
‘Remote control’ contraceptive chip available ‘by 2018’ - misiti3780
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720
======
matb33
I'm holding out for Vasalgel. It was featured a while back in Wired and I've
been following it since: [http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-
home/](http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/)

That being said, I'm glad more options are being explored.

~~~
girvo
That's what I'm looking forward to. Being able to have more control over
contraception without using condoms is great (I'm in a long term relationship
with my very loving girlfriend, but we still worry at times) IMO.

What I'm interested in is whether this implantable chip will take off,
considering that IIRC oral contraceptives are still used far more than other
types (like the injections or the implant) despite being less effective?

~~~
farmdve
You know, condoms aren't solely used as a contraceptive, there's thing
called...HIV, you may have heard of it. Not to mention various other STDs.

~~~
girvo
Yes, I do know that which is why I qualified my own personal situation.

------
jrockway
This is apparently a month-old announcement, and is available from many
sources that don't inject quite so much editorial bias.

~~~
duncan_bayne
"What are your thoughts on this implantable chip? Does it raise concern? Do
you think that this technology is a positive innovation? Do you think there
could possibly be some ulterior intentions behind the production of this
technology?"

Indeed, much better off going elsewhere to read about this.

------
jqm
This is pretty awesome. But do I wonder if something like this will be
implanted by default at some point in human history and only removed when
certain specifications are met.

I don't know if that would be bad or good. Looking around the world I'm not
sure I feel it would be all bad. But yes.. abuse potential and _who decides...
I know....

~~~
XorNot
Implanting at birth, activating at a suitable marker point after puberty (a
sensor which monitors normal progesterone levels would actually be fine for
this) and de-activated when a women wants to conceive.

It'd be the most important bit of social policy in human history, seeing as
how reproductive control and economic outcomes for women are very closely
linked.

Something like this applied en masse in developing nations would also directly
save a lot of lives.

~~~
gambiting
<puts the tinfoil hat on> And then you need to get a deactivation code from
the government to disable the implant to conceive. So the government gets the
power to decide who can have children. This concept sounds very enticing and I
think it would actually be a good idea,if not for the fact that I don't think
anyone should hold that power over other people, even if it's in best
intentions.

~~~
XorNot
I see you've left out the implicit anti-tamper device that explodes and kills
you. _Obviously_ we'd just put that in.

------
ejr
The remote control bit worries me. Anything that can be wirelessly controlled
can have a weakness that can be exploited at worst or monitored at best. It's
not infeasible to have detectors to monitor emanations yielding a whole new
swath of privacy issues. No one else needs to know what type of medication
you're on.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
That's what got me too. No matter what kind of encryption used, if someone
records a person turning it off once, it can use that signal to turn off
anytime he wants possibly sabotaging the whole thing. But it's not a problem
with this product, it's just a general cryptography problem. Even military
drones have it.

~~~
jonathanyc
That's a drastic assumption to make. Replay attacks[1] are a well known
problem, and countermeasures can be implemented relatively simply. To say that
they would work "no matter what kind of encryption is used" is completely
false FUD. I'd worry more about general incompetence.

[1]:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack)

------
trhway
there are a lot of things one would like to control from his/her Android. For
example specific neurotransmitter level (right now it is done by drugs (legal
and illegal)) by remotely commanding the chip to increase release or to stop
releasing it. Reminds about Mr Data turning his emotions chip off.

~~~
thret
We joke about intravenous coffee, but I'd actually kind of like a chip that
gave me a little caffeine injection 20 minutes before my alarm went off in the
morning.

------
hliyan
Rather than releasing hormones into the entire bloodstream, isn't it possible
to implant this closer to the reproductive system so that it can affect
ovulation more directly? With the right sensors, it might even be possible to
detect the ovulation event and activate only during that time period?

------
joshfraser
Given our track record with securing other implanted technology like
pacemakers and insulin pumps, the thought of this is pretty terrifying. What
happens when someone hacks your chip and tells it to release the entire dosage
at once?

~~~
Blackthorn
Regardless of the security, pacemakers and insulin pumps have led to an
enormous quality of life improvement for an enormous number of people so that
is perhaps not the comparison you want to making for the affect you want to
effect.

~~~
pyre
> pacemakers and insulin pumps have led to an enormous quality of life

Are you comparing the quality-of-life boost that pacemakers and insulin pumps
give you to something like contraception? Maybe I'm just misinformed, but
contraceptives can even come in pill form nowadays. How does going from
"taking a pill" => "implanted pump" even compare (especially since the other
two are about life-threatening issues)?

------
leeoniya
what happens if the implant sustains physical damage due to injury, etc? then
a 16-year supply of contraceptive gets administered in a single dose? pretty
scary.

hopefully there's some form of neutralizer that can be triggered voluntarily
and automatically if damage is sustained. one of those things that's gotta be
failsafe. otherwise a trip to the ER for extraction?

------
EGreg
it's all nice until the protective seal bursts in someone, releasing "10
decades of a hormone" at once

------
Sukotto
[edit] I've removed my comment as I'm not sure just how to express what I want
to say.

~~~
nmjohn
There is not a single good argument to not tell them.

Altering someone's hormones so severely without their knowledge and consent is
abuse plain and simple.

~~~
pyre
I'm not sure that the parent poster was being serious, but I imagine the view
is that if you give such a thing to a teen, that they may feel it reduces the
risks associated with sex enough that they will be willing to have loads of
unprotected sex. I could argue that this is true to some extent[1], but
probably no more so than with current contraceptives.

[1] Apparently things like oral sex and anal sex are infinitely more popular
nowadays because they are seen as ways to have sex without getting pregnant
(even though it doesn't reduce the STD risk).

------
omegaworks
It's like DRM for your vagina!

------
thrownaway2424
"Creates" is not normally used in the future tense.

------
beefsack
Blog spam, original article:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28193720)

~~~
dang
Thanks. Changed to that from [http://earthweareone.com/bill-gates-foundation-
announces-imp...](http://earthweareone.com/bill-gates-foundation-announces-
implantable-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-that-can-last-up-
to-16-years/).

------
lukeholder
Might seem pedantic but its the 'Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation', not the
Bill Gates

------
contingencies
Am I the only one that thinks this is evil and scary?

I do hope governments rule against this kind of technology as extremely prone
to the abuse of human rights. If you think arranged marriages are bad, what
about 100% out-of-your-hands, in-your-parents 'arranged fertility'?

~~~
jqm
I'm not sure the freedom to reproduce as much as one wants under all
circumstances is an inalienable human right. Others might feel differently.

~~~
trhway
>an inalienable human right

does such thing exists at all?

~~~
jqm
In biological reality... probably not. But in theory, yes.

For instance, the UN declaration of human rights.

[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/](http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

It's interesting that this document states the ADULT individuals who are
MARRIED have the right to found a family. So not even the UN believes people
have a universal right to procreation at any age or under any circumstances.

My personal feelings are mixed. I'm not a fan of traditional marriage. It
appears broken in the west at least. But, I think the initial idea, the one
upheld in this document and in traditional civilization is valid. When people
are in a position to support and care for children, yes, I believe they have a
right to have them. Otherwise they do the children and society in general no
favors by having them.

How many children should people be allowed to have? Should we have people like
the Duggers taking fertility drugs to have 20 kids? What if a lot of people
decided to do this? What if cloning became easy? What if someone decided to
lab produce 10,000 children using sperm and eggs from a select group of
doners? Do they have this right? The issue is complex and I don't know the
answers. But I do see a lot of problems that result from wanton reproduction.

------
michaelsbradley
There are wonderful alternatives to pharmaceutical contraception, barrier
methods and surgical sterilization, not to mention chemical and surgical
abortion.

I would invite readers here to learn about modern NFP and to help spread the
word:

[http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-
family/n...](http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-
family/natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/nfp-basic-information.cfm)

EDIT: expanded my "alternatives to" list per the observation of another
reader. Thanks, jjoonathan!

~~~
jjoonathan
Alternative? Yes. Wonderful? Only if you stigmatize the sexual behaviors
incompatible with NFP, conveniently making it impossible to complain about.

EDIT: You also forgot to mention condoms which don't alter the natural
functioning of your body, allow for a wider range of sexual expression, and
serve as a stronger barrier against STD transmission than NFP. What was your
complaint against condoms again?

> Marriage is a gift from God

Oh, right.

~~~
michaelsbradley
Well, there are other good websites from which to learn about modern NFP. For
example:

[http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/](http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/)

Just skip the USCCB's writeup if it's not your cup of tea.

