SWISS SCIENTISTS DESIGN “GUMMY-LIKE” MICRODEVICES

A research team led by Selman Sakar at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) published their findings on microdevices earlier in February. The microdevices that the team manufactures are small, soft machines they characterize as “gummy-like.” The devices, which come in variable assemblies, can mechanically stimulate cells and microtissue under a wide array of complex physiological conditions. This finding could be important for disease research.

The research team manufactures the devices using a hydrogel base. Hydrogels are gels with a high concentration of water, often made with macromolecules like starches or proteins. The engineers used hydrogels because their ability to respond to physical and biochemical stimuli is similar to the abilities of organic matter.

Another component of the devices is the actuator, which is the part of the machine responsible for movement. The research team used actuators for the architecture of the devices because they have similar performance and function to skeletal muscles. Wireless lasers power the actuators to produce movement. “Our soft actuators contract rapidly and efficiently when activated by near-infrared light. When the entire nanoscale actuator network contracts, it tugs on the surrounding device components and powers the machinery,” said Berna Ozkale, the head scientist on this particular project.

The scientists were able to create a variety of devices by assembling the actuators and the hydrogel in different configurations. Such flexibility allows the microdevices to fill many roles. In a laboratory setting, the devices can stimulate biological mechanisms in equipment like test tubes and dishes.

These devices are also programmable, enabling scientists to induce processes like cell transport. Additionally, since the devices have biocompatible components, there is potential for the devices to be able to work inside living organisms.

“I OUGHT TO BE THY ADAM, BUT I AM RATHER THY FALLEN ANGEL…”

Within pop culture, young technology entrepreneurs are heralded as innovative savants: Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian. The list goes on.

Their social media creations were in many ways revolutionary. The level of connectivity they fostered was unprecedented, and people could make friendships with others from around the world. Dictatorships were predicted to fall and democracies to rise in the face of such social integration. Optimism around social media innovation abounded.

With the large user bases of these social media websites, however, came a litany of problems. Twitter and Reddit became hotbeds for harassment, bigotry, and doxxing, which is the act of sharing an individual’s private information online. Facebook was ground zero for the spread of misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election. The tech bros once regarded as young geniuses found their creations facing new ethical questions.

Zuckerberg and Dorsey epitomize the aloofness of Silicon Valley innovators when confronted with the negative social consequences of their creations and lack of foresight exercised in anticipating such consequences. The lack of moral clarity from tech developers in hindsight should be disappointing to everyone.

In an interview with HuffPost’s Ashley Feinberg, Jack Dorsey (above) appeared entirely unsure of how to handle the problems that have arisen from Twitter. When asked how Twitter would respond if President Donald Trump called for the murder of a journalist in a tweet, he said, “I’m not going to talk about particulars.” Dorsey seems more interested in relishing in his product’s existence than in understanding its consequences.

In Myanmar, the military used Facebook as a medium for promoting Islamophobic views about the Muslim Rohingya minority and made calls for violence against them. Similar instances occurred in Sri Lanka and the Philippines, where Facebook’s algorithm was manipulated as a mechanism for spreading falsehoods and hate speech. Nevertheless, blinded by their own eagerness to expand overseas, Facebook’s leadership was reluctant to act decisively in the face of such internet crises. Furthermore, Facebook was entirely unwilling to shutter its product in the interim, despite it being weaponized by the military in Myanmar as an amplifier of Islamophobia and racism.

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a compelling metaphor for the rise of social media networks. In the novel, a young, brilliant scientist named Victor Frankenstein creates a creature with physical and mental capabilities beyond his imagination. Soon after, the creature takes on a life of its own outside the control of Victor. It is here, however, where the metaphor diverges. Victor attempts to destroy his creation and comes to terms with the implications of it.

Tech developers like Dorsey and Zuckerberg, on the other hand, continue to bask in the glory of their innovations despite their negative social consequences. Moreover, there is no reason for tech developers to resort to destroying social networks altogether as Victor does with his creation. What is necessary, however, is effectively anticipating and reacting to the problems that stem from their creations, and developing solutions to address the negative externalities which that have arisen.