Zombies: Strictly Sci-Fi, or Terrifyingly Real?

Could zombies ever really become a reality? Ask beetles.

Photo from "Night of the Living Dead" (1968)

By Matthew Lawson

The idea of the zombie can be dated back centuries to Haitian folklore, with the definition referring to an act of voodoo that reanimates a corpse through the use of magic. Later on, the term zombie evolved into a pop culture phenomenon with multiple TV shows, movies, and video games, starting with George A. Romero’s movie “Night of The Living Dead”, made in 1968. The possibility of zombies becoming a real part of our world, in a non-fictional sense, has often been scoffed at, as it has been purely portrayed in terms of science fiction. However, if we look more closely at the actual science, we can possibly see the beginning of something far more eye-catching, philosophical, and possibly taboo than just the common zombie trope we are used to. We can view this through a very intriguing and philosophically challenging set of scientific experiments that could allow researchers to control the movement and thoughts of an animal, human, or other type of living being.

One interesting series of studies was done by scientists at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University in recent years. Working with many collaborators, including researchers at the University of Berkeley in California, these scientists have learned to control certain aspects of beetles’ behavior by outfitting them with radio backpacks that send electrical impulses directly into their brains, or merely stimulate their antenna in various ways, and subsequently control their muscle movements. These scientists had previously discovered, by recording the beetles’ brain activity and neuromuscular data as they were flying, the precise brain region that controls the muscle used by the beetles to steer and fold their wings. The researchers, led by Hirotaka Sato, took this information to create a device that essentially allows them to gain full control over the beetles’ flight paths and main method of travel. Conducting experiments over the past two decades, the scientists have achieved the unprecedented ability to control the behaviors of another living organism against its will. Sato and his colleagues, by outfitting the beetles with a radio backpack that takes control of the insects’ electrons, took control over the muscle that the beetles use to have a smooth and efficient flight pattern. 

The main purpose of this type of research, many experts believe, is to help promote more effective military operations. For example, the American military could install miniature cameras or sensors on insects and direct them into dangerous or inaccessible locations to collect observations. This could be done to plan search-and-rescue missions or invasions into hostile territories.

In a video that displays the way in which this experiment was conducted, we are able to observe how the first half of the experiment, done at the University of Berkeley, reveals the effect of stimulating the beetle's flight pattern towards the left or the right, by controlling their left and right third axillary muscles. The scientists project the stimulation of the left third auxiliary muscle through a left turn in the beetle’s flight path along with a high-tone sound that influences what path the beetle will travel, and to what degree the beetle will turn, by stimulating its antennae. On the other hand, the researchers influence the stimulation of the right third auxiliary muscle through a right turn in the beetle’s flight path along with a low-tone sound. After this is done for three turns in the beetle’s flight path, we are shown three-dimensional virtual animations that are reconstructed from the altered flight path. The scientists use three different colors — red, green, and white — to show different points in which a muscle is stimulated along the flight path. The red represents when the right muscle is stimulated, the green represents when the left muscle is stimulated, and the white shows when there is no muscle stimulation taking place. There is also an available online video animation of the beetles’ flight paths immediately after. The video then proceeds to show the second half of the experiment, which depicts the flight paths of the beetles by having different stimulus rates which are demonstrated in 70, 80 and 90 hertz of a high tone sound. All three of these high tone sounds are immediately followed by a left turn that is induced by the remote control operator. The higher the tone was amplified throughout the room, the beetle would make a sharper and longer left turn until the insect hits the wall. The rest of the video depicts the difference in the flight paths of beetles flying under their own control versus when they are influenced by the scientists.

This type of control over a creature’s mind and body has opened up the possibility for human mind control and created huge ethical questions. The most pressing questions raised include: Is mind control a form of science that should be considered ethical? Should such research be legally permitted? If so, what dangers could this pose to our society, and what guidelines or protections are needed? The scientists who worked on the experiments described above may not have intended to establish the groundwork for technologies as ethically questionable as those that might enable human mind control, but some experts suggest that this type of research has opened the door to this troubling possibility. 

 At a meeting at Columbia University in New York City in 2017, a group of prominent neuroscientists, neurotechnologists, clinicians, ethicists and machine-intelligence engineers — who later became known as The Morningside Group — discussed how existing ethical guidelines for neurotechnologies and machine intelligence were not equipped to address the new questions raised by emerging neurotechnologies. They would soon argue in a major article in the journal Nature that more thoughtful discussion and insights, involving multiple scientific groups, were needed to prepare society to wrestle with this type of philosophical topic. Even though there is a rapid expansion of the use of technological devices that can both “read human brain activity and write neural information into the brain”, there has not been sufficient interest among scientists in discussing the four main areas of concern that neuroscience and artificial intelligence bring to humanity, which they argued are “privacy and consent; agency and identity; argumentation; and bias.” 

These experts and others have acknowledged multiple positive and negative implications of allowing technologies such as those that could manipulate our brains and bodies. One positive application would be to help surgeons treat paralyzed patients with technologies called brain computer interfaces (BCI), which stimulate their brain cells in ways that help the patients regain muscular movements throughout their bodies. There are other promising opportunities for altering the brains of individuals who have severe mental illnesses or who seem to perpetually commit serious crimes. For example, people with schizophrenia could be implanted with electrodes that clarify their thoughts or violent criminals could be free to walk among other people as long as they receive brain implants that cure them of their antisocial impulses. 

With the tantalizing promise that BCI appears to offer to those with disabilities or serious mental conditions, many scientists and philosophers are declaring that there also must be a strong emphasis on the need to regulate the development and usage of such technologies to avoid terrible misuses of BCI — so that the new scientific field doesn’t hurdle past the point of no return and end up causing some people to end up in a zombie-like state right out of the most nightmarish science-fiction scenarios. Even if BCI is employed with good intentions, experts say, one huge concern with mind control would be creating social inequality between individuals whose minds are influenced by scientists without their permission versus those who remain free.

Lately, there has been a conflict of interest emerging between The Morningside Group and huge technological corporations such as Google, Apple, and Meta over issues related to mind control, such as who owns and controls data that new consumer technologies can collect about people’s brain activities and thought patterns. Academic scientists and private industry seem to be at an impasse about whether strict new regulations are necessary to determine how such highly personal data is collected, analyzed, or sold. The Morningside Group is even pushing for the establishment of international treaties that would ban the unauthorized collection of brain data.  

It will always be a challenge to find a silver lining in any technology that could ultimately cause people to wander in a mindless state. The warnings made by The Morningside Group will strike any human beings as immediately relatable and logical. Many people, upon learning about the potential for misuse of BCI — such as if a convicted felon was turned into nothing more than a mindless cyborg — would be convinced that harsh punishments would need to be implemented to discourage scientists from such unethical goals. There is always the possibility that there could be a solution or agreement later on to satisfy the most cautious scientists and the most ambitious entrepreneurs about what advancements in BCI technology should be permitted. For right now, however, we should not be eager to immediately and carelessly experiment, trying to develop these technologies to a point of no return, which could lead to disaster if placed in the wrong hands.

Wanna chat? Email Matt at ml300519@ohio.edu