The Human Body as a Dev Platform:

Evolution, Challenges and Approaches

@KathyReid on GitHub, Twitter, IRC, Slack etc

Platforms and Operations Manager

Early computing platforms

Attribution: United States Army via Wikipedia.

Attribution: Bernard Goldbach via Flickr.

Transistors ftw

Attribution: IBM 608 via Columbia University.

Punch cards ftw

Attribution: Punch Cards via Chris Limb on Flickr.

Attribution: Wikipedia Commons

Sneakernet

Attribution: Wikipedia Commons

Attribution: Sir Tim Berners-Lee via ITU Pictures on Flickr.

(somewhat) portable

Attribution: Wikipedia commons

which model?

Attribution: Devices via Jeremy Keith on Flickr.

Platform	Physical environment	Environment [de]commission	Development approach	Testing and QA	Deployment and release
Early computers	Huge - fill a room Not portable Susceptible to environmental failure	Expensive Time consuming Long lead time	Laborious Non-automated Errors mean rework ++	Manual checking No testing automation Minor mistakes, major rework	Real programmers code in production!
PCs	Smaller - fill a desk (still) not portable Generally robust to environmental failure	New environment = new machine Requires installation or imaging	Automated tools Heterogenous platforms = headaches	Automated tools Heterogenous platforms = headaches	Physical install media
Web	Very small footprint	Simple to set up / tear down	Automated dev tools, mature toolchains Distributed development Strong(ish) standards Test-driven	Equivalent dev / pre-prod environments Automated testing frameworks Strong(ish) standards	Mature - ftp, git push
Mobile and wearables	Tiny, portal, mobile	Disk image, re-image device	Hybrid or native? Which platform? Heterogenous devices = headaches Behaviour-driven	Emulation services available Distributed testing	Requires ecosystem - ie App Store

Platform	Physical environment	Environment [de]commission	Development approach	Testing and QA	Deployment and release
The human body	?	?	?	?	?

Fundamental assumptions

Seditious and defiant

Attribution: Ninjas via Andrés Álvarez Iglesias on Flickr.

Assumption #1:

If you can't open it, you don't own it.

And yes, you own your own body.

Assumption #2:

Ethically, it's neither absolutely right or wrong to functionally modify your body. Doing it well minimises harm.

Assumption #3:

We're already in the trans-human phase. The post-human era is nigh. We need frameworks to respond appropriately.

Physical environment

six billion different environments

Attribution: Micah's DNA via Micah Baldwin on Flickr.

Age	Medical history	Psychological disposition	Socioeconomic factors
Younger people are generally more resilient physically More co-morbidities as we age Physical changes make implantation more risky as we age	Allergies Previous medical conditions may preclude implantation History of infection Previous implants - scarring, 'leftovers' Compromised immune system	Cartesian split - body vs mind? Psychological rejection of implantable devices (eg. 'Twiddlers syndrome') Embodiment of implantable devices into the 'self'	Ongoing support, maintenance and care Ability to self-care and self-maintain? Costs of ongoing care and ability to service costs Equity - who gets the technology?

Establish a baseline

Have an implementation plan

Monitor

Embody - or back out the change

infections are bad

Attribution: Kathy Reid

Environment [de]commissioning

cloning a new env?

Attribution: Human Cloning via News Online on Flickr.

Organ on a chip

End of lifecycle planning

Attribution: My father's funeral via Stephan Ridgway on Flickr.

Organs on a chip

End of life planning and management

Development approach

Dangerous Things NFC

Northstar v1

Circadia

Circadia implanted

Karen Sandler

Attribution: Wikipedia Commons

Strong community - avoid the orphan tech problem

Open platforms - extendability and scrutiny

Testing approach

Embodiment driven development

How do we test for embodiment?

Release and deployment approach

Near field communication

Attribution: NFC seal IMAG0351 via Gohsuke Takama on Flickr.

Wireless

Bluetooth

NFC

Snip, rip, slip, clip :(

Conclusion

We are transhuman, and about to be posthuman

We are woefully unprepared for this

We need a set of best practices

References

Duarte, B. N. (2014). Entangled Agencies: New Individual Practices of Human-Technology Hybridism through Body Hacking. NanoEthics, 8(3), 275–285.

Esch, M. B., King, T. L., & Shuler, M. L. (2011). The Role of Body-on-a-Chip Devices in Drug and Toxicity Studies. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 13(1), 55–72. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124629

Hacking, I. (2005). The Cartesian vision fulfilled: analogue bodies and digital minds. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 30(2), 153–166. http://doi.org/10.1179/030801805X25963

Norton, Q. (n.d.). The Next Humans - Body Hacking and Human Enhancement. Retrieved from http://www.ambiguous.org/quinn/bodyhacking.pdf

Thomas, D. (2005). Hacking the body: code, performance and corporeality. New Media & Society, 7(5), 647–662.