Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, June 28, 2007 | Science : Psychiatry and Psychology | print version Print | Comments

Document Scientist Build a 'Brain' From Rat Cells

by Lee Dye

Reposted from:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=198839&page=1

Thanks to Erinija Pranckeviciene for alerting us to this article.

The Combination of Biology and Technology Can Be Trained to Fly a Flight Simulator

Using 25,000 neurons from the brain of a rat, scientists at the University of Florida in Gainesville have created a living "brain" that can fly a simulated high performance aircraft.

The "brain in a dish" is the brainchild of Thomas DeMarse, professor of biomedical engineering at the university, and it is a remarkable bit of work in that it allows researchers to study how a brain functions on a cellular level. That could lead to all sorts of improvements in the treatment of various mental illnesses, because it could become a valuable tool in the drive to understand one of the most complex and amazing devices in the universe, the human brain.

But beyond all that, it really can fly that F-22 fighter jet. Or perhaps more accurately, it can keep the aircraft on course in all kinds of weather, acting as an autopilot as it corrects any change in the plane's course.

And the brain in the dish learns how to do that in an amazingly short period of time.

"Usually, within 10 to 15 minutes, it's pretty much flying the plane," DeMarse says.

Quest for the Artificial Brain

The research is another step in one of the hottest areas of science these days. Computer wizards and biologists and neurologists around the world are trying to fabricate artificial brains, or neural networks, that can function on a human scale, taking over such tasks as piloting rescue aircraft into enemy territory.

There have been various reports of partial success. A team of Russian scientists claimed recently to have created an artificial brain that functions on a human level, although that claim has been met with broad skepticism in the west.

Most claims are far more modest, although it is clear that a marriage between neurology, or the study of the human brain, and high speed computers is leading into territory that sounds more like science fiction than fact. Some experts have warned that incredibly smart machines might someday leave the rest of us in the dust, usurping our self-appointed role as the most important creatures on the planet, if not the universe.

Hugo deGaris, who spearheaded Japan's program to develop the famous robot kitty, and who is now heading a similar project at Utah State University, believes that this century may bring "massively intelligent machines with intellectual capacities many times greater than those of human beings."

DeGaris said in a recent essay that we are not prepared to have our role taken over by machines that may eventually decide we are unnecessary and "should be exterminated."

Scary stuff, but that's getting way ahead of our story. DeMarse's rat neurons aren't about to take over the universe. In fact, they can't even remember how to fly that aircraft for more than about 15 minutes, so they're no threat.

Pilot Training in a Petri Dish

Yet remarkable they truly are. They are bridging an enormous gap in the effort to study how brains function. It can't be done on the cellular level while the neurons are still in the rat because they are far too small to be seen inside the skull by even the most advanced imaging techniques.

But take them out and put them in a petri dish, and the live neurons can be observed checking out their neighboring neurons as they begin the process of building a neural network, or, as DeMarse puts it, "a living brain."

The dish is on top of an array of 60 electrodes that allows the scientists to record the neural activity. And from that they can train the neurons to control the aircraft through a flight simulator.

"Here's the trick to it," DeMarse says. "We have these recordings coming out of the dish, and that allows us to get the behavior [of the neurons] into the simulated plane."

But how do the neurons learn how to fly the thing? That's done by electrical pulses into the dish through one of the electrodes. That in effect tells the neurons when they are doing the right thing to keep the plane on course. High frequency, or rapid pulses, stimulate the neurons and enhance the connections between them.

Simply put, by stimulating the neurons the researchers tell them they're on the right track, so they continue to adjust the plane's elevator to keep it from plunging toward the ground during a downdraft, for example. When the plane levels off, the simulator reduces the frequency of the pulses, and the neurons back off from that control surface, allowing the plane to remain on course.

After just a few minutes of that kind of training, the "brain" takes over completely, sending signals to the plane's control surfaces, and using feedback from the simulator to know just which signals to send.

And then, after about 15 minutes, it's all over. The neurons can't remember how to fly the plane anymore, so the next time the experiment is run, the neurons have to be taught all over again.

Melding Biology and Computers

It all sounds very complex, but DeMarse says it's actually a very simple experiment, and he hopes to change that. The experiment currently uses only two electrodes to send and receive signals, and the brain of a mammal uses many avenues, or sensors, to do what it has to do to survive.

So the "brain in a dish" is actually a very simplified brain, even for a rat. But if that's the case, how come we can't teach a rat how to fly an aircraft?

Maybe we could, DeMarse says, if we knew how. But there would still be a bit of a problem.

"Their visual system isn't that good," he says. "The rat wouldn't be able to see past the cockpit."

DeMarse doesn't think the purely biological model he's working with is likely to ever pose a threat to human dominance. Even the relatively simple "brain in a dish" that can fly a simulator is difficult to maintain.

But still, the neural network he is exploring, along with many other scientists, is setting the stage for the creation of hybrid computers that are based largely on biological systems and could potentially dwarf the most powerful supercomputers today. And if they get too smart, as Utah State's deGaris notes, we might want to be sure they learn to love us.

Lee Dye's column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the "Los Angeles Times," he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.

Comments 1 - 15 of 15 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #53031 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 29, 2007 at 3:32 am

Okay, just wheel in Davros and we are all set.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

2. Comment #53044 by jonecc on June 29, 2007 at 4:33 am

It was nice of him to run us through the back story to the Matrix, but all they seem to have achieved so far is to get neurons to respond to some very simple stimuli.

For the clump of rat brain to fly a plane, they'd have to arrange for the plane to provide the encouraging/discouraging feedback, which it would presumably do using good old-fashioned silicon chips.

Which makes me wonder, do they believe that the biological route has more potential in the long run than computers, and if so, why? The fact that nature has taken that route indicates not that it's necessarily a superior method, but that it's possible for that solution to evolve.

Of course, what they may do, as the article says, is gain insight into the way our brains work. That's got nothing to do with making robots that destroy their creators, though.

Other Comments by jonecc

3. Comment #53047 by sean salvador on June 29, 2007 at 5:05 am

Just somthing i would like to add.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6253392.stm

take note of the judges comment

When police asked Crowther if he was ashamed of the videos he said that he was "ashamed that he was a homosexual" and he "believed that homosexuality was very wrong".

Resident Magistrate Paul Copeland referred to the anonymous victims shown in the images, but said Crowther had also been the "victim of poor judgement, self indulgence and his own foolishness".

He said that given his profession it was "a personal catastrophe".


'Poor judgement'!?

I cant help thinking that if this man was a person of non spiritual belief he would be in for much harsher punishment.

Other Comments by sean salvador

4. Comment #53048 by Skeptic Jim on June 29, 2007 at 5:20 am

This isn't a first. It was 1999 that I first heard that sceintists had built a calculator out of leech neurons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

5. Comment #53049 by somersetsimon on June 29, 2007 at 5:32 am

 avatarI remember someone developing a project in the late 90's that evolved artifical neural networks to fly aircraft in a flight simulator. Oh wait - that was me :-)

http://web.archive.org/web/19990117012705/http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980509/features.html

I remember doing an interview on the BBC where they assumed I was building 'real' artifical creatures from organic material. They were also worried about future planes developing a mind of their own. I tried to reassure them, but secretly I thought that sounded quite cool :-O

Other Comments by somersetsimon

6. Comment #53080 by konquererz on June 29, 2007 at 8:47 am

 avatarI think this is rather interesting. This goes along way towards showing that in order to "learn" to do something, you don't need a soul. If a brain can be taught to do something like fly a plane, something that requires what many pilots would consider "instinct" then how likely or needed would a soul or spirit be? Well, not likely, and not needed, which put the entire idea of ANY type of life after death a moot point. Of course to me and you it already is, but many people believe in something after death even if not a fundy christian heaven and hell thing.

Other Comments by konquererz

7. Comment #53088 by la bella fortuna on June 29, 2007 at 9:32 am

 avatarCan we get rat cell brains implanted next in fundies, so at least they can have the benefit of some kind of brain? Of course the rats may take issue with being linked to a group that could seriously damage their reputation in the food chain.

Other Comments by la bella fortuna

8. Comment #53094 by Bonzai on June 29, 2007 at 9:53 am

Comment #53044 by jonecc

Which makes me wonder, do they believe that the biological route has more potential in the long run than computers, and if so, why? The fact that nature has taken that route indicates not that it's necessarily a superior method, but that it's possible for that solution to evolve.


Well my friend you are speaking like an engineer. For scientists,--in the sense of Darwin and Einstein,-- potential for applications is not the main issue, it is nice if you can exploit nature for some puny human purposes, but that is just a delightful side benefit. They are more interested in the insights that may be gain for brain functions and development in this kind of projects.

A scientist and an engineer may be interested in neuro networks for different reasons. The scientist probably looks at them as attempted simulations of neuron dynamics. He is more interested in how the simulations may enhance our understanding of the real thing than to make efficient neuro computers for specific tasks like guiding missiles, building slave robots or picking stocks.

I sometimes find the engineering mindset too arrogant to my taste. It is as if nature is not worth knowing unless we can exploit it in some way for ourselves. Who puts us,--a bunch of stinking monkeys really,-- at the center of the universe?


I was in a lecture on bio Turing machines. I find the idea of using chemical and biological processes to carry out computations like factorizing small numbers fascinating. I don't really care if there is any use,--actually there is potential use in programming cells to fight diseases,-- I don't really care that silicon based machines are much more powerful and cheaper for all practical tasks we can use a computer for, that is not the point.

In the end of the talk a guy in the audience asked skeptically, " But sir, when do you think you can build a word processor using cells?"

Other Comments by Bonzai

9. Comment #53123 by LeeLeeOne on June 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm

 avatarIf anyone would be old enough to recall a time when we advanced from manual typewriters (clack clack clack) to "selectric", to card readers, to word processors, to computers....... I hate to say this, but as far as I am concerned, ANYTHING in this field of study has me excited and sitting in sincere anticipation of the next completed step.

What I have concluded from this article and the many typical "read one, leads to another, leads to another, etc.", is that this is in its infancy.

How exciting that I may actually see some real progress to artificial intelligence in my own lifetime!

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

10. Comment #53128 by sgr79 on June 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm

 avatarI was going to the forward this, so I clicked on the link to the original, and it turns out the article is dated October 27, 2004.

I wonder what they've come up with in the past 3 years? (I'm at work so didn't have the time to research this myself!).

Cool stuff though!

Other Comments by sgr79

11. Comment #53148 by PaulJ on June 29, 2007 at 4:32 pm

 avatar
The "brain in a dish" is the brainchild of Thomas DeMarse...
Er ... did he mean to say that?

Other Comments by PaulJ

12. Comment #53235 by jagmarz on June 30, 2007 at 8:03 am

I *hate* not being able to condense these thoughts more clearly. But this article seems like a good backdrop for the question:

Where does evolution go from here? Will homo sapiens be replaced (seems logical from the historical record)? By what? Descendants of ours? Creations of ours?

It seems that the purely biological processes of evolution are now essentially dead, thanks in large part to modern medicine.

So that leaves... cultural evolution? technological evolution? genetic engineering?

I've read science fiction for as long as I can remember, and always cheered for the disenfranchised robots or artificial persons, with some sense of safety since these were comfortably far in the future.

Now, I'm not so sure.

However it is that we got here, it now seems inevitable that we'll be the Designers for the future. Isn't that ironic?

Other Comments by jagmarz

13. Comment #53746 by John Desclin on July 3, 2007 at 2:35 am

Before taking this seriously, rather than as a hoax, I just wonder why there was no reference of where this "research" was published (peer reviewed scientific journal)?

Other Comments by John Desclin

14. Comment #53748 by John Desclin on July 3, 2007 at 2:38 am

In order to know whether this is serious research rather than some hoax, I would like to know where this was published (no reference given of a peer reviewed scientific journal...)

Other Comments by John Desclin

15. Comment #65660 by RJB on August 25, 2007 at 11:36 am

This research shows the tremendous capabilities of the neuron network to learn new things in a short time. Isn't that a very strong argument in favour of the evolution theory, considering the millions of years (animal) brains have developed?

Other Comments by RJB
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE