was busy doing what I had been doing for a while in Europe, which is translational science. The first place on my wish list was the Wyss Institute. I loved the work going on here; the organs-on-chips and the translational nature of the place. It’s quite unique in its structure. So, I got in touch with people working here, especially in Donald Ingber’s lab, and I was lucky that there was a position open when I applied.

How has your previous work experience shaped your approach to your work today?

Starting with my master’s and Ph.D., much of my work has focused on technology transfer. It’s shaped my approach to work because it has taught me to talk to different people, bring various viewpoints and skills together, really listen to where the problems are, and find solutions. I think sometimes, especially earlier in your career, it’s easy to think that your idea is brilliant, but at the end of the day, it might be a great technology that’s hard to translate into a product. I’ve learned that you need to take your ego out of it, listen, and find the best way forward, even if it isn’t your way. Having a critical mass of new knowledge around you means you’ll always be at the forefront; you just have to be open to trying new things and making the sum of the parts better than the individual pieces.

What is your biggest piece of advice for an academic scientist looking to translate their technology?

“Maintain a level of curiosity and wonder. Be prepared to keep on improving and learning.”

– Adama Sesay

Maintain a level of curiosity and wonder. Be prepared to keep on improving and learning. Don’t be discouraged if you get knocked back, because even if your first approach doesn’t work, it’s because you go through that and you’re willing to get back up again that you will succeed.

What inspired you to get into this field?

If you had asked me what I wanted to be when I was a kid, I would always say a doctor, an architect, or a firefighter. A doctor because I really liked science and I didn’t know there was anything else out there other than that. My parents were in the medical field, so I thought that was it. An architect because I liked art, and I love buildings. I thought architecture was the practical way to apply that. I was unaware there was a profession called an engineer. And a firefighter because I enjoy being active and I thought they were so heroic. I just admired them.

I realized very quickly that none of those things were exactly for me, but I followed the passions that led me to those ideas – science, design, and saving lives – and by doing what I love I found my way to a career in translational research focused on sensors and microsystems. If you really enjoy what you do, it doesn’t feel like a job.

What continues to motivate you?

Making a difference and working with a great team in an amazing work environment. I think that knowing that the people I’m working alongside are truly having an impact, even if they’re not on my project directly, is very inspiring. It makes me feel that I’m a part of something that can cause positive change in my lifetime.

“I think that knowing that the people I’m working alongside are truly having an impact, even if they’re not on my project directly, is very inspiring. It makes me feel that I’m a part of something that can cause positive change in my lifetime.”

– Adama Sesay

When not at the Wyss, how do you like to spend your time?

I like roller skating. I started playing my clarinet again, which I used to do when I was a teenager, and that’s given me a lot of joy. I also like watching films. My favorite recent films have been Everything, Everywhere, All at Once and The Woman King. Everything, Everywhere, All at Once manages to be light while also touching some quite thought-provoking concepts. I love the types of films that you can spend time talking about. The Woman King, while it has faced some criticism for being inaccurate, opens a dialogue about African history on a world stage between individuals whom audiences in the west have never known or even wondered about it. Although some of these discussions might be uncomfortable, at least people are beginning to have them. Again, I like a film that starts a conversation.

What’s something unique about you that someone wouldn’t know from your resume?

My mother suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, and it finally took her this past Christmas. In her memory, my sister and I are working towards building a smart city in her village in Sierra Leone. To do this, we’re raising awareness and funding to build an agricultural school for women and empower them to harvest crops based on new technology that’s sustainable and appropriate for the land, given that it’s a wildlife sanctuary area, and create businesses from farming. Hopefully, by next year we can start working on the curriculum for the school. We’re putting a lot of work into this, but we think it’s a great way to honor our mother’s legacy and enable women to get out of poverty and become future entrepreneurs.

What does it feel like to be working towards translating cutting-edge technology that has the potential to have a real and significant impact on people’s lives and society?

It feels great to be part of such a dynamic environment. I think as an engineer and a technology transfer specialist, it’s the best of all worlds. I’m lucky enough to have worked at some exceptional institutes in some amazing countries, but the Wyss is quite special in that we have a critical mass of world-class, high-impact projects ripe for translation. I’m in my fifth year now and it’s been a great ride so far. I’m looking forward to what comes next.

In recent decades, engineers have created a wide range of robotic systems inspired by animals, including four legged robots, as well as systems inspired by snakes, insects, squid and fish. Studies exploring the interactions between these robots and their biological counterparts, however, as still relatively rare.

Modern robotics has existed for roughly a century, but innovation has risen sharply in the last decade. The rise has partly come out of necessity due to a talent shortage.

Claire chatted to Georgia Chalvatzaki from the Technical University of Darmstadt all about mobile assistive robots, learning, and planning.

Georgia Chalvatzaki is a Professor of Robot Perception and Learning at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. Before that, she was an Assistant Professor and Independent Research Group Leader since March 2021, after getting the renowned Emmy Noether grant of the German Research Foundation. She completed her Ph.D. in 2019 at the Intelligent Robotics and Automation Lab at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece, with her thesis “Human-Centered Modeling for Assistive Robotics: Stochastic Estimation and Robot Learning in Decision-Making.”

Cornell University researchers have developed a robot, called ReMotion, that occupies physical space on a remote user's behalf, automatically mirroring the user's movements in real time and conveying key body language that is lost in standard virtual environments.

At the booth, visitors can see the TH650A robot perform a live screw feeding demonstration, developed by ASG. This is just one of many solutions TM Robotics is involved with.

I have been studying the whole range of issues/opportunities in the commercial roll out of robotics for many years now, and I’ve spoken at a number of conferences about the best way for us to look at regulating robotics. In the process I’ve found that my guidelines most closely match the EPSRC Principles of Robotics, although I provide additional focus on potential solutions. And I’m calling it the 5 Laws of Robotics because it’s so hard to avoid Asimov’s Laws of Robotics in the public perception of what needs to be done.

The first most obvious point about these “5 Laws of Robotics” should be that I’m not suggesting actual laws, and neither actually was Asimov with his famous 3 Laws (technically 4 of them). Asimov proposed something that was hardwired or hardcoded into the existence of robots, and of course that didn’t work perfectly, which gave him the material for his books. Interestingly Asimov believed, as did many others at the time (symbolic AI anyone?) that it was going to be possible to define effective yet global behavioral rules for robots. Whereas, I don’t.

My 5 Laws of Robotics are:

1. Robots should not kill.
2. Robots should obey the law.
3. Robots should be good products.
4. Robots should be truthful.
5. Robots should be identifiable.

What exactly does those laws mean?

Firstly, people should not legally able to weaponize robots, although there may be lawful exclusions for use by defense forces or first responders. Some people are completely opposed to Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) in any form, whereas others draw the line at robot weapons being ultimately under human command, with accountability to law. Currently in California there is a proposed legislation to introduce fines for individuals building or modifying weaponized robots, drones or autonomous systems, with the exception of ‘lawful’ use.

Secondly, robots should be built so that they comply with existing laws, including privacy laws. This implies some form of accountability for companies on compliance in various jurisdictions, and while that is technically very complex, successful companies will be proactive because companies otherwise there will be a lot of court cases and insurance claims keeping lawyers happy but badly impacting the reputation of all robotics companies.

Thirdly, although we are continually developing and adapting standards as our technologies evolve, the core principle is that robots are products, designed to do tasks for people. As such, robots should be safe, reliable and do what they claim to do, in the manner that they claim to operate. Misrepresentation of the capabilities of any product is universally frowned upon.

Fourthly, and this is a fairly unique capability of robots, robots should not lie. Robots have the illusion of emotions and agency, and humans are very susceptible to being ‘digitally nudged’ or manipulated by artificial agents. Examples include robots or avatars claiming to be your friend, but could be as subtle as robots using a human voice just as if there was a real person listening and speaking. Or not explaining that a conversation that you’re having with a robot might have many listeners at other times and locations. Robots are potentially amazingly effective advertizing vehicles, in ways we are not yet expecting.

Finally, and this extends the principles of accountability, transparency and truthfulness, it should be possible to know who is the owner and/or operator of any robot that we interact with, even if we’re just sharing a sidewalk with them. Almost every other vehicle has to comply with some registration law or process, allowing ownership to be identified.

What can we do to act on these laws?

1. Robot Registry (license plates, access to database of owners/operators)
2. Algorithmic Transparency (via Model Cards and Testing Benchmarks)
3. Independent Ethical Review Boards (as in biotech industry)
4. Robot Ombudspeople (to liaise between the public, policy makers and the robotics industry)
5. Rewarding Good Robots (design awards and case studies)

There are many organizations releasing guides, principles, and suggested laws. I’ve surveyed most of them and looked at the research. Most of them are just ethical hand wringing and accomplish nothing because they don’t factor in real world conditions around what the goals are, who would be responsible and how to make progress towards the goals. I wrote about this issue ahead of giving a talk at the ARM Developer Summit in 2020 (video included below).

Silicon Valley Robotics announced the first winners of our inaugural Robotics Industry Awards in 2020. The SVR Industry Awards consider the responsible design as well as technological innovation and commercial success. There are also some ethical checkmark or certification initiatives under preparation, but like the development of new standards, these can take a long time to do properly, whereas awards, endorsements and case studies can be available immediately to foster the discussion of what constitutes good robots, and, what are the social challenges that robotics needs to solve.

The Federal Trade Commission recently published “The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust” describing the

For those not familiar with Isaac Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics, they are:

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov later added a Fourth (called the Zeroth Law, as in 0, 1, 2, 3)

Zeroth Law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm

Robin R. Murphy and David D. Woods have updated Asimov’s laws to be more similar to the laws I proposed above and provide a good analysis for what Asimov’s Laws meant and why they’ve changed them to deal with modern robotics. Beyond Asimov The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics (2009)

Some other selections from the hundreds of principles, guidelines and surveys of the ethical landscape that I recommend come from one of the original EPSRC authors, Joanna Bryson.

The Meaning of the EPSRC Principles of Robotics (2016)

And the 2016/2017 update from the original EPSRC team:

Margaret Boden, Joanna Bryson, Darwin Caldwell, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Lilian Edwards, Sarah Kember, Paul Newman, Vivienne Parry, Geoff Pegman, Tom Rodden, Tom Sorrell, Mick Wallis, Blay Whitby & Alan Winfield (2017) Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world, Connection Science, 29:2, 124-129, DOI: 10.1080/09540091.2016.1271400

Another survey worth reading is on the Stanford Plato site: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/

Robotics and automation have greatly enhanced the development of oil and gas by improving maintenance and repair, production efficiency, and safety monitoring.

How do you create a robot that can go places no one has ever seen before—on its own, without real-time human input? A team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that's creating a snake-like robot for traversing extreme terrain is taking on the challenge with the mentality of a startup: Build quickly, test often, learn, adjust, repeat.

We will be showcasing all four of our pallet system conveyors: the FlexMove, ERT150, ERT250, and Precision Move conveyors. Each conveyor is designed to interface with robotics and operators, as well as move product through machinery during the manufacturing process.

Artificial muscles are a progressing technology that could one day enable robots to function like living organisms. Such muscles open up new possibilities for how robots can shape the world around us; from assistive wearable devices that can redefine our physical abilities at old age, to rescue robots that can navigate rubble in search of the missing. But just because artificial muscles can have a strong societal impact during use, doesn’t mean they have to leave a strong environmental impact after use.

The topic of sustainability in soft robotics has been brought into focus by an international team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (MPI-IS) in Stuttgart (Germany), the Johannes Kepler University (JKU) in Linz (Austria), and the University of Colorado (CU Boulder), Boulder (USA). The scientists collaborated to design a fully biodegradable, high performance artificial muscle – based on gelatin, oil, and bioplastics. They show the potential of this biodegradable technology by using it to animate a robotic gripper, which could be especially useful in single-use deployments such as for waste collection (watch the Youtube video). At the end of life, these artificial muscles can be disposed of in municipal compost bins; under monitored conditions, they fully biodegrade within six months.

We see an urgent need for sustainable materials in the accelerating field of soft robotics. Biodegradable parts could offer a sustainable solution especially for single-use applications, like for medical operations, search-and-rescue missions, and manipulation of hazardous substances. Instead of accumulating in landfills at the end of product life, the robots of the future could become compost for future plant growth,” says Ellen Rumley, a visiting scientist from CU Boulder working in the Robotic Materials Department at MPI-IS. Rumley is co-first author of the paper “Biodegradable electrohydraulic actuators for sustainable soft robots”, published in Science Advances.

Specifically, the team of researchers built an electrically driven artificial muscle called HASEL. In essence, HASELs are oil-filled plastic pouches that are partially covered by a pair of electrical conductors called electrodes. Applying a high voltage across the electrode pair causes opposing charges to build on them, generating a force between them that pushes oil to an electrode-free region of the pouch. This oil migration causes the pouch to contract, much like a real muscle. The key requirement for HASELs to deform is that the materials making up the plastic pouch and oil are electrical insulators, which can sustain the high electrical stresses generated by the charged electrodes.

One of the challenges for this project was to develop a conductive, soft, and fully biodegradable electrode. Researchers at Johannes Kepler University created a recipe based on a mixture of biopolymer gelatin and salts that can be directly cast onto HASEL actuators. “It was important for us to make electrodes suitable for these high-performance applications, but with readily available components and an accessible fabrication strategy. Since our presented formulation can be easily integrated in various types of electrically driven systems, it serves as a building block for future biodegradable applications,” states David Preninger, co-first author for this project and a scientist at the Soft Matter Physics Division at JKU.

The next step was finding suitable biodegradable plastics. Engineers for this type of materials are mainly concerned with properties like degradation rate or mechanical strength, not with electrical insulation; a requirement for HASELs that operate at a few thousand Volts. Nonetheless, some bioplastics showed good material compatibility with gelatin electrodes and sufficient electrical insulation. HASELs made from one specific material combination were even able to withstand 100,000 actuation cycles at several thousand Volts without signs of electrical failure or loss in performance. These biodegradable artificial muscles are electromechanically competitive with their non-biodegradable counterparts; an exciting result for promoting sustainability in artificial muscle technology.

“By showing the outstanding performance of this new materials system, we are giving an incentive for the robotics community to consider biodegradable materials as a viable material option for building robots”, Ellen Rumley continues. “The fact that we achieved such great results with bio-plastics hopefully also motivates other material scientists to create new materials with optimized electrical performance in mind.”

With green technology becoming ever more present, the team’s research project is an important step towards a paradigm shift in soft robotics. Using biodegradable materials for building artificial muscles is just one step towards paving a future for sustainable robotic technology.

• PAPER – Biodegradable electrohydraulic actuators for sustainable soft robots. Ellen H. Rumley, David Preninger, Alona Shagan Shomron, Philipp Rothemund, Florian Hartmann, Melanie Baumgartner, Nicholas Kellaris, Andreas Stojanovic, Zachary Yoder, Benjamin Karrer, Christoph Keplinger, and Martin Kaltenbrunner. Science Advances 9(12), 2023.

Imagine a cocktail party full of 3D-printed, humanoid robots listening and talking to each other. That seemingly sci-fi scene is the goal of the Augmented Listening Laboratory at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Realistic talking (and listening) heads are crucial for investigating how humans receive sound and developing audio technology.

Automate 2023 takes place May 22nd - 25th in Detroit, Michigan. The Exhibit hall floor will be loaded with new products and services. Here is a preview of some things to look forward to at this years event.

By Liad Hollender, Frontiers science writer

Despite AI’s impressive track record, its computational power pales in comparison with that of the human brain. Scientists unveil a revolutionary path to drive computing forward: organoid intelligence (OI), where lab-grown brain organoids serve as biological hardware. “This new field of biocomputing promises unprecedented advances in computing speed, processing power, data efficiency, and storage capabilities – all with lower energy needs,” say the authors in an article published in Frontiers in Science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been inspired by the human brain. This approach proved highly successful: AI boasts impressive achievements – from diagnosing medical conditions to composing poetry. Still, the original model continues to outperform machines in many ways. This is why, for example, we can ‘prove our humanity’ with trivial image tests online. What if instead of trying to make AI more brain-like, we went straight to the source?

Scientists across multiple disciplines are working to create revolutionary biocomputers where three-dimensional cultures of brain cells, called brain organoids, serve as biological hardware. They describe their roadmap for realizing this vision in the journal Frontiers in Science.

“We call this new interdisciplinary field ‘organoid intelligence’ (OI),” said Prof Thomas Hartung of Johns Hopkins University. “A community of top scientists has gathered to develop this technology, which we believe will launch a new era of fast, powerful, and efficient biocomputing.”

What are brain organoids, and why would they make good computers?

Brain organoids are a type of lab-grown cell-culture. Even though brain organoids aren’t ‘mini brains’, they share key aspects of brain function and structure such as neurons and other brain cells that are essential for cognitive functions like learning and memory. Also, whereas most cell cultures are flat, organoids have a three-dimensional structure. This increases the culture’s cell density 1,000-fold, meaning that neurons can form many more connections.

But even if brain organoids are a good imitation of brains, why would they make good computers? After all, aren’t computers smarter and faster than brains?

“While silicon-based computers are certainly better with numbers, brains are better at learning,” Hartung explained. “For example, AlphaGo [the AI that beat the world’s number one Go player in 2017] was trained on data from 160,000 games. A person would have to play five hours a day for more than 175 years to experience these many games.” 

Brains are not only superior learners, they are also more energy efficient. For instance, the amount of energy spent training AlphaGo is more than is needed to sustain an active adult for a decade.

“Brains also have an amazing capacity to store information, estimated at 2,500TB,” Hartung added. “We’re reaching the physical limits of silicon computers because we cannot pack more transistors into a tiny chip. But the brain is wired completely differently. It has about 100bn neurons linked through over connection points. It’s an enormous power difference compared to our current technology.”

What would organoid intelligence bio computers look like?

According to Hartung, current brain organoids need to be scaled-up for OI. “They are too small, each containing about 50,000 cells. For OI, we would need to increase this number to 10 million,” he explained.

In parallel, the authors are also developing technologies to communicate with the organoids: in other words, to send them information and read out what they’re ‘thinking’. The authors plan to adapt tools from various scientific disciplines, such as bioengineering and machine learning, as well as engineer new stimulation and recording devices.

“We developed a brain-computer interface device that is a kind of an EEG cap for organoids, which we presented in an article published last August. It is a flexible shell that is densely covered with tiny electrodes that can both pick up signals from the organoid, and transmit signals to it,” said Hartung.

The authors envision that eventually OI would integrate a wide range of stimulation and recording tools. These will orchestrate interactions across networks of interconnected organoids that implement more complex computations.

Organoid intelligence could help prevent and treat neurological conditions

OI’s promise goes beyond computing and into medicine. Thanks to a groundbreaking technique developed by Noble Laureates John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka, brain organoids can be produced from adult tissues. This means that scientists can develop personalized brain organoids from skin samples of patients suffering from neural disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease. They can then run multiple tests to investigate how genetic factors, medicines, and toxins influence these conditions.

“With OI, we could study the cognitive aspects of neurological conditions as well,” Hartung said. “For example, we could compare memory formation in organoids derived from healthy people and from Alzheimer’s patients, and try to repair relative deficits. We could also use OI to test whether certain substances, such as pesticides, cause memory or learning problems.”

Taking ethical considerations into account

Creating human brain organoids that can learn, remember, and interact with their environment raises complex ethical questions. For example, could they develop consciousness, even in a rudimentary form? Could they experience pain or suffering? And what rights would people have concerning brain organoids made from their cells?

The authors are acutely aware of these issues. “A key part of our vision is to develop OI in an ethical and socially responsible manner,” Hartung said. “For this reason, we have partnered with ethicists from the very beginning to establish an ‘embedded ethics’ approach. All ethical issues will be continuously assessed by teams made up of scientists, ethicists, and the public, as the research evolves.”

How far are we from the first organoid intelligence?

Even though OI is still in its infancy, a recently-published study by one of the article’s co-authors – Dr Brett Kagan, Chief Scientific Officer at Cortical Labs – provides proof of concept. His team showed that a normal, flat brain cell culture can learn to play the video game Pong.

“Their team is already testing this with brain organoids,” Hartung added. “And I would say that replicating this experiment with organoids already fulfills the basic definition of OI. From here on, it’s just a matter of building the community, the tools, and the technologies to realize OI’s full potential,” he concluded.

Interview with Prof Thomas Hartung

To learn more about this exciting new field, we interviewed the senior author of the article, Prof Thomas Hartung. He is the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in Europe (CAAT-Europe), and a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

How do you define organoid intelligence?

Reproducing cognitive functions – such as learning and sensory processing – in a lab-grown human-brain model.

How did this idea emerge?

I’m a pharmacologist and toxicologist, so I’m interested in developing medicines and identifying substances that are dangerous to our health, specifically those that affect brain development and function. This requires testing – ideally in conditions that mimic a living brain. For that reason, producing cultures of human brain cells has been a longstanding aim in the field.

This goal was finally realized in 2006 thanks to a groundbreaking technique developed by John B. Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka, who received a Nobel prize for this achievement in 2012. This method allowed us to generate brain cells from fully developed tissues, such as the skin. Soon after, we began mass producing three-dimensional cultures of brain cells called brain organoids.

People asked if the organoids were thinking, if they were conscious even. I said: “no, they are too tiny. And more importantly, they don’t have any input nor output, so what would they be thinking about?” But later I began wondering: what if we changed this? What if we gave the organoids information about their environment and the means to interact with it? That was the birth of organoid intelligence.

How would you know what an organoid is ‘thinking’ about?

We’re building tools that will enable us to communicate with the organoids – send input and receive output. For example, we developed a recording/stimulation device that looks like a mini EEG-cap that surrounds the organoid. We’ve also been working on feeding biological inputs to brain organoids, for instance, by connecting them to retinal organoids, which respond to light. Our partner and co-author Alysson Muotri at the University of San Diego is already testing this approach by producing systems that combine several organoids.

My dream is to form a channel of communication between an artificial intelligence program and an OI system that would allow the two to explore each other’s capabilities. I imagine that form will follow function – that the organoid will change and develop towards creating meaningful inputs. This is a bit of philosophy, but my expectation is that we’ll see a lot of surprises.

What uses do you envision for organoid intelligence?

In my opinion, there are three main areas. The first is fundamental neuroscience – to understand how the brain generates cognitive functions, such as learning and memory. Even though current brain organoids are still far from being what one might call intelligent, they could still have the machinery to support basic cognitive operations.

The second area is toxicology and pharmacology. Since we can now produce brain organoids from skin samples, we can study individual disease characteristics of patients. We already have brain-organoid lines from Alzheimer’s patients, for example. And even though these organoids were made from skin cells, we still see hallmarks of the disease in them.

Next, we would like to test if there are also differences in their memory function, and if so, if we could repair it. We can also test whether substances, such as pesticides, worsen cognitive deficits, or cause them in brain organoids produced from healthy subjects. This is a very exciting line of research, which I believe is nearly within reach.

The third area is computing. As we laid out in our article, considering the brain’s size, its computational power is simply unmatched. Just for comparison, a supercomputer finally surpassed the computational power of a single human brain in 2022. But it cost $600m and occupies 680 square meters [about twice the area of a tennis court].

We’re also reaching the limits of computing. Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors in a microchip doubles every two years, has held for 60 years. But soon we won’t be able to physically fit more transistors into a chip. A single neuron, on the other hand, can connect to up to 10,000 other neurons – this is a very different way of processing and storing information. Through OI, we hope that we’ll be able to leverage the brain’s computational principles to build computers differently.

How do you intend to tackle ethical issues that might arise from organoid intelligence?

There are many questions that we face now, ranging from the rights of people over organoids developed from their cells, to understanding whether OI is conscious. I find this aspect of the work fascinating, and I believe it’s a fantastic opportunity to investigate the physical manifestation of concepts like sentience and consciousness.

We teamed up with Jeffrey Kahn of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University at the very beginning, asking him to lead the discussion around the ethics of neural systems. We have come up with two main strategies. One is called embedded ethics: we want ethicists to closely observe the work, take part in the planning, and raise points early on. The second part focuses on the public – we intend to share our work broadly and clearly as it advances. We want to know how people feel about this technology and define our research plan accordingly.

How far are we from the first organoid intelligence?

Even though OI is still in its infancy, past work shows that it’s possible. A study by one of our partners and co-authors – Brett Kagan of the Cortical Labs – is a recent example. His team showed that a standard brain cell culture can learn to play the video game Pong. They are already experimenting with brain organoids, and I would say that replicating this with organoids already fulfills what we call OI.

Still, we are a long way from realizing OI’s full potential. When it becomes a real tool, it will look very different from these first baby steps we are taking now. The important thing is that it’s a starting point. I see this like sequencing the first genes of the human genome project: the enabling technology is in our hands, and we’re bound to learn a lot on the way.

---

This post is a combination of the original articles published on the Frontiers in Robotics and AI blog. You can read the originals here and here.

• PAPER – Organoid intelligence (OI): the new frontier in biocomputing and intelligence-in-a-dish. Smirnova, L., Caffo, B.S., Gracias, D.H., Huang, Q., Morales Pantoja, I.E., Tang, B., Zack, D.J., Berlinicke, C.A., Boyd, J.L., Harris, T.D. and Johnson, E.C., Frontiers in Science, 2023.

Elythor, an EPFL spin-off, has developed a new drone whose wing shape can adapt to wind conditions and flight position in real time, reducing the drone's energy consumption. What's more, the position of the wings can change, allowing the drone to fly vertically or horizontally. These features make it a perfect candidate for inspecting power plants.