Bomb-Sniffing Cyborg Locusts Successfully Detect Explosives

[Syaoran]

 

 

Quote

Scientists funded by the United States Navy have revealed they have successfully augmented locusts and hijacked their ability to sense a wide range of chemical odors, including explosives.

 

According to a preprint research paper published on February 11 in BioRxiv, the insects have been used to detect gases released by substances like ammonium nitrate, commonly used by terrorist groups for bomb-making, and the military explosives TNT and RDX. Individual locusts were able to successfully sniff out incendiary material, but the results improved when the scientists compiled data from seven or more locusts, where the detection capability was distributed across a mini-swarm.

 

Quote

The researchers, from Washington University in St. Louis, declined to comment for this story. But their paper describes how they transformed the bugs into would-be bomb detectors by implanting electrodes into the insects’ brains. That allowed researchers to analyze the neural activity of the locusts when they encountered certain substances.

 

Four years ago, the U.S. Office of Naval Research allocated $750,000 in funding for the project, but at the time, it was not clear whether the plan to turn locusts into bomb detection agents would actually work. The new paper suggests that some version of a biohacked locust could one day be deployed into the field.

 

Quote

The robot-bound locusts were exposed to five different explosives and a few other chemicals. Within 500 milliseconds of exposure to each substance, a discernible and distinct pattern of activity appeared in the insects’ brains.

 

Source: https://onezero.medium.com/bomb-sniffing-cyborg-locusts-can-now-successfully-detect-explosives-3bb0bc25959e

https://futurism.com/the-byte/bomb-sniffing-cyborg-locusts

 

I don't think these locusts will put bomb-sniffing dogs out of the job, there might be some situations where a dog should/must be used.

Maybe even train the bomb-sniffing dogs in other things but still work with the police and military.

 

[Slottr]

On one hand: What the fuck

 

On the other hand: lol that's kinda cool

[FakeCIA]

Navy is doing crazier shit every day.

[Syaoran]

14 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

How are the locusts' behaviour going to be controlled?

It's in the article, if you want to know more click the link(s).

Quote

But for these cyborg locusts to be useful, operators must be able to physically control their movement. To do this, the Washington University scientists cocooned the locusts in tiny wheeled robots that could be positioned at will. (The researchers are also finalizing work on silk-based “nanotattoo” implants that will allow operators to move the insects remotely without using a vehicle.)

 

[maartendc]

That shit scary as hell.

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

Borgefied. 

[greenmax]

4 hours ago, huilun02 said:

how fundamentally flawed and impractical the idea is.

The point is advancing technology, not practical means.

 

 

[Belgarathian]

Can you imagine putting together the research application for this and then having to defend it?

 

 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Oh God! here comes the plague..never mind that's the new bomb squad.

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, huilun02 said:

 but fail to see how fundamentally flawed and impractical the idea is.

 

 

 

 

just because you don't understand it's reach and purpose doesn't mean no one else does.   People have said similar things about all sorts of technology over the years:

 

Quote

I have been branded with folly and madness for attempting what the world calls impossibilities, and even from the great engineer, the late James Watt, who said ... that I deserved hanging for bringing into use the high-pressure engine. This has so far been my reward from the public; but should this be all, I shall be satisfied by the great secret pleasure and laudable pride that I feel in my own breast from having been the instrument of bringing forward new principles and new arrangements of boundless value to my country, and however much I may be straitened in pecuniary circumstances, the great honour of being a useful subject can never be taken from me, which far exceeds riches.

Richard Trevithick, who was told his goal was impossible, showed the world steam was capable of powering cars and trains which lead to power stations.  

 

You call if flawed and impractical now,  wait another 30 years before being so adamant you understand more than they do.

[mr moose]

54 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

So any and all science/tech should be hailed as the bee's knees?

 

I didn't see anyone say that.  In fact none of the above posts even come close to excitement let alone hailing.

 

54 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

There are tech applications that end up being huge success and change the world. But there are many more that end up nowhere.

 

Do not cherry pick a case to pull this out of context or as an excuse to overlook all of the flawed logic behind this particular application.

 

What peeves me is not the science and effort put into it by the people actually working on it. But rather the deliberate presentation of this "news" to hide all of its factual constraints and as a result people's imagination run wild into something that is no longer a representation of the real thing.

 

Do you have a crystal ball and are you working in that field?  if not then you are in no position to decide what is flawed or impractical.  Using hindsight to dismiss the future prospects of anything you don't understand is a logical fallacy.   

 

There is a big difference between how you think people will interpret news and whether or not the science it's reporting on is "flawed" or "impractical".   If you want to label the research as flawed and impractical because of sensationalist media then you are going to have to dismiss nearly everything.

 

 

[dizmo]

If this is what they're letting the public know about, I can only imagine what kind of things they're doing behind closed doors.

[Syaoran]

17 hours ago, huilun02 said:

OP conveniently omitting critical information on its implementation and limitations doesn't help either.

How did I "conveniently" omitted critical information?

It doesn't change what the article nor what my post is about.

[Thorium19]

okay, this is kinda cool, and I assume they did thorough testing with effectively placebos, but it's difficult to imagine this being effective in anything more than confined environments. Would probably need a bug carrier like the one Dr Yee uses in brooklyn 99. 

[Buck_Wild]

On 2/17/2020 at 6:13 AM, huilun02 said:

Everyone thinking 'what ifs' and 'might get there in the future' but fail to see how fundamentally flawed and impractical the idea is.

 

OP conveniently omitting critical information on its implementation and limitations doesn't help either.

 

Rejoice at tax money going to silly things that cant materialize into anything useful.

I think you missed the part where the locust can detect, through sniffing the air, the presence of gasses emitted by explosives. The embedded probe gave a response time of half a second . Even if the locust never flew again, and even if the probes were never improved upon (undoubtedly they would be) they will probably still be cheaper and take less time than teaching a dog to sniff for bombs. The locusts would be a better option than most current chemical tests for detecting explosives because the locusts wouldn't have to come in physical contact like the other tests. Open your mind to the possibilities.

[RonnieOP]

On 2/18/2020 at 2:33 AM, huilun02 said:

Your original post did not mention anything to convey the fact that the locusts are stuck in a flightless robot, and that their movement is basically manually controlled by a human.

 

This leaves the methodology of how they can/will be deployed, entirely up to the reader's imagination. As such they could be tricked into thinking the locusts are able to fly and roam freely.

 

That was in fact, my initial impression. And only upon logical study of the image, threw the idea off completely.

 

When the reader has to rely on perception or critical information is hidden by further action (i.e. clicking to reach the source to obtain this info), this is what I call deceptive.

He provided the link to the story which included your points.

 

So how the hell can you say it wasnt mentioned? 

 

Your upset he didnt copy and paste every single paragraph?

 

How about you just click the link and read it?

 

 

[JoshHendi]

What's crazier... The fact that someone came up with this? or that it actually can work?