Regulation of artificial intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_artificial_intelligence 

The regulation of artificial intelligence is the development of public sector policies and laws for promoting and regulating artificial intelligence (AI); it is therefore related to the broader regulation of algorithms. The regulatory and policy landscape for AI is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Regulation is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks. Regulation of AI through mechanisms such as review boards can also be seen as social means to approach the AI control problem.

Perspectives

The regulation of artificial intelligence is the development of public sector policies and laws for promoting and regulating AI. Regulation is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks. Public administration and policy considerations generally focus on the technical and economic implications and on trustworthy and human-centered AI systems, although regulation of artificial superintelligences is also considered. AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues. A public administration approach sees a relationship between AI law and regulation, the ethics of AI, and 'AI society', defined as workforce substitution and transformation, social acceptance and trust in AI, and the transformation of human to machine interaction. The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI is deemed necessary at the local, national, and international levels and in a variety of fields, from public service management and accountability to law enforcement, the financial sector, robotics, autonomous vehicles, the military and national security, and international law.

In 2017 Elon Musk called for regulation of AI development. According to NPR, the Tesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilization." In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development. Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has argued that AI is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology. Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty.

As a response to the AI control problem

Regulation of AI can be seen as positive social means to manage the AI control problem, i.e., the need to insure long-term beneficial AI, with other social responses such as doing nothing or banning being seen as impractical, and approaches such as enhancing human capabilities through transhumanism approaches such as brain-computer interfaces being seen as potentially complementary. Regulation of research into artificial general intelligence (AGI) focuses on the role of review boards, from university or corporation to international levels, and on encouraging research into safe AI, together with the possibility of differential intellectual progress (prioritizing risk-reducing strategies over risk-taking strategies in AI development) or conducting international mass surveillance to perform AGI arms control. For instance, the 'AGI Nanny' is a proposed strategy, potentially under the control of humanity, for preventing the creation of a dangerous superintelligence as well as addressing other major threats to human well-being, such as subversion of the global financial system, until a superintelligence can be safely created. It entails the creation of a smarter-than-human, but not superintelligent, artificial general intelligence system connected to a large surveillance network, with the goal of monitoring humanity and protecting it from danger." Regulation of conscious, ethically aware AGIs focuses on integrating them with existing human society and can be divided into considerations of their legal standing and of their moral rights. Regulation of AI has been seen as restrictive, with a risk of preventing the development of AGI.

Global guidance

The development of a global governance board to regulate AI development was suggested at least as early as 2017. In December 2018, Canada and France announced plans for a G7-backed International Panel on Artificial Intelligence, modeled on the International Panel on Climate Change, to study the global effects of AI on people and economies and to steer AI development. In 2019 the Panel was renamed the Global Partnership on AI, but it is yet to be endorsed by the United States.

The OECD Recommendations on AI were adopted in May 2019, and the G20 AI Principles in June 2019. In September 2019 the World Economic Forum issued ten 'AI Government Procurement Guidelines'. In February 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI. At the United Nations, several entities have begun to promote and discuss aspects of AI regulation and policy, including the UNICRI Centre for AI and Robotics.

Regional and national regulation

Timeline of strategies, action plans and policy papers setting defining national, regional and international approaches to AI

The regulatory and policy landscape for AI is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Since early 2016, many national, regional and international authorities have begun adopting strategies, actions plans and policy papers on AI. These documents cover a wide range of topics such as regulation and governance, as well as industrial strategy, research, talent and infrastructure.

China

The regulation of AI in China is mainly governed by the State Council of the PRC's July 8, 2017 "A Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan" (State Council Document No. 35), in which the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council of the People's Republic of China urged the governing bodies of China to promote the development of AI. Regulation of the issues of ethical and legal support for the development of AI is nascent, but policy ensures state control of Chinese companies and over valuable data, including storage of data on Chinese users within the country and the mandatory use of People's Republic of China's national standards for AI, including over big data, cloud computing, and industrial software.

European Union

The European Union (EU) is guided by a European Strategy on Artificial Intelligence, supported by a High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. In April 2019, the European Commission published its Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI), following this with its Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in June 2019.

On February 2, 2020, the European Commission published its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust. The White Paper consists of two main building blocks, an ‘ecosystem of excellence’ and a ‘ecosystem of trust’. The latter outlines the EU's approach for a regulatory framework for AI. In its proposed approach, the Commission differentiates between 'high-risk' and 'non-high-risk' AI applications. Only the former should be in the scope of a future EU regulatory framework. Whether this would be the case could in principle be determined by two cumulative criteria, concerning critical sectors and critical use. Following key requirements are considered for high-risk AI applications: requirements for training data; data and record-keeping; informational duties; requirements for robustness and accuracy; human oversight; and specific requirements for specific AI applications, such as those used for purposes of remote biometric identification. AI applications that do not qualify as ‘high-risk’ could be governed by voluntary labeling scheme. As regards compliance and enforcement, the Commission considers prior conformity assessments which could include 'procedures for testing, inspection or certification' and/or 'checks of the algorithms and of the data sets used in the development phase'. A European governance structure on AI in the form of a framework for cooperation of national competent authorities could facilitate the implementation of the regulatory framework.

United Kingdom

The UK supported the application and development of AI in business via the Digital Economy Strategy 2015-2018, introduced at the beginning of 2015 by Innovate UK as part of the UK Digital Strategy. In the public sector, guidance has been provided by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on data ethics and the Alan Turing Institute, on responsible design and implementation of AI systems. In terms of cyber security, the National Cyber Security Centre has issued guidance on ‘Intelligent Security Tools’.

United States

Discussions on regulation of AI in the United States have included topics such as the timeliness of regulating AI, the nature of the federal regulatory framework to govern and promote AI, including what agency should lead, the regulatory and governing powers of that agency, and how to update regulations in the face of rapidly changing technology, as well as the roles of state governments and courts.

As early as 2016, the Obama administration had begun to focus on the risks and regulations for artificial intelligence. In a report titled Preparing For the Future of Artificial Intelligence, the National Science and Technology Council set a precedent to allow researchers to continue to develop new AI technologies with few restrictions. It is stated within the report that "the approach to regulation of AI-enabled products to protect public safety should be informed by assessment of the aspects of risk....". These risks would be the principle reason to create any form of regulation, granted that any existing regulation would not apply to AI technology.

The first main report was the National Strategic Research and Development Plan for Artificial Intelligence. On August 13, 2018, Section 1051 of the Fiscal Year 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) established the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence "to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States." Steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (S.1558) is a proposed bill that would establish a federal initiative designed to accelerate research and development on AI for, inter alia, the economic and national security of the United States.

On January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has published an interim report, and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI.

Regulation of fully autonomous weapons

Legal questions related to lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), in particular compliance with the laws of armed conflict, have been under discussion at the United Nations since 2013, within the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Notably, informal meetings of experts took place in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) was appointed to further deliberate on the issue in 2016. A set of guiding principles on LAWS affirmed by the GGE on LAWS were adopted in 2018.

In 2016, China published a position paper questioning the adequacy of existing international law to address the eventuality of fully autonomous weapons, becoming the first permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to broach the issue, and leading to proposals for global regulation. The possibility of a moratorium or preemptive ban of the development and use of LAWS has also been raised on several occasions by other national delegations to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and is strongly advocated for by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots - a coalition of non-governmental organizations.

Mechanisms of schizophrenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanisms_of_schizophrenia 

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The mechanisms of schizophrenia that underlie the development of schizophrenia, a chronic mental disorder are complex. A number of theories attempt to explain the link between altered brain function and schizophrenia, including the dopamine hypothesis and the glutamate hypothesis. These theories are separate from the causes of schizophrenia, which deal with the factors that lead to schizophrenia. The current theories attempt to explain how changes in brain functioning can contribute to symptoms of the disease.

Pathophysiology

The exact pathophysiology of schizophrenia remains poorly understood. The most commonly supported theories are the dopamine hypothesis and the glutamate hypothesis. Other theories include the specific dysfunction of interneurons, abnormalities in the immune system, abnormalities in myelination and oxidative stress.

Dopamine dysfunction

The first formulations of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia came from post-mortem studies finding increased striatal availability of D₂/D₃ receptors in the striatum, as well as studies finding elevated CSF levels of dopamine metabolites. Subsequently, most antipsychotics were found to have affinity for D2 receptors. More modern investigations of the hypothesis suggest a link between striatal dopamine synthesis and positive symptoms, as well as increased and decreased dopamine transmission in subcortical and cortical regions respectively.

A meta analysis of molecular imaging studies observed increased presynaptic indicators of dopamine function, but no difference in the availability of dopamine transporters or dopamine D₂/D₃ receptors. Both studies using radio labeled L-DOPA, an indicator of dopamine synthesis, and studies using amphetamine release challenges observed significant differences between those with schizophrenia and control. These findings were interpreted as increased synthesis of dopamine, and increased release of dopamine respectively. These findings were localized to the striatum, and were noted to be limited by the quality of studies used. A large degree of inconsistency has been observed in D₂/D₃ receptor binding, although a small but nonsignificant reduction in thalamic availability has been found. The inconsistent findings with respect to receptor expression has been emphasized as not precluding dysfunction in dopamine receptors, as many factors such as regional heterogeneity and medication status may lead to variable findings. When combined with findings in presynaptic dopamine function, most evidence suggests dysregulation of dopamine in schizophrenia.

Exactly how dopamine dysregulation can contribute to schizophrenia symptoms remains unclear. Some studies have suggested that disruption of the auditory thalamocortical projections give rise to hallucinations, while dysregulated corticostriatal circuitry and reward circuitry in the form of aberrant salience can give rise to delusions. Decreased inhibitory dopamine signals in the thalamus have been hypothesized to result in reduced sensory gating, and excessive activity in excitatory inputs into the cortex.

One hypothesis linking delusions in schizophrenia to dopamine suggests that unstable representation of expectations in prefrontal neurons occurs in psychotic states due to insufficient D₁ and NMDA receptor stimulation. This, when combined with hyperactivity of expectations to modification by salient stimuli is thought to lead to improper formation of beliefs.

Glutamate abnormalities

Beside the dopamine hypothesis, interest has also focused on the neurotransmitter glutamate and the reduced function of the NMDA glutamate receptor in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. This has largely been suggested by lower levels of glutamate receptors found in postmortem brains of people previously diagnosed with schizophrenia and the discovery that glutamate blocking drugs such as phencyclidine and ketamine can mimic the symptoms and cognitive problems associated with the condition.

The fact that reduced glutamate function is linked to poor performance on tests requiring frontal lobe and hippocampal function and that glutamate can affect dopamine function, all of which have been implicated in schizophrenia, have suggested an important mediating (and possibly causal) role of glutamate pathways in schizophrenia. Positive symptoms fail however to respond to glutamatergic medication.

Reduced mRNA and protein expression of several NMDA receptor subunits has also been reported in postmortem brains from people with schizophrenia. In particular, the expression of mRNA for the NR1 receptor subunit, as well as the protein itself is reduced in the prefrontal cortex in post-mortem studies of those with schizophrenia. Fewer studies have examined other subunits, and results have been equivocal, except for a reduction in prefrontal NRC2.

The large genome-wide association study mentioned above has supported glutamate abnormalities for schizophrenia, reporting several mutations in genes related to glutamatergic neurotransmission, such as GRIN2A, GRIA1, SRR, and GRM3.

Interneuron dysfunction

Another hypothesis concerning the pathophysiology of schizophrenia, closely relates to the glutamate hypothesis, and involves dysfunction of interneurons in the brain. Interneurons in the brain are inhibitory GABAergic and local, and function mainly through the inhibition of other cells. One type of interneuron, the fast-spiking, parvalbumin-positive interneuron, has been suggested to play a key role in schizophrenia pathophysiology.

Early studies have identified decreases in GAD67 mRNA and protein in post-mortem brains from those with schizophrenia compared to controls. These reductions were found in only a subset of cortical interneurons. Furthermore, GAD67 mRNA was completely undetectable in a subset of interneurons also expressing parvalbumin. Levels of parvalbumin protein and mRNA were also found to be lower in various regions in the brain. Actual numbers of parvalbumin interneurons have been found to be unchanged in these studies, however, except for a single study showing a decrease in parvalbumin interneurons in the hippocampus. Finally, excitatory synapse density is lower selectively on parvalbumin interneurons in schizophrenia and predicts the activity-dependent down-regulation of parvalbumin and GAD67. Together, this suggests that parvalbumin interneurons are somehow specifically affected in the disease.

Several studies have tried to assess levels in GABA in vivo in those with schizophrenia, but these findings have remained inconclusive.

EEG studies have indirectly also pointed to interneuron dysfunction in schizophrenia (see below). These studies have pointed to abnormalities in oscillatory activity in schizophrenia, particularly in the gamma band (30–80 Hz). Gamma band activity appears to originate from intact functioning parvalbumin-positive interneuron. Together with the post-mortem findings, these EEG abnormalities point to a role for dysfunctional parvalbumin interneurons in schizophrenia.

The largest meta-analysis on copy-number variations (CNVs), structural abnormalities in the form of genetic deletions or duplications, to date for schizophrenia, published in 2015, was the first genetic evidence for the broad involvement of GABAergic neurotransmission.

Myelination abnormalities

Another hypothesis states that abnormalities in myelination are a core pathophysiology of schizophrenia. This theory originated from structural imaging studies, which found that white matter regions, in addition to grey matter regions, showed volumetric reductions in people with schizophrenia. In addition, gene expression studies have shown abnormalities in myelination and oligodendrocytes in the post-mortem brains. Furthermore, oligodendrocyte numbers appear to be reduced in several post-mortem studies.

It has been suggested that myelination abnormalities could originate from impaired maturation of oligodendrocyte precursor cells, as these have been found to be intact in schizophrenia brains.

Immune system abnormalities

Another hypothesis postulates that inflammation and immune system abnormalities could play a central role in the disease. The immune hypothesis is supported by findings of high levels of immune markers in the blood of people with schizophrenia. High levels of immune markers have also been associated with having more severe psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies discovered that 129 out of 136 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) significantly associated with schizophrenia were located in the major histocompatibility complex region of the genome.

A systematic review investigating neuroinflammatory markers in post-mortem schizophrenia brains has shown quite some variability, with some studies showing alterations in various markers but others failing to find any differences.

Oxidative stress

Another theory that has gained support is that a large role is played in the disease by oxidative stress. Redox dysregulation in early development can potentially influence development of different cell types that have been shown to be impaired in the disease.

Oxidative stress has also been indicated through genetic studies into schizophrenia.

Oxidative stress has been shown to affect maturation of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cell types in the brain, potentially underlying the white matter abnormalities found in the brain (see below).

Furthermore, oxidative stress could also influence the development of GABAergic interneurons, which have also been found to be dysregulated in schizophrenia (see above).

Evidence that oxidative stress and oxidative DNA damage are increased in various tissues of people with schizophrenia has been reviewed by Markkanen et al. The presence of increased oxidative DNA damage may be due, in part, to insufficient repair of such damages. Several studies have linked polymorphisms in DNA repair genes to the development of schizophrenia. In particular, the base excision repair protein XRCC1 has been implicated.

Neuropathology

The most consistent finding in post-mortem examinations of brain tissue is a lack of neurodegenerative lesions or gliosis. Abnormal neuronal organization and orientation (dysplasia) has been observed in the entorhinal cortex, hippocampus, and subcortical white matter, although results are not entirely consistent. A more consistent cytoarchitectural finding is reduced volume of purkinje cells and pyramidal cells in the hippocampus. This is consistent with the observation of decreased presynaptic terminals in the hippocampus, and a reduction in dendritic spines in the prefrontal cortex. The reductions in prefrontal and increase in striatal spine densities seem to be independent of antipsychotic drug use.

Sleep disorders

It has been suggested that sleep problems may be a core component of the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Structural abnormalities

Beside theories concerning the functional mechanism underlying the disease, structural findings have been identified as well using a wide range of imaging techniques. Studies have tended to show various subtle average differences in the volume of certain areas of brain structure between people with and without diagnoses of schizophrenia, although it has become increasingly clear that no single pathological neuropsychological or structural neuroanatomic profile exists.

Morphometry

Structural imaging studies have consistently reported differences in the size and structure of certain brain areas in schizophrenia.

The largest combined neuroimaging study with over 2000 subjects and 2500 controls has replicated these previous findings. Volumetric increases were found in the lateral ventricles (+18%), caudate nucleus and pallidum, and extensive decreases in the hippocampus (-4%), thalamus, amygdala and nucleus accumbens. Together, this indicates that extensive changes do occur in the brains of people with schizophrenia.

A 2006 meta-analysis of MRI studies found that whole brain and hippocampal volume are reduced and that ventricular volume is increased in those with a first psychotic episode relative to healthy controls. The average volumetric changes in these studies are however close to the limit of detection by MRI methods, so it remains to be determined whether schizophrenia is a neurodegenerative process that begins at about the time of symptom onset, or whether it is better characterised as a neurodevelopmental process that produces abnormal brain volumes at an early age. In first episode psychosis typical antipsychotics like haloperidol were associated with significant reductions in gray matter volume, whereas atypical antipsychotics like olanzapine were not. Studies in non-human primates found gray and white matter reductions for both typical and atypical antipsychotics.

Abnormal findings in the prefrontal cortex, temporal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex are found before the first onset of schizophrenia symptoms. These regions are the regions of structural deficits found in schizophrenia and first-episode subjects. Positive symptoms, such as thoughts of being persecuted, were found to be related to the medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus region. Negative symptoms were found to be related to the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum.

Ventricular and third ventricle enlargement, abnormal functioning of the amygdala, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, neocortical temporal lobe regions, frontal lobe, prefontal gray matter, orbitofrontal areas, parietal lobs abnormalities and subcortical abnormalities including the cavum septi pellucidi, basal ganglia, corpus callosum, thalamus and cerebellar abnormalities. Such abnormalities usually present in the form of loss of volume.

Most schizophrenia studies have found average reduced volume of the left medial temporal lobe and left superior temporal gyrus, and half of studies have revealed deficits in certain areas of the frontal gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus and temporal gyrus. However, at variance with some findings in individuals with chronic schizophrenia significant group differences of temporal lobe and amygdala volumes are not shown in first-episode people on average.

Finally, MRI studies utilizing modern cortical surface reconstruction techniques have shown widespread reduction in cerebral cortical thickness (i.e., "cortical thinning") in frontal and temporal regions and somewhat less widespread cortical thinning in occipital and parietal regions in people with schizophrenia, relative to healthy control subjects. Moreover, one study decomposed cortical volume into its constituent parts, cortical surface area and cortical thickness, and reported widespread cortical volume reduction in schizophrenia, mainly driven by cortical thinning, but also reduced cortical surface area in smaller frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital cortical regions.

CT scans of the brains of people with schizophrenia show several pathologies. The brain ventricles are enlarged as compared to normal brains. The ventricles hold cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and enlarged ventricles indicate a loss of brain volume. Additionally, the brains have widened sulci as compared to normal brains, also with increased CSF volumes and reduced brain volume.

Using machine learning, two neuroanatomical subtypes of schizophrenia have been described. Subtype 1 shows widespread low grey matter volumes, particularly in the thalamus, nucleus accumbens, medial temporal, medial prefrontal, frontal, and insular cortices. Subtype 2 shows increased volume in the basal ganglia and internal capsule, with otherwise normal brain volume.

White matter

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allows for the investigation of white matter more closely than traditional MRI. Over 300 DTI imaging studies have been published examining white matter abnormalities in schizophrenia. Although quite some variation has been found pertaining to the specific regions affected, the general consensus states a reduced fractional anisotropy in brains from people with schizophrenia versus controls. Importantly, these differences between subjects and controls could potentially be attributed to lifestyle effects, medication effects etc. Other studies have looked at people with first-episode schizophrenia that have never received any medication, so-called medication-naive subjects. These studies, although few in number, also found reduced fractional anisotropy in subject brains compared to control brains. As with earlier findings, abnormalities can be found throughout the brain, although the corpus callosum seemed to be most commonly effected.

Functional abnormalities

During executive function tasks, people with schizophrenia demonstrate decreased activity relative to controls in the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex(dlPFC), right anterior cingulate cortex(ACC), and left mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus. Increased activation was observed in the left ACC and left inferior parietal lobe. During emotional processing tasks, reduced activations have been observed in the Medial prefrontal cortex, ACC, dlPFC and amygdala. A meta analysis of facial emotional processing observed decreased activation in the amygdala, parahippocampus, lentiform nuclei, fusiform gyrus and right superior frontal gyrus, as well as increased activation in the left insula.

One meta analysis of functional neuroiamging during acute auditory verbal hallucinations has reported increased activations in areas implicated in language, including the bilateral inferior frontal and post central gyri, as well as the left parietal operculum. Another meta analysis during both visual and auditory verbal hallucinations, replicated the findings in the inferior frontal and postcentral gyri during auditory verbal hallucinations, and also observed hippocampal, superior temporal, insular and medial prefrontal activations. Visual hallucinations were reported to be associated with increased activations in the secondary and associate visual cortices.

PET

Data from a PET study suggests that the less the frontal lobes are activated (red) during a working memory task, the greater the increase in abnormal dopamine activity in the striatum (green), thought to be related to the neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

PET scan findings in people with schizophrenia indicate cerebral blood flow decreases in the left parahippocampal region. PET scans also show a reduced ability to metabolize glucose in the thalamus and frontal cortex. PET scans also show involvement of the medial part of the left temporal lobe and the limbic and frontal systems as suffering from developmental abnormality. PET scans show thought disorders stem from increased flow in the frontal and temporal regions while delusions and hallucinations were associated with reduced flow in the cingulate, left frontal, and temporal areas. PET scans carried out during active auditory hallucinations revealed increased blood flow in both thalami, left hippocampus, right striatum, parahippocampus, orbitofrontal, and cingulate areas.

In addition, a decrease in NAA uptake has been reported in the hippocampus and both the grey and white matter of the prefrontal cortex of those with schizophrenia. NAA may be an indicator of neural activity of number of viable neurons. however given methodological limitations and variance it is impossible to use this as a diagnostic method. Decreased prefrontal cortex connectivity has also been observed. DOPA PET studies have confirmed an altered synthesis capacity of dopamine in the nigrostriatal system demonstrating a dopaminergic dysregulation.

Neurohacking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neurohacking is a subclass of biohacking, focused specifically on the brain. Neurohackers seek to better themselves or others by “hacking the brain” to improve reflexes, learn faster, or treat psychological disorders. The modern neurohacking movement has been around since the 1980s. However, herbal supplements have been used to increase brain function for hundreds of years. After a brief period marked by a lack of research in the area, neurohacking started regaining interest in the early 2000s. Currently, most neurohacking is performed via do-it-yourself (DIY) methods by in-home users.

Simple uses of neurohacking include the use of chemical supplements to increase brain function. More complex medical devices can be implanted to treat psychological disorders and illnesses.

History

Anna Wexler, a member of the Department of Science, Technology and Society at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims that neurohacking should be viewed as a subdivision of the ‘life hacking’ movement. She argues that popularized scientific publications have led to a greater public awareness of neuroscience since the turn of the century. As a result, the public was made aware of the brain’s plasticity and its potential to improve.

The use of mind-altering substances derived from plants dates back to ancient history. Neurohackers use a class of chemical substances that improve higher order brain functions called nootropics. The term nootropics was first proposed in 1972 by Corneliu Giurgea, a Romanian chemist from University of Bucharest.

In his study, he classified Piracetam as a nootropic and determined that nootropics should fit the following criteria:

• Enhance learning
• Resist impairing agents
• Augment informational transfer between the two hemisphere of the brain
• Heighten the brain’s resistance against various forms of “aggressions”
• Improved “tonic, cortico-subcortical ‘control’”
• Lack of pharmacological effects of other common psychoactive drugs.

Today, various nootropics are available via prescription and over the counter.

The 2000 study by Michael A. Nitsche and Walter Paulus at the University of Goettingen is considered to be the one of the first device-oriented attempts at influencing the brain non-invasively. The study found that the motor cortex of the brain responds to weak electrical stimuli in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). A later study in 2003 by Branislav Savic and Beat Meier found that (tDCS) improves motor sequence learning. More recent studies have concluded that tDCS may alleviate neuropathic pain, depression, schizophrenia, and other neurological disorders. Methods of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been found to enhance human performance. In 2019, a study funded by the US Department of Defense found that cognition and motor performance could be improved by tDCS. This investigation showed that tDCS could be used to enhance the abilities of military personnel. However, side effects such as “itching, tingling, and headaches” were noted. The study concluded that more research into adequate safety regulations is needed before it can be properly implemented.

A resurgence in the popularity of at-home and DIY neurohacking started in 2011. The recent availability of brain stimulation devices contributed to the rise in the home neurohacking movement. Individuals applied weak electrical currents to their brain in hopes of improving performance and productivity. Since 2017, neurohacking devices have been available to the general public for unsupervised use. However, these methods of neurohacking have yet to gain widespread acceptance from the general public, and user retention rate for the devices remains low.

In 2018, Marom Bikson and his colleagues at the City College of New York released a report to aid consumers in making an informed choice regarding the purchase of tDCS devices. In particular, Bikson stated that the report hoped to educate consumers on the reasons why a significant price differentiation existed across the various devices on the market.

Technology

There are three main categories of neurohacking methods: oral supplements or ingestibles, procedural training exercises, and the transmission of electrical currents through the brain.

Oral supplements and ingestibles

Nootropics are any chemical compounds that cause an improvement in brain function. Although many are naturally produced by the body, ingestible supplements are often required to artificially raise the concentration of these compounds in the bloodstream to produce a significant effect. Nootropics can be further classified into two categories: synthetics nootropics and natural nootropics.

Synthetic nootropics

Synthetic nootropics refer to any lab-produced nootropics, including Piracetam. Synthetic nootropics can act at three different junctions:

1. Dopamine receptors
2. Adrenergic receptors
3. Acetylcholine and glutamate receptors

Natural nootropics

Natural, or herbal, nootropics, include food-based antioxidants and vitamin supplements. There are three main mechanisms by which natural nootropics affect brain activity:

1. Neurotransmitter modulation
2. Modulation of signal transduction
3. Vasodilation

Popular supplements such as Ginkgo biloba and Panax quinquefolius (American Ginseng) are characterized as natural and herbal nootropics. Few studies have been conducted regarding the safety and long-term effects of prescribing these herbal supplements as a means of mitigating age-related cognitive decline. However, current research has indicated that these methods have the potential to alleviate the mental deterioration in older individuals.

Procedural training exercises

Procedural training methods strengthen the connections between neurons. For example, brain training games have been around since the 2000s. Companies such as PositScience, Lumosity, and CogniFit created video games designed to improve the user’s brain function. These brain-training games improve neural capacity by adding game-like features to comprehension skills.

Transmission of electrical currents

There are three methods by which electrical currents are transmitted through the brain: deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Deep brain stimulation (DBS)

DBS involves implanting an electrical device, or neurostimulator, into the brain. The neurostimulator is a thin wire with electrodes at its tip. Low levels of electric current are transmitted through the brain. The location where the electrodes are implanted depends on the neurological disorder being treated. The company Neuralink hopes that their DBS device will include “as many as 3072 electrodes distributed along 96 threads”, and that the procedure to implant the threads would be as non-invasive as LASIK eye suregery.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

TMS sends short bursts of magnetic energy to the left frontal cortex through a small electromagnetic coil. Some studies have found that TMS improves cognition and motor performance. Other studies have investigated the relation between TMS and its ability to recover lost memories.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

Brain cells, or neurons, emit chemical signals across the gaps, or synapses, between neurons. When learning a new skill or topic, the neurons involved in understanding that particular subject are then primed to emit signals more readily. Less electrical current is required to signal the neurons to secrete the chemicals for transport across the synapse. tDCS involves running a very low current (less than 2mA) through an anode and a cathode placed on the head. The research shows that brain function improves around the anode, with no change or reduced function around the cathode.

Applications

Many applications of neurohacking center around improving quality of life.

Mental health

Bettering people's mental health is one primary application of neurohacking.

Virtual reality exposure therapy is one application of neurohacking, and is being used to treat post traumatic stress. The USC Institute for Creative Technologies has been working on exposure therapy techniques since 2005, and exposure therapy is now an evidence based treatment for post traumatic stress.

Exposure therapy retrains the mind of the patient to reduce the fear associated with feeling a certain way or experiencing certain triggering stimuli. By confronting situations in a safe and controlled virtual reality environment, the patient is able to reduce the anxiety associated with those circumstances.

The FDA has approved DBS devices for the treatment of both Parkinson's disease and dystonia. There are several risks involved with this treatment, such as depression, hypomania, euphoria, mirth, and hypersexuality. However, permanent complications are rare. DBS has also been used to Tourette syndrome, dyskinesia epilepsy and depression, although more research is needed in these areas before it can be deemed safe.

Human enhancement

Enhancing the human experience is another application of neurohacking. Methods include simple brain-training games, chemical enhancers, and electrical brain stimulation.

Caffeine is an effective method for enhancing human performance in everyday life. Caffeine is the most popular drug in the world (humans drink a collective 1.6 billion cups per day) and is also the most popular method by which people are neurohacking. Caffeine improves memory, sociability, and alertness.

Another chemical performance enhancer, dihexa, is an ingestable neuropeptide that was approved for use in the United States in 2019. It is prescribed to clients who want to achieve a specific goal such as learn a new language or master an instrument.

Information retrieval

The third primary application of neurohacking is information retrieval from the brain. This typically involves the use of a brain-machine interface (BMI) – an apparatus to measure electrical signals in the brain.

In 2016, researchers modeled an individual’s interest in digital content by monitoring their EEG (electroencephalogram). The researchers asked the user to read Wikipedia articles. From data in the EEG, they could predict which article the user would want to read next based on the individual’s expressed interest in each topic. The researchers claim this paradigm can be used to “recommend information without any explicit user interaction”.

In July 2019, Neuralink – a company developing implantable brain-machine interfaces – presented their research on their high bandwidth BMI. Neuralink claims to have developed an implantable BMI device that is capable of recording and delivering full bandwidth data from the brain. The company hopes to use this technology to create a high-speed connection between the brain and digital technology, bypassing the need to type search queries or read the results.

Legal and ethical aspects

Advertisement of brain-training software

The neurohacking trend has been heavily commercialized, with companies such as Lumosity and CogniFit marketing games that allegedly optimize the performances of the brain as well as alleviate the symptoms of senescence-related cognitive decline and other neurodegenerative disorders. Several studies have called into question the effectiveness of these softwares. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed claims against some companies producing brain training software for misleading marketing. Claims against Lumosity for misleading advertisement are over $2 million. Conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of brain training software has yet to be presented. Despite this uncertainty, the public demand for such products is rising. Sales in 2015 reached $67 million in the United States and Canada.

Unfair advantages

No governing organizations responsible for overseeing athletics and education have policies regulating neurohacking. Athletes and students can use neurohacking to gain an unfair advantage in sporting events and academic settings. Studies have indicated that neurohacking can improve memory, creativity, learning speed, muscle gain, and athletic performance. However, there are no well-developed tests or instruments capable of detecting neurohacking. Students and athletes may utilize neurohacking techniques and never be detected.

Side effects and potential risks

Most manufacturers fail to disclose the potential side effects of neurohacking devices, including significant changes to the user’s self-identity and decreased reasoning skills.  Affordable neurohacking devices are available online with prices ranging from $99 to $800, making them easily accessible to consumers. For instance, a “brain stimulator” device produced by the “Brain Stimulator” company that utilizes tDCS is priced $127 to $179. However, these devices are rarely regulated by the government. Using these unapproved devices with no medical supervision could cause devastating side effects. Cases have been cited where individuals physically harm others as a side effect of neurohacking.

Insurance claims

The Vercise DBS System produced by Boston Scientific Corporation is the only neurohacking medical device for sale that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and Good Practices in Clinical Research. With the rise of DIY neurohacking, many individuals self-treat without proper supervision by a medical professional. Insurance companies deny medical insurance compensation for users who are injured using unapproved medical-grade neurohacking devices. Most neurohacking devices are uncertified and unregulated.

 

Do-it-yourself biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do-it-yourself_biology

Do-it-yourself biology (DIY biology, DIY bio) is a growing biotechnological social movement in which individuals, communities, and small organizations study biology and life science using the same methods as traditional research institutions. DIY biology is primarily undertaken by individuals with extensive research training from academia or corporations, who then mentor and oversee other DIY biologists with little or no formal training. This may be done as a hobby, as a not-for-profit endeavour for community learning and open-science innovation, or for profit, to start a business.

Other terms are also associated with the do-it-yourself biology community. The terms biohacking and wetware hacking emphasize the connection to hacker culture and the hacker ethic. The term hacker is used in the original sense of finding new and clever ways to do things. The term biohacking is also used by the grinder body modification community, which is considered related but distinct from the do-it-yourself biology movement. The term biopunk emphasizes the techno-progressive, political, and artistic elements of the movement.

History

WHABBH poster designed by the Center for Genomic Gastronomy (2010)

The term "biohacking" as well as the concept of do-it-yourself biology has been known as early as 1988.

Biohacking entered the San Francisco programmer and maker communities as early as 2005, through simple demonstrations of basic experiments. As DIYbio experiments became the focus of SuperHappyDevHouse hackers, the hobby gained additional momentum.

In 2005 Rob Carlson wrote in an article in Wired: "The era of garage biology is upon us. Want to participate? Take a moment to buy yourself a lab on eBay." He then set up a garage lab the same year, working on a project he had previously worked at the Molecular Sciences Institute in Berkeley, California.

In 2008, the DIYbio organization was founded by Jason Bobe and Mackenzie Cowell and its first meeting held.

In 2010, Genspace opened the first community biology lab, Ten months later it was followed by BioCurious, and Victoria Makerspace. Many other labs and organizations followed, including but not limited to Counter Culture Labs in Oakland, CA, Baltimore Underground Science Space in Baltimore, MD, TheLab in Los Angeles, CA and Denver Biolabs in Denver, CO.

In 2016, the first conference to focus specifically on biohacking was announced to take place in September in Oakland, CA.

Aspects

The DIYbio movement seeks to revise the notion that one must be an academic with an advanced degree to make any significant contribution to the biology community. It allows large numbers of small organizations and individuals to participate in research and development, with spreading knowledge a higher priority than turning profits.  In recent years, there are various DIY ways to live healthy and many of them also focuses on different simple ways to biohack mind, body, metabolism and sleep.

The motivations for DIY biology include (but aren't limited to) lowered costs, entertainment, medicine, biohacking, life extension, and education. Recent work combining open-source hardware of microcontrollers like the Arduino and RepRap 3-D printers, very low-cost scientific instruments have been developed.

Community laboratory space

Many organizations maintain a laboratory akin to a wet-lab makerspace, providing equipment and supplies for members. Many organizations also run classes and provide training. For a fee (usually between $50 and $100), members can join some spaces and do experiments on their own.

Open source equipment

The DIY biology movement attempts to make available the tools and resources necessary for anyone, including non-professionals, to conduct biological engineering. One of the first pieces of open source laboratory equipment developed was the Dremelfuge by Irish biohacker Cathal Garvey, which uses a 3D printed tube holder attached to a Dremel rotary tool to spin tubes at high speeds, replacing often expensive centrifuges. Many other devices like PCR machines have been recreated extensively. In recent times, more complex devices have been created such as the OpenDrop digital microfluidics platform and the DIY NanoDrop both developed by GaudiLabs. Opentrons makes open-source, affordable lab robots, and got its start as a DIY biology collaboration at Genspace. Incuvers makes telemetric chambers for cellular research that are affordable and allow for complete customizability of their environments. OpenCell, a London based biotech lab provider hosts regular biohackathons to help encourage more opensource development. 

Advocacy

Most advocacy in biohacking is about the safety, accessibility and future legality of experimentation. Todd Kuiken of the Woodrow Wilson Center proposes that through safety and self-governance, DIY biologists won't be in need of regulation. Josiah Zayner has proposed that safety is inherent in biohacking and that accessibility should be the foremost concern as there is large underrepresentation of social and ethnic minorities in biohacking.

Research topics

Many biohacking projects revolve around the modification of life and molecular and genetic engineering.

Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics is another popular target for do-it-yourself biology research. As in other fields, many programming languages can be used in DIY biology, but most of the languages that are used are those with large bioinformatics libraries.

Examples include BioPerl or BioPython, which use the languages Perl and Python, respectively.

Genetic engineering

Genetic Engineers are a subculture of biohackers as one of the most accessible forms of biohacking is through engineering microorganisms or plants. Experiments can range from using plasmids to fluorescent bacteria, controlling gene expression using light in bacteria, even using CRISPR to engineer the genome of bacteria or yeast.

Medicine

Restricted access to medical care and medicine has pushed biohackers to start experimenting in medically related fields. The Open Insulin project aims to make the recombinant protein insulin more accessible by creating an open source protocol for expression and purification. Other experiments that have involved medical treatments include a whole body microbiome transplant and the creation of open source artificial pancreases for diabetics.

Implants

Grinders are a subculture of biohackers that focus on implanting technology or introducing chemicals into the body to enhance or change their bodies' functionality.

Some biohackers can now sense which direction they face using a magnetic implant that vibrates against the skin.

Art

In 2000, controversial and self-described "transgenic artist" Eduardo Kac appropriated standard laboratory work by biotechnology and genetics researchers in order to both utilize and critique such scientific techniques. In the only putative work of transgenic art by Kac, the artist claimed to have collaborated with a French laboratory (belonging to the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) to procure a green-fluorescent rabbit: a rabbit implanted with a green fluorescent protein gene from a type of jellyfish [Aequorea victoria] in order for the rabbit to fluoresce green under ultraviolet light. The claimed work came to be known as the "GFP bunny", and which Kac called Alba. This claim by Kac has been disputed by the scientists at the lab who noted that they had performed exactly the same experiment (i.e., the insertion of the jellyfish GFP protein-coding gene) on numerous other animals (cats, dogs, etc.) previously and did not create Alba (known to the researchers only as "Rabbit Number 5256") under the direction of Kac. The laboratory consequently kept possession of the transgenic rabbit which it had created and funded and the "transgenic art" was never exhibited at the Digital Avignon festival [2000] as intended. Kac—claiming that his rabbit was the first GFP bunny created in the name of Art—used this dispute to popularize the issue as one of disguised censorship by launching a "Free Alba" campaign. A doctored photo of the artist holding a day-glow-green tinted rabbit appears on his website. The members of the Critical Art Ensemble have written books and staged multimedia performance interventions around this issue, including The Flesh Machine (focusing on in vitro fertilisation, surveillance of the body, and liberal eugenics) and Cult of the New Eve (In order to analyze how, in their words, "Science is the institution of authority regarding the production of knowledge, and tends to replace this particular social function of conventional Christianity in the west").

Heather Dewey-Hagborg is an information artist and biohacker who uses genomic DNA left behind by people as a starting point for creating lifelike, computer-generated, 3-D portraits.

Criticism and concerns

Biohacking experiences many of the same criticisms as synthetic biology and genetic engineering already receive, plus other concerns relating to the distributed and non-institutional nature of the work, involving potential hazards with lack of oversight by professionals or governments. Concerns about biohackers creating pathogens in unmonitored garage laboratories led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to begin sending its representatives to DIYbio conferences in 2009. The arrest and prosecution of some members for their work with harmless microbes, such as artivist Steve Kurtz, has been denounced as political repression by critics who argue the U.S. government has used post-9/11 anti-terrorism powers to intimidate artists and others who use their art to criticize society.

Existing regulations are not specific to this field, so that the possibility of pathological organisms being created and released unintentionally or intentionally by biohackers has become a matter of concern, for example, in the spirit of the re-creation of the 1917 flu virus by Armed Forces Institute of Pathology researchers in 2005. In the US the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate has worked with the American Association for the Advancement of Science's National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to convene a series of meetings to discuss biosecurity, which have included discussions of amateur biologists and ways to manage the risks to society it poses. At the National Institutes of Health, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity leads efforts to educate the public on "dual use research of concern", for example with websites like "Science Safety Security". In 2011, DIYbio organized conferences to attempt to create codes of ethics for biohackers.

Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, is a critic of biohacking who argues that—using a laptop computer, published gene sequence information, and mail-order synthetic DNA—just about anyone has the potential to construct genes or entire genomes from scratch (including those of the lethal pathogens) in the near-future. A 2007 ETC Group report warns that the danger of this development is not just bio-terror, but "bio-error".

While no DIYbio project to date has involved harmful agents, the fear remains in the minds of both regulators and laypersons. However, it is often pointed out that DIYbio is at too early a stage to consider such advanced projects feasible, as few successful transformative genetics projects have been undertaken yet. It is also worth noting that, while an individual could conceivably do harm with sufficient skill and intent, there exist biology labs throughout the world with greater access to the technology, skill and funding to accomplish a bioweapons project.

While detractors argue that do-it-yourself biologists need some sort of supervision, enthusiasts argue that uniform supervision is impossible and the best way to prevent accidents or malevolence is to encourage a culture of transparency, where, in essence, do-it-yourself biologists would be peer reviewed by other biohackers. Enthusiasts argue that fear of potential hazards should be met with increased research and education rather than closing the door on the profound positive impacts that distributed biological technology will have on human health, the environment, and the standard of living around the world. Due to the lack of precedent regarding such a business model, the DIYbio founders see this as an opportunity to be innovators in regulatory and safety policy.

Body hacking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_hacking 

Body hacking is the application of the hacker ethic to improve their own bodies with do it yourself cybernetic devices or introducing Biochemicals into the body to enhance or change their bodies' functionality. It is also known as biohacking, although this term also has other meanings. People engaged in this activity are called grinders. Many grinders identify with the biopunk movement, open-source transhumanism, and techno-progressivism. The Grinder movement is strongly associated with the body modification movement and practices actual implantation of cybernetic devices in organic bodies as a method of working towards transhumanism, such as designing and installing do-it-yourself body-enhancements such as magnetic implants. Biohacking emerged in a growing trend of non-institutional science and technology development.

According to Biohack.me, "Grinders are passionate individuals who believe the tools and knowledge of science belong to everyone. Grinders practice functional extreme body modification in an effort to improve the human condition. [Grinders] hack [them]selves with electronic hardware to extend and improve human capacities. Grinders believe in action, [thei]r bodies the experiment."

"Biohacking" can also refer to managing one's own biology using a combination of medical, nutritional and electronic techniques. This may include the use of nootropics, non-toxic substances, and/or cybernetic devices for recording biometric data (as in the Quantified Self movement).

History

1984 - The 1984 Novel Neuromancer by William Gibson is often attributed as the cause in the rise of transhumanism culture popularity in modern times, and for coining terminology and ideas that form the basis of modern Cyberpunk and body hacking culture.

Ideology

Grinders largely identify with transhumanist and biopunk ideologies. Transhumanism is the belief that it is both possible and desirable to so fundamentally alter the human condition through the use of technologies as to inaugurate a superior post-human being. Kara Platoni categorizes such technological modifications as "hard" biohacking, noting the desire to expand the boundaries of human perception and even create "new senses".

Biopunk is a techno-progressive cultural and intellectual movement which advocates open access to genetic information and espouses the liberating potential of truly democratic technological development. Like other punk movements, Biopunk encourages the DIY ethic. "Grinders" adhere to an anarchist strain of biopunk that emphasizes non-hierarchical science and DIY.

Cyborgs and cyborg theory strongly influence techno-progressivism and transhumanism and are thus influential to both the DIY-bio movement and grinder movement in general. Some biohackers such as Grinders and the British professor of cybernetics Kevin Warwick actively design and implement technologies which are integrated directly into the organic body. Examples of this include DIY magnetic fingertip implants, which allows the cyborg to feel the electromagnetic pull of nearby objects in their fingers, or Warwick’s "Project Cyborg".  Cyborg theory was kickstarted in 1985 with the publication of Donna Haraway’s influential "Cyborg Manifesto" but can be traced back all the way to Manfred Clynes and Nathan Klines’ 1960 article, "Cyborgs and Space". This body of theory criticizes the rigidity of ontological boundaries and attempts to denaturalize artificial dichotomies.

Notable persons

• Kevin Warwick is a British scientist and professor of cybernetics who has been instrumental in advancing and popularizing cyborg technology and biohacking through his self-experiments.
• Steve Mann is a professor of electrical and computer engineering who has dedicated his career to inventing, implementing, and researching cyborg technologies, in particular, wearable computing technologies.
• Amal Graafstra is known for implanting an RFID chip in 2005 and developing human-friendly chips including the first ever implantable NFC chip. In 2013, he founded the biotech startup company Dangerous Things. He is also the author of RFID Toys and speaker on biohacking topics including a TEDx talk. He has also built a smartgun which is activated by his implants. He has also created an implantable cryptographic processor called VivoKey for personal identity and cryptography applications.
• Lepht Anonym is a biohacker and transhumanist known for self-surgeries and material implementation of transhumanist ideologies.
• Winslow Strong is a mathematician and physicist.
• Tim Cannon is a software developer, entrepreneur, and co-founder of biotech startup company Grindhouse Wetware.
• Jeffrey Tibbetts is the organiser of the Grindfest events at his lab in California. He is a biohacking researcher whose work has been featured in a number of sources, such as Gizmodo.
• Alex Smith is a well known biohacker for his work developing new implants, such as the Firefly implants. He has spoken at various conferences including DEFCON and been featured in news articles, such as NBC Chicago.
• Rich Lee is known for implanting headphones in his tragi in 2013, as well as for his work on a vibrating pelvic implant called the Lovetron9000. His biohacking activities were used as a justification to remove his parental custody rights in 2016.
• Brian Hanley is an American microbiologist who became known for being one of the first biohackers to engineer their own DNA using gene therapy for human enhancement and life extension.
• Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma Meow-Meow implanted a microchip used for the Opal card in Sydney, Australia, though he was subsequently fined $220 for failing to comply with existing transit laws. He also ran against Barnaby Joyce in the Division of New England.
• Kai Castledine, creator of KSEC Launched the first distributor of Dangerous Things LLC And Vivokey products in the UK called KSEC Solutions. KSEC also started the worldwide transition of moving microchip implant installations to require a professional. This was through a worldwide partner network called KSEC Cyborg Centers
• Pinchy, a UK piercer with 15 years of experience in the industry  started installing microchips in 2013. Since December 2018 he’s worked with KSEC Solutions to ensure microchip installations are done by professionals only. This was achieved under the KSEC Cyborg center partnership, which aims to bring products like the Vivokey  to the wider public.
• Josiah Zayner attempted a full fecal microbiota transplant on himself in February 2016.
• Dave Asprey is an American entrepreneur and author and founded Bulletproof 360, Inc. in 2013. Asprey is a biohacker and has written five books regarding the same. Asprey has said that he expects to live to age 180. As of 2019, Asprey said he had spent at least $1 million "hacking his own biology," including having his own stem cells injected into him, taking 100 daily supplements, following a strict diet, bathing in infrared light, using a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, and wearing special lenses when flying.

Popular usage

• Neural implant
• Neuroprosthetics (also called neural prosthetics)
• Subdermal implants
• Microchip implant
• Magnetic implant

In Popular culture

2014 Novel Red Rising by Pierce Brown and following series "Red Rising Saga" discuss themes of body hacking.

Groups and organizations

• Grindhouse Wetware, biotechnology startup company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• KSEC Solutions, worldwide distributor and consultancy based in the United Kingdom.