IEEE Spectrum's Tech Talk

The widespread publication of this "military" research, like its content, says one thing to me - "big fat decoy".

Okay it's established that DARPA has an interest in neural interfaces research and is funding it. But the highly publicized insect cyborg application, and the ongoing struggle with "power constraints" is somewhat ludicrous when you consider the genuine weapons applications of this technology in humans - and the facts about power constraints - a subject on which the ethicists, engineers and officials are strangely mute.

In the literature which I have read, the latest rechargeable batteries for neural interfaces in human or animal experiments require no more than a couple of hours per week exposure to a charging signal or field. Distance monitoring for experiments in "freely moving animals" that I have read about, has a typical design range of up to 2 km. There's also commercially approved and in practice monitoring for eg. pacemakers or "implanted defibrillators" up to 60 km or more, according to published news stories. I hope no one is misled by the "power constraints" issues in beetles - they certainly pose no obstacle in a "bigger animal".

Secondly, from a weapons perspective the major power draw is your "forward telemetry" - that's the transmitter power in the hands of the guy with the remote. Onboard transmitter power is for "back telemetry" ie. tracking, and that is a relatively low power application. See GHOVANLOO's research for example, on a multi-carrier telemetry design for research in freely moving animals (you can read the poster on multiple carrier design in the NINDS Workshop Booklet 2006). The battery charger is your strongest signal, followed by forward telemetry and least of all, back telemetry. In practice, in industry, if the necessary "forward" signal amplitude would be too big a drain on an implanted battery, an external transmitter system is used (St. Jude Medical "Renew" for example). So the onboard power requirement for weapons applications or for "remote control" or "remote interference" by neural interface is a non-issue. You only need a battery to get your data back.

The cyborg beetle shown in the video doesn't pass muster for any "covert" application. Pardon me, but unless you are in the tropics, anyone is going to notice a bug like this. So surveillance is out. And reconnaisance is not exactly going to be covert. The power constraints discussed by reviewers in this article and the one posted in news, might be less bothersome in urban environments where RFID networks could be set up to collect the "data" transmissions at short range, thereby reducing the necessary onboard transmitter power that is too heavy for a beetle to carry, and providing opportunities to recharge batteries as well. But the bottom line is, a beetle this size would get immediate attention, including the biggest available swatter (well, what would you do if a bug like this turned up in your home?).

The only real application I can think of for the "big remote-controlled beetle" is to use em to give some poor human target the heebie jeebies.