
Row over US mobile phone 'cockroach backpack' app - T-A
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24455141
======
Apocryphon
Yeah, I'm sorry, this is pretty horrific. The technology behind it is amazing,
and the company should be applauded for trying to get children interested in
neuroscience, but to hijack a living creature like that? Being squashed by the
boot of a shoe seems merciful in comparison to being turned into a Pokémon.

Of course, the above is a response based on emotion, maybe aesthetic grounds.
I'm sure a bioethicist can create a better argument against this.

~~~
throwaway0094
This type of cockroach control is pretty par for the course in undergrad
anatomy lab sections... I think the only part that seems weird is the
gamification of making it a remote control app.

~~~
nl
Undergrad labs sessions also sometimes involve taking organs from a recently
deceased human and dissecting them.

Do that in your kitchen and you get labelled a murderer.

Context is everything.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Do that in your kitchen and you get labelled a murderer.

No, you don't. You get labeled a freak, and you may or may not be charged
under health-related laws.

To be labelled a murderer, you have to kill someone.

~~~
nl
I suspect that rather depends on where you got those organs.

(As an aside.. what purpose do you think your comment served? Do you really
consider that I - the author - or anyone reading it didn't realize you have to
kill someone to commit murder? It was an analogy, and I deliberately made it
succinct. The point of the comment you replied to was "context is everything".
To be fair, you have made that point rather well, although I suspect that
wasn't deliberately.)

------
beambot
I was a researcher on an analogous research project involving dragonflies [1].
Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical
guidelines backed by IRB approvals, the procedures were performed by trained
biologists, and the outcome is fundamental neurology research that will be
published in Science or Nature. Meanwhile, these cockroach experiments are
being performed w/o oversight, by "citizen scientists", with no apparent
outcome other than novelty and staving off boredom. BIG difference. I do not
approve.

* Thankfully, my work on the dragonfly project was the biotelemetry radio link rather than working with live animals.

[1] [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/dragonfly-
backpack...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/dragonfly-backpack-
neuron/) => No control of the dragonflies; only neural telemetry.

~~~
thaumasiotes
You know, there's a school of thought that says IRB approvals prevent a lot of
valuable research from happening. This isn't the ground I would have chosen to
stand on to defend them.

But beyond that fairly narrow issue, what you're espousing here is an
incredibly benighted view. We _want_ "citizen scientists" to be moved by the
spirit of inquiry and run the experiments that take their fancy. That's how
progress is made. "Novelty and staving off boredom" are a primary motivation
for many professional scientists; I still remember the essay I read pointing
out that the true scientific mindset was that of an overeager dog who just has
to see what's behind that door... and the next one! and the next!

Science-related toys for children have long been felt to promote positive
goals, like sparking the interest of a future scientist or just raising
awareness of what scientists might do. I see complaints all the time that you
can't buy a decent chemistry set anymore. And here you're admitting that
exactly this sort of experiment can be published in Nature, but children
should keep their hands off? You don't see me crusading to keep Lego
Mindstorms in professional hands only. I _like_ it when children share my
interests.

Major progress has been made by serendipity and by "citizen scientists" acting
without oversight. And, for that matter, by professional scientists acting
without oversight. Making the tools more accessible can only get things to
happen faster.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

~~~
DanBC
This is not citizen science. It's just a toy. There's no science taught here.
It's just idle noodling. There's nothing about scientific method or
repeatability or changing parameters or anything.

You mention the fear that has caused chemistry sets to be reduced, but that's
only part of the problem. The other problem is really bad toys being sold as
"science" with nothing sciency about them.

~~~
thaumasiotes
You've got a strange idea of what science is.

> It's just a toy. There's no science taught here. It's just idle noodling.

This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64? The kit is a tool. You can do
different things with it. If, at any point, someone using the kit thinks to
themselves "what would happen if I did X?" and then does X to see what
happens, _that is citizen science_.

> The other problem is really bad toys being sold as "science" with nothing
> sciency about them.

This is a problem, although in my experience it's not a large one. It
definitely doesn't apply here, though; witness yourself the people saying
they've worked on similar projects.

I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate
"science" generally:

\- can you mount a camera on the roach? If you can, and it acts naturally
afterwards (or even naturally with the caveat that it's stopped fitting into
cockroach-sized cracks), you'll pick up extremely valuable footage that a
biologist studying cockroaches would love to have.

\- Will other cockroaches accept one that's had this kit installed? If not,
why not?

\- Can I use my RC cockroach to influence the behavior of a swarm? Choose for
them where they'll sleep? Dictate what left-out food they choose to eat and
what they pass by? Cockroaches are social. Using one to manipulate a colony
would be huge.

~~~
DanBC
> This doesn't remind you of, say, a C64?

No, it doesn't. The C64 and other early home computers came with extensive
instruction manuals detailing the memory map and all the language instruction.
People would enter a program. They'd debug it. They'd modify it. They'd create
their own programs.

Compare that to the toy - find bug, attach device, SCIENCE.

It's really shitty marketing.

> I've already mentioned several questions about the product that implicate
> "science" generally:

If they had any of those in any of the marketing or the instructions they
might just be able to scrape by calling this a science toy. They don't. By
your definition _any toy_ becomes a science toy. Look! Drop it off a building!
That's gravity!

~~~
thaumasiotes
> By your definition any toy becomes a science toy. Look! Drop it off a
> building! That's gravity!

Well, first I'll note that my high school physics class involved labs
demonstrating various well-known properties of gravity. I found them a waste
of time, but that seems to be a minority opinion.

But let me repeat myself:

"If, at any point, someone using the kit thinks to themselves "what would
happen if I did X?" and then does X to see what happens, _that is citizen
science_."

I'm happy to stand by that statement as to any toy. But it's especially likely
with a toy like this.

------
thaumasiotes
I don't see "rights for cockroaches" picking up mass support.

This is an animal we purposefully kill by the thousands upon thousands just
because they're annoying.

~~~
muglug
Killing an animal quickly and efficiently is generally held to be more
"humane" than torturing it endlessly (and keeping it alive). It's the reason
people put sickly pets down, rather than letting them suffer for months.

~~~
thaumasiotes
The company PR is quite obviously, as claimed, "disingenuous":

> The spokeswoman insisted that the insects are treated humanely and that the
> backpack - first developed in 2011 - does not harm them.

Boring a hole in the head, and then another hole in the chest, and then
clipping the antennae, so you can attach an apparatus which appears to roughly
half the size of the roach itself and which exerts major control over its
motion, does not approach "humane". Anyone found doing this to humans could
very reasonably be lynched.

I'd prefer to see the company own it. To repurpose an argument I first saw on
that bastion of philosophical thought cracked.com, "Cockroaches? Fuck 'em."
Focus on the scientific potential of remote-controlled cockroaches.

Cockroaches have no rights that man is bound to respect. [1] There are no
conceivable benefits to extending them _any_ rights. And I'm not particularly
worried that a child who grows up thinking of insects as something to be used
or abused as they see fit will mistreat humans. I burned ants with a
magnifying glass. It didn't seem to bother anyone. I went on to burn my
sister's name into a block of wood as a gift. That's pretty much where things
ended.

If a child of mine showed any interest in this sort of thing, I'd be happy to
sponsor it.

The article actually made me wonder whether the cockroach lives through
installation; I have read that cockroaches "live on" for a period of weeks
after being beheaded. It would be really, really cool to get something like
this that

\- didn't prevent other cockroaches from accepting the bugged one

\- didn't block the roach from fitting through gaps it would normally be able
to fit through.

\- included a highly miniaturized video camera

> It's the reason people put sickly pets down, rather than letting them suffer
> for months.

People are generally (there might be exceptions) more attached to their own
pets than they are to other people's cockroaches.

[1] [http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/no-rights-which-the-white-
man-...](http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/no-rights-which-the-white-man-was-
bound-to-respect)

~~~
gnerd
> Boring a hole in the head, and then another hole in the chest

According to the article and the instructions[1] there is only one hole and it
is in the thorax (through the exoskeleton), which is the middle section and
not the head at all (remember from primary school biology, insects have a
head, thorax and abdomen).

Not making a case for or against this method or product, just saying.

[1]
[http://wiki.backyardbrains.com/RoboRoach_Surgery](http://wiki.backyardbrains.com/RoboRoach_Surgery)

~~~
thaumasiotes
I was referring to this:

> sandpaper is used to remove the waxy coating on the shell of the insect's
> head.

I interpreted the waxy coating as being something that was part of the head.
Could be wrong.

~~~
gnerd
It is on the head, but it isn't a hole. I imagined it to be more like filing
the smooth surface of one of your nails at there are no nerve endings located
in the exoskeleton (which is why insects shed their chitin exoskeletons until
maturity).

Chitin is the arthropods version of keratin (the stuff your hair and nails are
made of).

~~~
thaumasiotes
If someone filed down my nails to the point where they were gone, I'd be more
than a little distressed. The skin under the nails is incredibly sensitive (I
believe it becomes less so over time when exposed to the air, but we are
talking about filing off a protective coating here). If they wouldn't grow
back (no idea whether that applies to the cockroaches or not), I'd feel much
worse.

~~~
gnerd
I said filing the smooth surface of the nails, not filing all the way through
the nail. It is the same as what woman do when they stick fake nails over
their real nails... they simply rough up the surface for adhesive purposes,
not file the entire nail away.

There are other, more logical, reasons to be outraged if that is your position
on this.

> If they wouldn't grow back (no idea whether that applies to the cockroaches
> or not), I'd feel much worse.

The waxy surface will not grow back, well not if they do the more ethical
approach as they would only perform this on mature cockroaches who will not
shed any longer.

Again, not supporting or attacking their approach. I think the purpose seems
to be the ethical grey area for me. For instance, the black rhino is
considered extinct (last I checked) and how we save the white rhinos is by
removing their keratin horns to stop poachers. Am I happy we have to do that?
Certainly not, however, I'd rather have that then no white rhinos.

------
brd529
Fast forward a ten years. Is it inconceivable a similar technology will work
on humans? I've read we already have the reverse - quadriplegic people can
control a mouse on a screen by thinking.

If this would work on a human, how would a human attached to one of these
perceive the foreign control? I'd imagine these electrodes would reproduce the
brain signals that cause our muscles to move, but not alter our consciousness.
So we would be aware that our own bodies were moving and responding to someone
else's control. Imagine for example, wanting to stop walking but your body
keeps on putting one foot in front of the other. Scary to lose control.

I'm not sure how far fetched that is, but it may be an interesting way to
think about the morality of this device on roaches. I'm not sure if we know if
roaches have a degree of consciousness, or if they operate 100% on instinct.
Either way it's hard not to project or imagine some level of consciousness on
the roach.

Once you do that, this device seems diabolical.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> If this would work on a human, how would a human attached to one of these
> perceive the foreign control? I'd imagine these electrodes would reproduce
> the brain signals that cause our muscles to move, but not alter our
> consciousness. So we would be aware that our own bodies were moving and
> responding to someone else's control. Imagine for example, wanting to stop
> walking but your body keeps on putting one foot in front of the other. Scary
> to lose control.

There is existing research relevant to this question. It concerns people whose
corpus callosum (the cable connecting the brain's right and left hemispheres)
has been cut.

It's possible to present such a person with something (here, a sign with words
written on it) that is only visible to one of their eyes, and thus one
hemisphere of their brain. It is also possible for such a person to be not
consciously aware of what one of their eyes is seeing.

If you present, in the field of view which doesn't have conscious awareness, a
sign saying e.g. "please stand up", they will. If you then ask them why they
did it, they won't know, but they won't say that; they'll make something up
like "I was going to get a Coke".

There is no evidence that they're being deceptive. So it's quite possible that
you'd perceive your controlled actions as voluntary. (I'm not taking a
position as to whether that's more or less horrifying than perceiving the
control.)

~~~
collin128
there was a U of W study posted here a month or two back showing the first
human brain to brain interface. Very cool, very creep.

There's a video of one guy playing an FPS without a fire button on his mouse,
every time he goes to shoot someone, his connected partner in another wing of
the campus presses the fire button on a keyboard. The man with the fire button
can't see anything except for a keyboard.

------
jl6
I feel that using cockroaches like this might be justifiable for the purpose
of research, but doing this for what amounts to entertainment is quite dark.

------
rdl
This sales campaign has been fairly effective for me; I'll happily pay $99 for
this. I boil alive and then eat a close relative of these animals, and other
people eat living animals (I just don't like those particular animals). At-
home science is at least as defensible.

~~~
goldenkey
Torture is wrong. Especially prolonged torture in the form of forced
servitude. How can you claim any degree of moral backing for this practice
when its science lacks merits and it is merely a toy of torture?

~~~
rdl
It's more that it teaches individuals existing science, creating more interest
in science and thus potentially future scientists who will push the bounds of
human knowledge, vs. this itself advancing the limits of human knowledge.

I agree with you about torture, but mitigate that with the lower life form
status of cockroaches. I wouldn't support the same thing done to rats,
octopus, etc., all things being equal (although I'm ok with less intrusive or
more beneficial things done to higher life forms; in the limit, final medical
testing on monkeys and humans).

~~~
DanBC
It's expensive and the science value is low. For $100 you could make most of
the stuff on [http://scitoys.com/](http://scitoys.com/)

While I tend to the more animal rightsy end of the spectrum I tend to agree
that putting this on a cockroach isn't too troubling from the point of view of
the bug. But does it lead to beetles in vending machines[1] or live turtles in
tiny pouches[2]?

I don't think we're creating a generation of kids who'll go on to re-create
ZippoCat, but it's worth some thought.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/11/jonathanwatts](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/11/jonathanwatts)

[2] [http://www.geekosystem.com/chinese-turtles-fish-
keychains/](http://www.geekosystem.com/chinese-turtles-fish-keychains/)

[2]
[http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/keyrings.asp](http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/keyrings.asp)

~~~
rdl
I agree the keychains are probably fairly far over the line.

The cockroach backpack is not something I'd consider appropriate for young
children, but for teenagers/etc., it seems like a pretty reasonable thing. If
it exposed an API and did two way communication/logging it would be a lot more
interesting.

Maybe in both cases (keychain and current-backpack), it's primarily the
uselessness of it which is most objectionable.

------
ck2
Right.... teach kids that torturing animals is okay and desensitize them.

This should end well. We definitely don't have enough mass-killings in society
today.

~~~
biff
People used to worry kids ripping wings off of houseflies weren't right in the
head. Budding aerospace engineers cheated of their true potential because no
U.S. company had the ingenuity to market $100 wing scissors?

~~~
ck2
Are you saying some kids are born psychopaths? Or that marketeers are?

I've observed both ways, where the kids were far more sane than the parents,
and then there are kids that turn out evil despite the best parents.

~~~
biff
Genetics and environment each play a part, I suppose, but cruelty can be a
learned behavior. The price point means this is more likely to be used by
people who will take it seriously, but it just struck me as a particularly
ghoulish piece of kit to put next to the microscope and chemistry set. I read
"A Father's Story" not too long ago, so maybe that doesn't help the cause.

On the other hand, most of us had at least a couple dissections under our belt
by high school, and it wasn't like those critters willingly offered themselves
up towards our erudition, either. A practical education in science did seem to
involve doing things we could have just read about in books, even if it caused
a few nitric acid stains here and there and dozens of fetal pigs to lay down
their lives, so maybe I'm being too quick to judge.

Now, are marketeers in general psychopaths? I don't think it's a hard and fast
rule...

------
artificialidiot
How do I know that the company spews bullshit? Because it mentions Alzheimer.
This is the modern trigger word for asking for funding without stating a
concrete goal.

------
patrickg_zill
Amazing, but weird... I am having flashbacks to the cockroach-spy scenes in
the movie "Fifth Element".

------
graeme
Does anyone have more detail on how this works?

If it's possible to effectively control cockroaches, then the real application
would be military and espionage. Just think of the places cockroaches can go,
especially if it's possible to further reduce the size of the apparatus and/or
camouflage it.

~~~
dan1234
They replace the cockroach's antennae with the electronics, which are used to
send fake information to the cockroach's brain.

This was actually featured on HN back when this project was on kickstarter.

------
chanux
This must be way off topic but did Hitler believe he was doing the right
thing?

Edit: I once read about the creators of Roboroach defend the idea. I still
didn't agree (It's OK for things I disagree with to exist in the world). Their
kickstarter is successful so I guess enough people approve the idea.

Also I liked how the kicstarter page made Roboroach creator's words look like
they are Mashable's.

On Roboroach Kickstarter

 _Mashable - "... the RoboRoach is not a toy, but rather a learning tool."_

On Masahble

 _Gage and Marzullo underline the fact that the RoboRoach is not a toy, but
rather a learning tool._

The creators are probably truly passionate about their field of work, want it
to be just an educational tool and maybe they are right. But I just can't tell
this apart from a PR plaster.

------
rhizome
This is growth hacking, right? Seems like a nice PR prank by the company.

------
simon155
NOTE: As the spokesman has made a public claim the insects are NOT harmed by
the product, you are at liberty to take up complaints via trading standards
bodies / regulators and sue. I would encourage everyone to do so.

We had a company like that over here - huntingdon life sciences (UK) which as
awareness of their activities spread, had regular potests at their offices,
preventing workers from working. Once scientists addresses started making
public appearance, things very quickly escalated.

------
DougN7
Time to risk a hell-ban: I'm genuinely curious how people's views on this
being torture and leading to children without empathy, ect coincide with
people being against abortion for similar reasons. Does anyone support
abortion rights but is against this toy? Or vice versa?

~~~
lawtguy
I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, and I'm also very
uncomfortable with this product. In general, I think it's OK to cause pain or
kill non-sentient beings as long as it leads to a useful end. Killing a cow so
we can eat the meat is fine, but you're not allowed to torture it as you kill
it [1].

An abortion is also OK on the same grounds: a fetus before 3 months of
gestation is definitely not sentient, and killing it could prevent a great
deal of hardship. To be clear, I think abortion is horrible, but it could be
the least bad option available.

For this cockroach control toy, it's not clear that it causes the cockroach
any pain, but it sure looks like torture. The potentially utility of it looks
rather low as well. I can see that it could be useful for learning (and maybe
some science as well) but I suspect at lot of people will buy it just for
entertainment. That is what makes me very uncomfortable about this device.

[1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_slaughter

------
chrischen
How long does the battery last?

------
deSouza
I had never thought I could feel empathy with a cockroach.

------
skuunk1
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

If the intent is education, then I condone this, if it is entertainment then I
do not.

