Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-can-see-for-metres-and-metres dept.

From the article in The Independent:

Science for the Masses, an independent “citizen science” organisation that operates from the city of Tehacapi [sic], theorised that Chlorin e6 (Ce6), a natural molecule that can be created from algae and other green plants, could enhance eyesight in dark environments.

The molecule is found in some deep sea fish, forms the basis of some cancer therapies and has been previously prescribed intravenously for night blindness.
...
The next step was to moisten the eyes of biochemical researcher and willing guinea pig Gabriel Licina’s eyes with 50 microlitres of Ce6.

The effect was apparently almost instantaneous and, after an hour, he was able to distinguish shapes from 10 metres away in the dark and soon at even greater distances.

“We had people go stand in the woods,” Licina said, “At 50 metres, I could figure who they were, even if they were standing up against a tree.”

Chlorins have long been used in Photodynamic Therapy as treatment for a variety of eye disorders and cancers.

The research can be found on the Science For The Masses website.

This article over at ZME Science has more details and background about the research from the scientists involved. There, they mention the patent application which inspired their work.

Many of us have little need of night vision; in New York City there's a weird orange glow everywhere thanks to light pollution. Still, cool to have temporary night vision, cooler still that bio-hackers did it.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Kilo110 on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:51PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:51PM (#163534)

    Using "bio hacker" brings up images of untrained people doing weird risky shit to their own bodies in order to live out some cyberpunk fantasy.

    That's not the case. Actual trained researchers from a lab in California did this. Not some guy in his basement reading off a wikipedia page....

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:37PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:37PM (#163629) Homepage

      Actual trained researchers from a lab

      One of them might work in a real lab for his day job, but from their webpage:

      The lab is up

      "Up"? I have to say, that sounds more like a tent.

      According to the website the "core team" consists of two people, neither of whom apparently have full surnames. The closest either of them comes to claiming actual scientific qualities is that one of them is a "biochem researcher" at an unnamed university - and that doesn't necessarily means he's well-qualified to be dosing his eyeballs with chemicals. Still, better him than someone else.

      The other guy is "medical expert and team medical officer" which could mean he's anything from a surgeon to a guy who's seem every episode of Diagnosis Murder. Incidentally, he's also apparently the tean handyman, since he's credited with sealing the cracks of the "private medical suite" at the "lab."

      Using "bio hacker" brings up images of untrained people doing weird risky shit to their own bodies in order to live out some cyberpunk fantasy.

      I wonder what could possibly give people that idea... from the website:

      we have our fair share of body mod tools for when the mood strikes us.

      Yes, very professional.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @02:07PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @02:07PM (#163546) Homepage

    I'm not saying there's nothing in this, but it doesn't sound like a very good test.

    Tests done "in the woods"? Hardly a controlled environment. It sounds like they only had one dosed subject, and there's nothing to indicate that the researchers didn't know which person it was (which would have made it a double blind study, haha).

    Did they test the eyesight of all the test subjects first?

    he was able to distinguish shapes from 10 metres away in the dark

    What shapes? What's "dark"?

    For subject recognition, individuals went moved in a small grove of trees. They were allowed to chose their own location independently.

    Were these the same positions for each test subject? Did the individuals to be sighted know who was being tested during each round?

    The Ce6 subject and controls were handed a laser pointer and asked to identify the location of the people in the grove.

    How close did they have to be to be counted as correct? What if they were a metre out? Two metres out?

    To be fair, they do acknowledge these issues. But surely, with little more effort, they could have made the tests a lot more objective. As it is, they've wasted a night in the woods and come back with not much more than some anecdotal evidence.

    For a start, use a single subject. Over a few nights, expose them each time to the same lighting conditions before the test starts. At random, dose them with either the good stuff or a placebo. Stick them in a dark room (not in the woods), give them the same amount of time to adjust, then see how well they do at identifying shapes displayed in random order, chosen from a small, known set.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:08PM (#163563)

      but it doesn't sound like a very good test

      Actually, it's a very good test for what they were testing, which is "Does this shit even work the way we think it will work?".

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:53PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:53PM (#163596)

        I see it as a good "will this make me blind?" test.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:09PM (#163601)

          It is a double blind test. eh? Eh?

          I'll be here all week.

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:20PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:20PM (#163623) Homepage

        Actually, it's a very good test for what they were testing, which is "Does this shit even work the way we think it will work?".

        It doesn't matter what the question is - all my points still stand.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:04PM

          by tathra (3367) on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:04PM (#163645)

          not all tests have to be perfect, well-thought out, controlled experiments. before you can even get to that point, its good to find out if something is even worth investigating, or if it even works like it should. the well-thought out, controlled experiments are better saved for once its verified that they're actually worth doing.

          • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:28PM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:28PM (#163664) Homepage

            before you can even get to that point, its good to find out if something is even worth investigating, or if it even works like it should.

            That had already been established, by (at least) the people behiind the patent application which "inspired" these two guys.

            I can't see that there's been any advancement of science here. The effect was already known and patented and they've not recorded anything meaningful or useful with their trip to the woods.

            Their escapades seem more fitting for a YouTube video than a glorified blog post that calls itself a paper.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by HOLOGRAPHICpizza on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:14PM

      by HOLOGRAPHICpizza (5176) on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:14PM (#163648)

      Sure, it's not a very scientific study. But they actually took the time to get this stuff together and were brave enough to squirt it in their eyes, and according to them, they think it kinda worked. If nothing else this generates interest in the topic and we will see further research on it. I hope they continue their efforts and conduct some more scientifically rigorous studies.

      I don't mind one bit seeing these half-baked ideas published on the internet. Too often new research only occurs in areas where people expect profit. From the article it sounds like these people are in it for the fun. I say this is a great first step.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:14PM (#163567)

    Many of us have little need of night vision; in New York City there's a weird orange glow everywhere thanks to light pollution.

    Believe it or not more of "us" live outside NYC than inside NYC.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:19PM

      by Bot (3902) on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:19PM (#163568) Journal

      I believe you. Calling "life" the thing that goes on in NYC is a bit of a stretch.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by kaszz on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:28PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:28PM (#163569) Journal

    Mono-L-aspartyl chlorin e6 (NPe6) seems to be cytotoxic. Meaning that if you use this and is exposed to strong light your eyes are (perhaps) destroyed. So you will have to avoid vehicle lights, street lights and stay indoors once the sun rises until it's decayed out of your body system.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @08:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @08:05AM (#163745)
      But do you also get increased strength, cellular regeneration and a strong urge to drink blood? :p
  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:56PM

    by captain normal (2205) on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:56PM (#163598)

    They should have just gotten away from man made light sources for an hour or so and then run the same test. My experiences on the open ocean and in the desert have shown me that my night vision is excellent. On the ocean, even the glow from a boats running lights mess up your night vision.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:22PM (#163604)

      So very true. Once I was out on an extended backpacking trip in what was called a level 1 light pollution zone. After several days the idea of using a headlamp was ludicrous. I could see every root and rock sizable enough to trip over in the inky black of night.

      What was really mind blowing is how my perception of smell changed. When walking along a trail I could smell other hiker's deodorant from nearly a hundred yards away walking in front of us. It often took an hour of hiking at an above-average clip (tip: mosquitos can only sprint a few km/hr, go faster and you don't need to carry the weight of bug spray) to actually see these other hikers along winding trails. After getting back I realized just how much olfactory bombardment we have became accustomed to ignoring.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:23PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:23PM (#163624) Homepage

      They should have just gotten away from man made light sources for an hour or so and then run the same test.

      What makes you suspect - as you seem to be implying - that the guy with the eyedrops wouldn't have still beaten all the rest of the test subjects?

      My experiences on the open ocean and in the desert have shown me that my night vision is excellent.

      "Excellent" on what scale?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @09:32PM (#163650)

        "Excellent" on what scale?

        - Blind ("what was that?")
        - Fuzzy ("was that something?")
        - OK ("yes, I saw it.")
        - Great ("what is that?")
        - Excellent ("did you see that?")
        - Superhero ("if you could see what I just saw.")

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:41PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:41PM (#163668) Homepage

    According to the Independent:

    Science for the Masses [...] theorised that Chlorin e6 (Ce6) [...] could enhance eyesight in dark environments.

    Yet as the summary points out:

    Chlorins have long been used in Photodynamic Therapy as treatment for a variety of eye disorders and cancers.

    [In] This article over at ZME Science [...] they mention the patent application which inspired their work.

    So the more I read, the more it sounds like these guys didn't come up with anything new at all. Which, to be fair, they themselves don't seem to be claiming. But others might be getting a bit over-excited.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:44PM (#163669)

      So the more I read, the more it sounds like these guys didn't come up with anything new at all. Which, to be fair, they themselves don't seem to be claiming. But others might be getting a bit over-excited.

      Translation: integrity be damned; we media corporations deserve your clicks!

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday March 29 2015, @10:01AM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday March 29 2015, @10:01AM (#163755) Homepage

        we media corporations deserve your clicks!

        I'm glad I had my glasses on when I read that one.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @12:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @12:48PM (#163794)

          Without question, your interpretation would be more accurate from the public's point of view.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @03:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @03:39AM (#163707)

    The militaries of militarized nations will jump over this to get their freedom-bringing soldiers be able to see in the dark without their night-vision electronics and kill everything that moves, so freedom can be brought to everyone's doorstep and living room.

    They will enhance its potency 100x first. Just to get an edge over the enemy, so freedom can be brought to them.