Extended Inquiry Project First Draft Amogh Bandekar Peercomments
Extended Inquiry Project First Draft Amogh Bandekar Peercomments
Extended Inquiry Project First Draft Amogh Bandekar Peercomments
Extended Inquiry Project: First Draft Commented [1]: I do not believe this requires a title
page
AMOGH BANDEKAR
November 7, 2019
BANDEKAR 1
The usage of technology in the lives of people, and the change it has had on the definition
of what it means to be human has been drastic. Movies have always shown the futuristic
directions humans will endeavor, but have been laughed off as unrealistic fantasies until now.
When I was nine, I watched Iron Man for the first time. Seeing Tony Stark in a fully automated
metallic red and yellow suit fight off super villains blew my mind. Watching laser beams
spurting out of his hand and heat seeking missiles being deployed out of his armor would appeal
to my overactive imagination. Jarvis, the automated assistant, gave Stark a seemingly infinite
knowledge on any topic. Stark’s super strength seem unmatched. As I was walking back from
With budding technologies like nanomedicine, organs synthesized in the lab, robotic
enhancements, etc. a “new form” of humans (like Tony Stark) seems likely to emerge. ToBut to
understand how technology will further change what it means to be human, first we must first
understand what meansit has meant to be human. In the Journal of Anthropology Psychology,
being human is defined as having “unique emotional mirroring, the sharing of experience,
instruction from others, and the opportunity to learn by observation.” Essentially, our cognitive
conscious processing and complexity of thinking has differentiated us from other species. But
In today’s society we have already enhanced everyday human processes, the Internet has
eased the access using a click of a button to information that would have required us to go to the
library and do hours of research to the click of a button. The sharing of experiences has been
experience. In physical terms, surgeries and medicines have already prolonged the lifespan of a
human. Metallic replacements of joints have allowed those who would have died of natural
selection a chance to keep living. Similarly, medications have allowed individuals lacking the
production of certain hormones to be supplied with the hormone externally. But all of this is
technology in the present, what does the future hold for us?
One of the biggest advancements in technology and its implications for humans is gene
editing. Editing our genes would allow us to eradicate certain diseases, and increase immunity to
viruses and bacterial infections. In an NPR radio segment All Things Considered, Dietrich Egli, a
Columbia University biologist who studies stem cells stated, “understanding early human
questions that will ultimately improve human health." Just recently, doctors have been able to
take a gene editing technique, CRISPR, and apply it to fighting cancer. In a study being
conducted by the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, immune cells taken from patients’
bodies were altered using CRISPR to recognize and target cancerous cells more effectively. The
study having just started leaves the results unclear, but Dr. Edward Stadtmauer, lead researcher
in the study, believes, “This is proof that we can safely do gene editing of these cells.”
Ultimately, passing of experimental trials like these will lead to further gene editing trials for
nanotechnology within the body, specifically nanobots. The National Institute of Health defines
nanometers, a scale at which unique properties of materials emerge that can be used to develop
novel technologies and products”. In other words, nanotechnology deals on the nano level (10-9
BANDEKAR 1
meter10-9of a meter), these technologies are smaller than cells within the human body, allowing
these technologies to manipulate the cellular components of humans and influence the organism
on a systematic level. In an NBC news article, scientists from China’s National Center for
Nanoscience and Technology (NCNT) and Arizona State University developed robots a few
hundred nanometers across, nanobots, which when injected into the bloodstream of mice could
shrink tumors by blocking their blood supply. Technologies like these delve into more of the
nexus of where humans and technology starts to merge; this starts to relate to the humanoids seen
in film, where technology picks up where the human immune system lacks. Nanobots could
potentially be used for other applications as well, such as increasing our connectivity to the
But what if technology picks up entirely in the physical component for humans, in other
words, do humans need a body at all? In the Journal Nature, researchers at Yale University were Commented [2]: lower case
able to keep a pig’s brain alive outside of the body for up to 36 hours. “The technique restored
some crucial functions, such as the ability of cells to produce energy and remove waste, and
helped to maintain the brains’ internal structures.” Immortality has always been a pursuit of
mankind. Even though this study is not done on humans, the implications of this finding raise
questions about whether life could continue after the physical body is beyond function or repair.
Along with this, what would the brain do? Could it be transplanted into another body, or would it
be uploaded to a computer?
The other extreme of the balance between humans and robots would be if robots could
replace humans as a whole. In a Northeastern University news article, sociable robots are “used Commented [3]: don't italicize
in settings involving nursing home residents who might be socially isolated or struggle with
cognitive and memory problems.” Sociable robots display emotional cues and sentiment,
BANDEKAR 1
simulating human companionship. Yet, are basic social traits all that it takes to be human? In an
article from the New Scientist, Richardson refers to an MIT researchers opinion on the topic, “all
that is known are the external signals from a human, access to their internal thoughts are not.
With only external signs does it matter of where they come from?” In most situations, these basic
social traits would not suffice for human companionship. But with consideration to the
environment of nursing homes, where social isolation is predominant, these minute social
interactions and cues feed their need for companionship. Yet, this leads to the idea of robots
With all of these innovative positive applications there are also unintended negative
impacts of technology becoming so intertwined within human lives. For example, genetic
engineering with all of its benefits in eradicating diseases and defects within the genome opens
up the possibility for “designer babies”, the creation of individuals with selected genetic traits.
According to the Journal of Clinical Chemistry, “the potential harms include off-target changes
(as might happen with the inactivation of essential genes), the inappropriate activation of cancer-
causing genes, and the rearrangement of chromosomes. Additionally, there are the risks of on-
target changes with unintended consequences, the creation of mosaics of altered and unaltered
cells, and the introduction of changes that generate an immune response.” In other words, this
novel technology may invite chronic diseases or cause an inflammatory response due to
genetically altered cells not being recognized as a part of the body. This would lead to the body’s
immune cells attacking those altered cells. In addition to these potential medical harms, there are
also potential social harms. The creation of individuals with traits that are more “valuable” than
others would create a distinct separation within our society between those who have those
selected traits and those who do not. In a CNN article, the executive director of the Center for
BANDEKAR 1
Genetics and Society Richard Hayes stated, “The[se] technologies are going to be accessible to
affluent couples and would be used in ways that could increase inequality. This designing aspect
Marcy Darnovsky, head of the center for Genetics and Society stated, "We don't want to add
ideas that some people are biologically better and some people are biologically inferior to others.
organization based in California Polytechnic Institute stated, “as products shrink in size,
eavesdropping devices too can become invisible to the naked eye and more mobile, making it
easier to invade our privacy.” By having a deeper relationship with technology, we surrender our
privacy, and accept the idea that we will always have a technological presence. Along with this,
health impacts of nanomaterials and the materials that make up nanotechnology have been
recorded. In a study published in the Journal of American Chemical Society, researchers tested
the toxicity of nanoparticles in the absence of any drug and found that the nanoparticles
themselves possessed the ability to induce cell death in certain types of cells (Wang et al., 2010).
The use of sociable robots also raises reservations within society. The integration of
robots who are very similar to humans opens up to the idea of robots replacing humans all
together. In a Huffington Post article “The researchers found that approximately half of current
occupations (47 percent) are at risk of going the way of the telephone operator within just a
decade or two.” Without a defining task or purpose the question then becomes what will humans
do? If humans lose the very thing that drives most people's lives, a career, what will society be
In the end, a clear conclusion on how technology will change what it means to be human
is not apparent. Advancements in technology will allow us to continue to push limitations on our
human bodies, and brains, but they can also create unintended consequences that may regress our
society to times we fought so hard to get out of, or dystopian societies we try to push away from.
At some point limitations on how and what types of technologies should be explored must be
made. If not human curiosity untamed may deprive us of the very things that make us human.
BANDEKAR 1
Works Cited
Baylis, Françoise. "Counterpoint: The Potential Harms of Human Gene Editing Using
Gent, Edd. “These tiny robots could be disease-fighting machines inside the body.” NBC News,
Reardon, Sara. “Pig brains kept alive outside body for hours after death.” Nature, 17 Apr. 2019,
Richardson, Kathleen. "Mechanical people: will robots ever serve as substitutes for
looks at how far they have come. The real effect of robotics is not in technology, she
says, but in our changing conception of what it means to be human." New Scientist, Vol.
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA147928551&v=2.1&u=char69915&it=r&p=
https://psy.au.dk/fileadmin/Psykologi/Forskning/Forskningsenheder/Journal_of_Anthrop
Sarawari, Khalida. “How robots can help veterans, or patients with dementia.” Nature, 17
studies-the-use-of-social-robots-in-mental-health-and-well-being-research/. Accessed 26
October 2019.
Steere, Mike. “Designer babies: Creating the perfect child.” CNN, 30 Oct. 2008,
https://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/30/designer.babies/index.html. Accessed
26 October 2019.
Stein, Rob et al. “Editing Embryo DNA Yields Clues About Early Human
Development.” All Things Considered, hosted by Ari Shapiro, NPR, 20 Sep 2017.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=551779921. Accessed 18
October 2019.
Wang, J., S. Tian, R. A. Petros, M. E. Napier, and J. M. DeSimone. “The complex role of
Journal of the American Chemical Society Vol. 132 P.32, 27 July 2010,
Hey Amogh,
BANDEKAR 1
Your EIP First Draft looks great! Your introduction shows the personal connection that ties you
to this topic, and I am sure that many people can relate to the awesomeness of watching Iron
Man for the first time. Additionally, you have a plethora of sources/references that displays how
well-prepared your research is. At times, your writing can get data-heavy, and including your
take may help to simplify confusing topics, like nanotechnology and gene editing. Also, I like
your conclusion! You do a good job of linking the previous paragraph with your conclusion, but
a more developed conclusion may help to really flush out your opinion on new technology
(maybe use small examples at the end?) All in all, you’ve written a solid paper, and you’re off to
a wonderful start!