Researchers put circuits on contact lenses, freak out rabbits

We've seen plenty of newfangled contact lenses in the past, but it looks like a team of researchers at the University of Washington may have outdone them all, with their latest creation promising not only heads-up displays, but "superhuman vision." That's apparently possible thanks to a combination of lights and circuits, which they've managed to cram onto lens no larger than your average contact -- though it doesn't even do so much as light up in its current state (that's promises "soon"). Naturally, the researchers have tested the lenses on rabbits instead of themselves, which they say have shown "no adverse effects" after wearing the lenses for upwards of 20 minutes, although we'll just have to wait and see if they feel the same way after the researchers flip the switch on 'em.

[Via Futurismic]

[aguiluz @ Jan 17th 2008 3:55PM]

Those fine wires can obstruct your vision, and I won't like a battery dangling from my eyes. No offense.

How do they power them anyway? A lithium battery that can explode?

[Jason @ Jan 17th 2008 4:03PM]

It won't obstruct your vision very much, if at all. Hold a pin in font of a flashlight and see if you can see the pin's shadow on the wall.

Wireless power would work fine in this case.

[fischju @ Jan 17th 2008 4:09PM]

They have contacts with designs on them now...

But when these come out, I guess I'll have no excuse not to switch....besides how well my glasses and beard go together...

[Sean @ Jan 17th 2008 4:20PM]

Not only that, but with all of the exploding batteries we keep hearing about... well, let's just say that I'd rather SEE that from a different perspective

[ED @ Jan 17th 2008 5:40PM]

plus you're already looking through a network of blood vessels, which your brain ignores. (it's possible to see them by making a tiny hole with your hand to look through towards a lightsource and moving it side-to-side quickly so the shadows move. it looks weird)


hang on, is this intended to light up people's eyes?
if so, all they need is a voice flanger and an evil-overlord-complex and we'll have Goa'uld!

[Josh @ Jan 17th 2008 6:08PM]

Id have thought they'd be able to run off the thermal energy generated by your eyes?

[imec @ Jan 17th 2008 7:00PM]

Hey Fischju, haven't seen you since GBATemp (I got banned, it's skullstatue). Anyways, I hate my glasses (I have only worn them twice). So I can't wait until I can see in the dark, it will help when I go on my lone ninja missions.

[ammi @ Jan 18th 2008 11:46AM]

@ED

You, my friend, are made of win.

[Liam @ Jan 17th 2008 3:58PM]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking... 'No adverse effects'... APART FROM THIS F**KING S**T YOU'VE SHOVED IN MY EYEBALL! If only they could speak, I'm sure that's what they'd say.

[nh @ Jan 17th 2008 10:55PM]

The rabbits showed no adverse effects, but nor did they truly appreciate the benefits.

[Macha88 @ Jan 18th 2008 12:37AM]

isnt the point of modern photography to get rid of red eye anyways?

[Macha88 @ Jan 18th 2008 12:37AM]

isnt the point of modern technology to get rid of red eye anyways?

[blade417 @ Jan 17th 2008 4:01PM]

I would definitely rock these. Imagine riding on a bus or something and just staring at some random person and freaking them out.

[Jason @ Jan 17th 2008 4:01PM]

April 1, 2015...... The rabbits launch Judgement Day.....

[Seoultrain @ Jan 17th 2008 4:41PM]

April fools!

[PiZ @ Jan 17th 2008 4:01PM]

..poor animals.. :(

[Will @ Jan 17th 2008 4:09PM]

I agree. It seems like a needless experiment to outfit these on a restrained animal. Modern contact lenses have been around for over 50 years. It seems quite evident that as long as all the electronics are fully encased in the glass or plastic, it should be no different than a regular contact lense with regards to the eye. This seems to be a good case for the researchers being their own subjects in experimentation.

[Mike @ Jan 17th 2008 4:18PM]

Why is the OP being low ranked? PiZ is only saying what we should all be thinking.

[LondonConsultant @ Jan 17th 2008 5:23PM]

I'm also surprised PiZ is low ranked. It isn't as if these animal experiments may be justified by discovering disease cures - they're testing VR goggles...

[Zorque @ Jan 17th 2008 5:50PM]

The thing is, when they make a product like this, they know it will probably be effective and non-harmful before they even test it. The technology is specifically designed to be usable, so of course they're going to make it safe. The rabbits weren't harmed at all.

Medicine is different, you always get all sorts of unpredictable side effects. Designing the shape of contacts is pure objective math and physics.

[PiZ @ Jan 17th 2008 7:26PM]

..i didn't expect my comment to be low ranked.. that was just the first thought that passed through my mind!
As Zorque said, i also think that no rabbit got harmed during the test of this new technology (at least, i hope it).. nevertheless i always feel "uncomfortable" when i see animals used in some kind of experiment...

[Beefy @ Jan 18th 2008 12:06AM]

Poor PiZ.......It makes you uncomfortable when animals are used in experiments?

Well how about you put your money where your mouth is, and give up all modern medicine and pharmaceuticals. Like it or not, but every single current and future medical procedure, drug etc, etc, has been or will be tested on animals - and you hypocritically live from all of these advancements. Even the "Pit of Despair" has had beneficial effects over the long term...... even as horribly distasteful as the initial experiments were.

So next time you think of knocking something that could genuinely advance humanity and benefit a huge number of people, perhaps look in your own backyard first.

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 18th 2008 1:02AM]

I'm like PiZ...

And no, I'd not miss the drugs if they suddenly disappeared

I'm into alternative med, no drugs here.. And yes, you can heal your eyes with alternative... Actually, it saved me from astigmatism, you just have to stop being a skeptic a--hole and try it... if you still don't like it after trying, then you'll be a non-butthole skeptic

[Yubastard @ Jan 18th 2008 2:10AM]

ROTFL @ "poor animals :(" == Lowest Ranked & subsequent amazement

[PiZ @ Jan 18th 2008 4:05AM]

@ Beefy

...well, as far as i know there are alternatives to the experimentation on animals.

I read an article a while ago about simulating the effect of drugs using just computers... they said that this way would be more effective because it can represent exactly the interaction between drugs and humans, instead of using animals which are in fact too different from us...

...BUT, experimenting on animals is a business:
-probably this is the cheaper way to test drugs for pharmaceutical companies
-there are companies which business is to grow up and sell experimental animals
So, sadly, i don't think anything is going to change soon...

Please, just don't think there is no alternative...!!

[Beefy @ Jan 18th 2008 5:06AM]

DarkLightConnection: I'm not just a skeptic - I'm a Biomedical Research Scientist, who performs not-for-profit pure basic research on animals. Astigmatism isn't even close to what this sort of thing is the solution for, and it shows your utter ignorance if you think this is the case. And I find it VERY hard to believe you've never even had antibiotics, paracetamol, aspirin, or an immunisation.

PiZ: You read an article once? Well, lets weigh that up against my PhD and numerous years of research experience.......

Alternatives are part of an integrated approach - nothing more, nothing less. You use them when you can; the rest of the time you use animals directly. Simply put, you can't exclusively run simulations because it is impossible to do without having masses of relevant real-world data in the first place. You can't use cells in culture exclusively, because it is impossible to exactly recreate the integrated response of tissues, systems and organs.

[No1 @ Jan 18th 2008 6:38AM]

An alternative to testing on animals?

Like testing on humans?

Humans are animals too, though most people seem to forget it.

Any product that will be used by humans WILL be tested on animals, at least when the first human uses it.

[LondonConsultant @ Jan 18th 2008 3:42PM]

@Beefy

You mock people who say that animal experiments make them feel uncomfortable, so it appears you have a serious problem. I suspect that your years of performing animal experiments have diluted your humanity. I also have a PhD, but I don't think it makes my ethics any more correct than someone who doesn't have one. Remember that Dr Mengele's experiments extended his MD and PhD research...

[DarkLightConnection @ Jan 18th 2008 7:19PM]

@Beefy: Hard to believe, but is the truth.. At much, I drink some C vitamin when I think I'm about to get cold.. but that's as much as I do, for the rest, cellular thermodynamics FTW!...

And yes, I know this is not the kind of problems this technology wants to solve.. but then again, we can already solve anything, if you thing the alternative methods "barely kinda work", you're plain wrong. If this technology is meant to enhance humans of something and not to solve problems at all, then I only have these words: It will end up going bad. We didn't come to this world to physically enhance ourselves.

Either way, let the animals be. Just like they would let you be (if it wasn't because you are a threat for them - and they know it.)

[Katie @ Mar 14th 2008 2:15PM]

@Dark
"cellular thermodynamics FTW!..."

Your ignorance and degree of opt-in to borderline-conspiracy-theory idiocy is beyond my ability to describe in only twenty-three words.

That said, I think of animal testing as a regrettable necessity. Until such time as we can simulate it completely, animal testing will have to continue.

And I'm sure the rabbits didn't even notice. They're rabbits, after all. They're stupider than cats, and cats have no forebrain.

[r3loaded @ Jan 17th 2008 4:02PM]

I'm a glasses person. Then I could have a microcomputer imprinted onto them and tell people to check out the specs! :P

Sorry for terrible joke, my bad.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jan 17th 2008 4:56PM]

Switch to these contacts, maybe then women will give you a second look.

[r3loaded @ Jan 17th 2008 5:00PM]

Chuckles, I don't know about you, but I've never felt the need to switch to contacts. Ever heard of designer frames?

[Brent @ Jan 17th 2008 4:02PM]

Put some red LED's in mine and I'll give the Terminator a run for his money.

[DT @ Jan 17th 2008 4:19PM]

Oh man, that would be the best...wear a leather jacket, t-shirt, and jeans, and walk around all robot-like, take off your sunglasses, and have your eyes glow bright red...ha, people would freak out!

[BoozeRob @ Jan 17th 2008 4:04PM]

UW! Go Dawgs!

[Yevon @ Jan 17th 2008 4:05PM]

How about we get super glasses then work our way to contacts, mmk? You probably want to get superhuman vision onto glasses before you even try to do this kind of crazy stuff on freaking contacts. Cool idea though.

[DonatoM3 @ Jan 17th 2008 6:28PM]

The thing is that glasses sit further from your eyes so you'll see the thin wires, but since contacts are so close you won't be able to focus on the thin wires.

[rusty @ Jan 17th 2008 4:08PM]

poor animals is right. arent we opposed to animal testing. except in the medical realm?

[TJ Johnson @ Jan 17th 2008 4:11PM]

I'm not. Crap, the stew is burning!!!

[DT @ Jan 17th 2008 4:29PM]

Yes, except in the medical realm. This falls into that realm. It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?

[Don @ Jan 17th 2008 4:57PM]

"It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?"

Your logic is a bit fuzzy (no pun intended). All the answer to this question shows is what the asker believes is more important, not what is actually more important. If you don't believe me, ask this question: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother responsible for the care of 5 kids not related to you, or your own wife responsible for the care of your own child?

Questions about moral judgements are questions about suffering. Since suffering is subjective, the morality of the choice made to alleviate suffering is also subjective. To pretend that it is 'self-evident' that your moral judgement is the absolutely correct one is not logically justifiable. Here's another great question, for fun: You must press one of two buttons - one will direct poison gas into room one, containing a despotic historical dictator (take your pick). The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose? Is your choice now 'self-evident'? I personally know what I would choose, and I also know there is nothing self-evident about it - it is a subjection based on a value assessment derived from logical evaluation, based on my personal feelings and experience.

[Don @ Jan 17th 2008 5:05PM]

"The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose?"

Sorry - grammatic error here: I (self-evidently) mean that the other ROOM, not the other BUTTON, contains the dog and/or bunnies. Sorry for the screw-up there.

[fuzz54 @ Jan 17th 2008 5:17PM]

now just make the circuit out of some flexible transparent conductor and I'm in.

[TJ Johnson @ Jan 17th 2008 5:42PM]

Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO.

I strain to believe that a rabbit would have any concept of the same moral understanding that would save that rabbit's life. Rabbits don't have the ability to cognitive thought which humans do. In my mind, pain is 90% mental and the suffering of impending death has more to do with understanding it's coming rather than dealing with as it takes place. Rabbits have no idea that death is approaching until it's cute, fuzzy feet touch the boiling water (sorry but it was the only analogy I could come up with). This may be, and probably is, a bit of a stretch for the opposing view but had it not been for the success of human understanding, rabbits wouldn't be as widespread throughout the world as they are today which means scientists in Europe wouldn't be able to experiment on them at all. Rabbits were only introduced to Europe when the settlers brought them back from America.

Longer story short, if it weren't for rabbits or any experimental animals for that matter, we wouldn't have anywhere near an understanding of the world that we enjoy today.

But again, just my opinion. I wish now I could have worded that a bit differently. Oh well...

[John @ Jan 17th 2008 6:03PM]

I'm willing to say that human life (in general) is more important than any individual animal's. Call it "specieism" or what have you, but the idea that something to help humanity (and not "help us look better" or whatever crap cosmetic companies say about their animal testing) can't come at the cost of cute fluffy animal is the opinion of someone who can't find any cute people to hang around instead.

Also, in a related way, I don't feel that killing dogs can possibly warrant a jail sentence, though it is still reprehensible and says quite a bit about character.

[Eddie @ Jan 17th 2008 6:09PM]

OK, say you find yourself in a dungeon. You see a flask. Obvious exits are North, South, and Dennis. What do you do?

[John @ Jan 17th 2008 11:58PM]

Mmm...rabbit stew!

[Don @ Jan 17th 2008 11:48PM]

"Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO."

That's a nice opinion. Unfortunately, my comment is very relevant relating to the 'self-evident' nature of DT's faulty argument. That you have decided you are correct because you 'strain to believe' that you might be incorrect is a similarly faulty premise. All you've done is (more eloquently) restated the exact thing that DT did.

If rabbits had 'no idea death is coming', they would have been selected out long ago. That you fail to realize that indicates that you don't have a lot of experience with animals in general, nor any particular understanding of their unique but valid motivations.

Likewise, we can see cognition in several animal species (although I am unaware of any study focusing on Rabbits). Birds do it, as do some breeds of dog. Wolves, and their genetic cousins the bears, most certainly cognate - wolves in particular as well as some young children. Yet because you think that YOU hold some special, privileged space in the evolutionary hierarchy, you think that whatever you do to an animal can be pshawed away.

[Don @ Jan 18th 2008 12:05AM]

What you have shown, and it isn't really 'bad', persay, is that you are willing to take advantge of another organism to increase your chances. That's OK, because it is what most organisms (probably all) do. What you HAVEN'T shown is that your actions are morally defensible.