The University of Southampton

Author: Nicole Watson

How can prosthetics be adapted for different lifestyles?

Posted on by

During a lecture and workshop focusing on prosthetics, I was intrigued by the design and functions of prosthetic limbs. Whilst watching the lecture, I spent some time wondering how the body communicates and works with the prosthetic to provide a function so similar to those of a natural limb in different everyday activities. Going into this research I didn’t have much prior knowledge and I perceived prosthetics to be limb replacements, but didn’t know their wider use. Upon seeing and interacting with a lower limb prosthetic in the workshop, I decided to further research this concept. 

Types of prosthetics

At the start of my search, I found there were many ways a prosthetic limb could work. Firstly, it can be powered by the body moving itself, e.g. where a cable may be placed on the shoulder and extend to a prosthetic hand. As the shoulder moves, the prosthetic moves. Secondly, it may have buttons, e.g. pressing a button on a prosthetic hand will cause the hand to grip an object. More recently, myoelectric powered prosthetics have been developed. This links muscles in pre-existing limbs to generate electrical signals and pulses via electrodes placed on the skin.

Example of myoelectric prosthesis.

Prosthetics for different lifestyles

I then wondered how a prosthetic like these could be used in different scenarios and lifestyles, e.g with different hobbies. During my research I found the website Arm Dynamics which discusses the creation and execution of many prosthetic attachments for those with varied everyday lives.

Ways prosthetics have been adapted for different activities.

Being an active gym goer I wondered how prosthetics could be used efficiently at the gym to complete exercises with correct form and came across Max Okun. Max is a personal trainer who was born without a left arm and forearm, but living with this through his life wasn’t going to stop him in his passions. It did however cause him injury as he was overusing his right arm, to counteract this pain, instead of surgery, he decided to use exercise to build up his muscles. It was therefore important for the engineers creating his prosthetics to ensure whilst Max was doing the exercises he was not causing further injury. 

Max Okun Patient Profile from Arm Dynamics on Vimeo – This video shows Max using his prosthesis.

My reflections.

Researching this stream of engineering made me very grateful to be in a generation of such intelligent creators. As someone with fully functioning limbs, I think it is easy to take for granted how our brains are able to seamlessly communicate with our body parts. Even with tasks such as writing this blog, I require little to no thought in using my fingers. I can go bowling and tap dance without worrying about my mobility. I look forward to seeing what comes next in prosthetics and where it can go. Sitting this module has inspired me to look for careers that can aid in this development.

If offered, would you design your perfect child?

Posted on by

Survival of the fittest is a well known theory presented by Charles Darwin. It suggests that organisms who are more adjusted to the environment surrounding them will become more successful in survival and reproduction. Considering this, if you had the opportunity to ensure your child was the cream of the crop, would you take it?

Why was I fascinated by this topic?

During a recent workshop relating to the law and ethics of replacement body parts, I was fascinated by the debate amongst the group. Specifically relating to ‘Engineering the ‘perfect’ child’, this is a debate brought upon by the altering of genes of an embryo (pre-implementation) using genetic engineering technology: CRISPR. After being split into small groups, with my group consisting of only scientists, it became clear that a lot of our thoughts and feelings towards the subject were very objective, looking purely at the scientific benefit. At the time this view seemed very rational however, after discussing it with some students from the social sciences, our eyes were opened to other perspectives i.e ethical concerns.

CRISPR gene editing.

At the start of our discussion, I believed this advance in science, namely being able to alter genetics with a desired outcome, could provide life changing techniques to prevent illness in those who are susceptible. It therefore baffled me as to why someone wouldn’t want to beat genetic diseases. For example, being able to remove variations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which increases a woman’s chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer, where an offspring of parents carrying the gene has a 50% chance of obtaining the harmful mutation from either parent. Upon this case, my initial thought was that there would be elevated stress for the pair that would like to conceive, as they will carry the fear of passing this onto their child. So using this technology was surely a good thing. 

After these thoughts, I watched two videos, the first by the economist on the applications of this technology. A banana farmer, James, had his plantation hit with a disease called necrosis that wiped out entire populations of crops. As such, James spent lots of time genetically engineering bananas that withstand this disease, and prevent the fruit becoming extinct. The limiting factor here is societal views of genetic modifications, meaning people weren’t going to buy them. But why? 

The problems with CRISPR based genetic engineering

Discovering that this technology could be exploited in multiple ways changed my emotion towards it, I felt uncomfortable. Using this technology for cosmetic purposes, e.g. designing a child as if in a life simulation game seemed unnerving. Firstly, this provides further separation in economic classes. Enabling those who are wealthier to create more ‘ideal’ children to fit in current societal standards. Naturally, this will mean that those who have been conceived with idealistic appearances, will be born into wealthy families, and those who cannot afford to do this, will have natural babies that will inevitably, in time, be seen as inferior.

Protests head down East Liberty Street in Ann Arbor as they “March against Monsanto”, Saturday May 25.

Taking into account both of these possibilities, I decided to further look into this stream of research and watched another video that delves deeper into the CRISPR process and its applications. A statement that stuck out to me in this video was that “.. a door is opened that can’t be closed’. CRISPR is an easy tool, further evidenced by Jennifer Doudna, a biologist who co-discovered how to use CRISPR to edit genes: “Any scientist with molecular biology skills and knowledge of how to work with [embryos] is going to be able to do this,”. Although easy, it doesn’t make it exceptionally accurate. There are possibilities that genes will be edited without intention to. This further poses the question that if an individual had their heart set on a certain child, how would they react to finding out it wasn’t exactly how they planned?

Final thoughts

This debate is far from over, and as time goes on, science will only advance more. It isn’t a case of who is right or wrong but more how we can ensure these technologies are used appropriately. Overall, this debate helped me reflect on my approach to scientific procedures, not only do I have to think about how it might be a great discovery for its intended use, but how it can cause further ethical questions. 

Resources mentioned:

Economist video: https://youtu.be/F7DpdOHRDR4 

CRISPR video: https://youtu.be/jAhjPd4uNFY 

Article on engineering humans: https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/03/05/249167/engineering-the-perfect-baby/