The Peninsula Foundation

Blog

  • Artificial Intelligence: The Good and the Evil

    Artificial Intelligence: The Good and the Evil

    Vijay Sakhuja   June 02, 2018

    The jubilation over opportunities presented by artificial intelligence is quite telling, and its usage has found favour among a number of stakeholders. Researchers and proponents believe that future artificial intelligence enabled machines would restructure many sectors of the industry such as transportation, health, science, finance, and automate all human tasks including restaurants. Intelligent machines will be in the forefront and according to Google’s director of engineering Ray Kurzweil, by 2019 ‘computers will be able to understand our language, learn from experience and outsmart even the most intelligent humans’. In essence, the technology developers are now working to teach the machines and make artificial intelligence as good as or even better than human-level intelligence though their own efforts.
    Amid this euphoria, there is also a strong belief that an uncontrolled and ‘runaway’ march of artificial intelligence towards final maturation could be catastrophic and invite dystopian problems. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX CEO has cautioned that artificial intelligence is a ‘fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization’ and “we need to be proactive in regulation instead of reactive. Because I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’ll be too late,”
    The military domain is also in the throes of transformation led by disruptive technologies such as the artificial intelligence, big data, quantum computing, deep machine leaning, to name a few. Robots are believed to be panacea for a number of military tasks and missions including warfighting by killer robots as fully autonomous weapons. The adverse impact of fully autonomous weapons such as the killer robots is not yet fully understood.
    However, there have been some positive developments in this regard in another project. For instance, nearly 4000 employees of Google submitted a letter in April 2018 to their leadership stating that the company should not develop technologies which would get the company into the ‘business of war’. They urged that the ongoing Project Maven is stopped and the company should “draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.”
    Project Maven, formally known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team, is a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) program for development of drones which uses artificial intelligence and machine learning technology to help analyze huge amounts of captured surveillance footage. The project will enable the Pentagon to “deploy machine-learning techniques that internet companies use to distinguish cats and cars to spot and track objects of military interest, such as people, vehicles, and buildings.” Further, it will be possible to “automatically annotate objects such as boats, trucks, and buildings on digital maps.” The DoD plans to equip image analysis technologies onboard the unarmed and armed drones and then it will be “only a short step to autonomous drones authorized to kill without human supervision or meaningful human control.” The initial plan was to have the system ready by December 2017 but the project has run into difficulty after Google employees raised their objections.
    In this context, the global movement against robot killers led by Campaign to Stop Killer Robots since 2013 and has found favour among at least 28 countries. They are seeking an international treaty or instrument whereby a human control exits over any lethal functions of a weapon system. Their voice has gained significant momentum during the last five years and the global coalition against killer robots constitutes 64 international, regional, and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 28 countries that calls for a preemptive ban on fully autonomous weapons.
    While that may be the shape of things to come in the future, the fear is that technology developers may not be able to determine what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’. Issues such as ethics and morality are fast taking precedence and Google employees’ call to rein in artificial intelligence and control its future development merits attention.
    Last month, on May 14, scholars, academics, and researchers who study, teach about, and develop information technology came in support of the Google employees and expressed concern that Google had “moved into military work without subjecting itself to public debate or deliberation, either domestically or internationally” It is now reported that Google along with its parent company Alphabet have made note of these issues and are beginning to address some ethical issues related to the “development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, but, as yet, have not taken a position on the unchecked use of autonomy and AI in weapon systems.”
    The question before the technology developer is therefore not about its ability to produce high-end technology, but how to teach morality and ethics to the machines. It is fair to argue that uncontrolled coalescence of artificial intelligence and self-learning machines would cause greater harm to the society particularly in the context of killer robots and drones that have found fancy among a few militaries.
    Dr Vijay Sakhuja is the founding Member of The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai.

    Dr Vijay Sakhuja is a co-founder and trustee of  TPF.

  • Investments In Genome Editing Technologies

    Investments In Genome Editing Technologies

    S Chandrasegaran   February 10, 2018

    Introduction

    India is soon poised to become the world’s most populous nation, overtaking China. India faces the critical challenge of producing sufficient food for a growing population living in a changing climate. Substantial research investments have been made to sequence, assemble, and characterize the genomes of major crop plants by other countries, which have led to important discoveries of crop genes and their functions. This knowledge will be valuable in increasing agricultural production by using synthetic biology and genome editing, technological advancements for precise plant engineering. Genome editing and synthetic biology are unprecedented technological breakthroughs, with great potential for crop improvement. Defining gene sequences from diverse species and cultivars has far outpaced our ability to alter those genes in crops. Recent advances in genome engineering (aka genome editing) make it possible to precisely alter DNA sequences in living cells, providing unprecedented control over a plant and animal genetic material.

    Potential future crops derived through gene editing and synthetic biology include those that better withstand pests, those that are salt and drought tolerant, that have enhanced nutritional value, and that are able to grow on marginal lands. In many instances, crops with such traits will be created by altering only a few nucleotides among the billions that comprise plant genomes. With the appropriate regulatory structures and oversight in place, crops created through genome editing might prove to be more acceptable to the public than plants that carry foreign DNA in their genomes. Public perception and the performance of the engineered crop varieties will determine the extent to which genome editing and synthetic biology contribute towards securing the world’s food supply.

    It is critical for India to make substantial investments in these technologies to make them readily available to indigenous Indian scientists so that they can be part of the upcoming revolution in agriculture. Government of India needs to embrace policies that lift all barriers towards the potential applications of these breakthrough technologies for crop and animal improvement. Such forward thinking policies will not only assure India’s food and economic security, but also to insure that it can compete with other Western nations and China in industrial innovation and production and remain self-reliant.

    What is genome editing?

    Programmable nucleases, such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator like effector nucleases (TALENs) and RNA-guided CRISPR-associated Cas9 nuclease, induce a DNA double-strand break (DSB) at a user-defined genomic site of living cells. Since DSBs are lethal to cells, they are immediately repaired through one of the two evolutionarily conserved pathways: (1) non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which is error prone; or (2) homology-directed repair (HDR). Using these repair processes (Figure 1), scientists have been able to disrupt specific genes, or correct mutations in disease-causing genes, or insert exogenous DNA sequences at a pre-determined locus within the genome of living cells, which were not possible prior to the creation of programmable nucleases. As a result, the genome editing technologies have revolutionized life sciences research as well as biotechnology and biomedical fields. These disruptive technologies have the potential to have a great impact on agriculture through precise crop engineering, animal husbandry in the near future and on human therapeutics through engineered autologous cell-based therapies in the future.


    What is synthetic biology?

    Synthetic biology can be broadly defined as the design and construction of novel artificial biological pathways or organisms, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems. It is an emerging discipline where artificially synthesized genetic material from nucleotides, are introduced into an organism. Synthetic biology brings the application of engineering principles to biology; it aims to design and fabricate biological components and systems that do not already exist in the natural world. Synthetic genomics is a sub-discipline of synthetic biology; it refers to the synthetic assembly of complete chromosomal DNA that is designed from natural genomic sequences. The power of these techniques lies in the use of interchangeable and standardized bio-parts to construct complex genetic networks that include sensing, information processing and effector modules and in the creation of redesigned chromosomes and genomes. They have the potential to create complex new organisms with novel biological pathways and genes constructed to user specifications. Synthetic biology has great potential in biotechnology, agriculture and regenerative medicine.

    Work done by us in genome editing and synthetic genomics:

    I have been very fortunate to be involved in two exciting areas of life sciences research over 30-year career in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. First is the creation of zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), which was a culmination of seven year research effort on the study of FokI restriction endonuclease. Later, in collaboration with Dana Carroll lab, we showed stimulation of gene targeting by a ZFN-induced targeted double-strand break using frog oocytes as a model system, which ushered in the era of genome editing. We have continued this research to date, with the current focus being on the generation and genetic correction of disease-specific human induced pluripotent stem cells for human therapeutics.

    Second is the total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic (yeast) chromosome III (aka synIII). We have embarked on the creation of a synthetic yeast genome (Sc2.0), in collaboration with Jef Boeke at NYU and several other international collaborators. Our lab reported the creation of the first fully functional synthetic 272-kb synIII yeast chromosome with numerous changes compared to the native chromosome. Currently, our focus is on completing another designer yeast chromosome IX (aka synIX).

    Project 1: Genome Engineering using Programmable Nucleases

    Our lab originally showed that FokI, a type IIs endonuclease, is comprised of two separable protein domains: a sequence- specific DNA binding and non-specific nuclease domain. We then reported the creation of custom zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs). Later, in collaboration with Dana Carroll’s lab in Utah, we showed stimulation of gene targeting by a ZFN-induced targeted double-strand break, using frog oocytes as a model. Recently, we have shown generation and genetic correction of human pluripotent stem cells using designer ZFNs/TALENs. Our contribution includes the application of ZFN/TALEN/Cas9 technology for targeted modification of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Recently, we reported the generation of precisely targeted genetically well-defined disease-specific hiPSCs using TALENs. Our current focus is on genetic engineering of patient-specific hiPSCs to achieve functional disease correction of monogenic diseases either by targeted genome editing (i.e. gene correction) of the defective gene or by targeted insertion of wild-type therapeutic gene to the CCR5 locus of patient-specific hiPSCs (Ramalingam et al 2013; 2014). The precisely targeted genetically well-defined disease-specific hiPSCs will be very valuable for disease modeling and for drug discovery by screening small compound libraries against the disease-specific hiPSCs. The ZFN/TALEN/Cas9-mediated approach is widely applicable to a variety of other mammalian cells as well and to generate various animal disease models to study and treat human disease in the future. We are currently conducting research to develop a hiPSC-derived HSPCs-based therapy as a curative alternative to the expensive non-curative GCase enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat type 1 GD.

    Key Publications:
    Chandrasegaran S and Carroll D. (2016). Origins of Programmable Nucleases for Genome Engineering. J. Mol. Biol. 428: 963-989. PMID: 26506267
    Ramalingam S, Annaluru N, Kandavelou K and Chandrasegaran S. (2014) TALEN-mediated generation and genetic correction of disease-specific human induced pluripotent stem cells. Current Gene Therapy 14: 461-472. PMID: 25245091
    Ramalingam S, London V, Kandavelou K, Cebotaru L, Guggino W, Civin CI and Chandrasegaran S. (2013). Generation and genetic engineering of human induced pluripotent stem cells using designed zinc finger nucleases. Stem Cells and Development 22: 595-610. PMID: 22931452
    Bibikova M, Carroll D, Segal DJ, Trautman JK, Smith J, Kim YG and Chandrasegaran S. (2001) Stimulation of homologous recombination through targeted cleavage by chimeric nucleases. Mol. Cell Biol. 21: 289-297. PMID: 11113203
    Smith J, Bibikova M, Whitby FG, Reddy AR, Chandrasegaran S and Carroll D. (2000) Requirements for double-strand cleavage by chimeric restriction enzymes with zinc finger DNA-recognition domains. Nucleic Acids Res 28: 3361-3369. PMID: 10954606
    Kim YG, Cha J and Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 1156-1160. PMID: 8577732
    Kim Y-G and Chandrasegaran S (1994) Chimeric restriction endonuclease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 883-887. PMID: 7905633
    Li L, Wu LP and Chandrasegaran S. (1992) Functional domains in Fok I restriction endonuclease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 4275‑4279. PMID: 1584761
    Project 2: Creation of a synthetic yeast (Sc2.0)

    In a 2014 Science paper, our lab reported a synthetic designer version of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome III (synIII) with numerous changes, including a built-in recombination system (SCRaMbLE) for inducing genome alterations of the synIII strain [Annaluru et al 2014; 2015; Richardson et al 2016]. The design changes had no impact on cell fitness and phenotype, suggesting plasticity of the yeast genome to the changes introduced. The Sc2.0 consortium, which comprises of a group of international scientists, have recently reported synthesis of five more yeast chromosomes in April, 2017. The ultimate goal of Sc2.0 consortium is to create a designer synthetic yeast genome. Our lab is currently working to complete the synthetic yeast chromosome IX (synIX). The final streamlined minimal yeast genome would serve as a valuable ‘chassis’ organism for the industrial production of biochemical and biological products, including nutraceuticals.

    Key Publications:
    Richardson SM, Mitchell LA, Stracquadanio G, Yang K, Dymond JS, et al. (2017) Design of a synthetic yeast genome. Science 355: 1040-1044. PMID: 28280199
    Annaluru N, Ramalingam S and Chandrasegaran S. (2015) Rewriting the blueprint of life by synthetic genomics and genome engineering. Genome Biology 16: 125-136. PMID: 26076868
    Annaluru N, Müller H, Mitchell L, Ramalingam S, et al. (2014) Total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic chromosome. Science 344: 55-58. PMID: 24674868
    Dymond J, Richardson S, Coombes C, Muller H, Narayana A, Blake W, Wu J, Dai J, Lindstrom D, Boeke A, Gottschling D, Chandrasegaran S, Bader J and Boeke J. (2011) Synthetic chromosome arms function in yeast and generate phenotypic diversity by design. Nature 477: 471-476. PMID: 21918511
    Dr S Chandrasegaran is a Senior Professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in John Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is a Trustee of TPF.

  • Disruptive Technologies and Future Naval Warfare

    Disruptive Technologies and Future Naval Warfare

    Vijay Sakhuja  December 16, 2017

    Google’s decision to cancel Project Maven may be a disappointment for the US military who were hoping to use the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) techniques to analyse huge amounts of video footage captured by drones operating in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. The project had come under severe criticism from Google employees who had urged the leadership to stop pursuing and developing technologies that would augment a user’s war-making potential. Further, they wanted Google to “draft, publicise and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.” Under pressure, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has stated in a blog post that the company will withdraw from Project Maven and not develop in future “technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm,” those which “violate internationally accepted norms” and “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.” The announcement indeed emphasises human ethics and international norms, and merits appreciation.

    While that may be true, disruptive technologies such as AI and ML are fast making inroads into the military and many have already acquired these technologies to augment their surveillance and combat capability as also employ them for safety purposes. The use of disruptive technologies for counter terrorism is a burgeoning industry and algorithms are used by the US military’s Middle East and Africa commands to fight against the Islamic State (IS). The US Department of Defense (DoD) has said that the technology is “literally a work of magic.”

    The use of AI in the maritime domain is well documented and has found reference in addressing criminal activities at sea such as piracy, illegal unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and unlawful transfer of humans and materials. Its use for weather and sea condition monitoring and predictions, oil spill detection and tracking, etc are also well-known. In the naval domain, AI-enabled systems for data and logistics management, machinery operations, repair and maintenance, shipboard autonomous firefighting robots, etc are in operation. The use of AI and ML in warfare, particularly in the context of missiles, UAVs, UUVs, drones and submarines,merits attention.

    The navies of US, Russia, China, Japan, and a few from the EU are in competition to develop AI weapons and sensors. In South Korea, Hanwha Systems, a South Korean defence business company in partnership with Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) plans to develop “an AI-based missile that can control its speed and altitude on its own and detect an enemy radar fence in real time while in flight. AI-equipped unmanned submarines and armed quadcopters would also be among autonomous arms.” The company also plans to develop AI-equipped submarines.

    Perhaps the biggest naval challenge is likely to emerge from shipborne/ship-controlled and AI-enabled swarm drones that have caught the fancy of some navies. It is useful to recall that during World War II,between 1940 and 1943, German U-boats attacks against Allied convoys sailing across the Atlantic had potentially challenged the naval balance of power and had almost brought Britain closer to defeat. These Rudeltaktik, or wolfpack tactics and coordinated attacks are now being replicated by swarm platforms which can be launched in the air as also at sea.

    There are several limitations to operating small boats in a swarm, such as limited range, stability on the high seas, and jamming through electronic warfare, they may not match and offer similar capability as the U-boats. However, AI enabled boats in swarm mode with autonomy can potentially cause significant challenges for the enemy and it may not be possible to shoot down each one of them. Likewise, drones offer an attractive option and have higher levels of automation and do not require advanced computers and sensors. These can be launched in large numbers and can conjure a lethal force at sea.

    A recent video released online by China’s Yunzhou Tech Corporation showcases a 56-robot boat swarm conduct complex and coordinated maneouvre around a larger boat from where these are controlled. China is also developing swarm drones that can be deployed at sea for surveillance, and if strapped with explosives can carry out a ‘saturation attack’ on an enemy ship or even adopt kamikaze tactic to simultaneously dive in to attack from different directions and defeat ship based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences.

    Warfare at sea has witnessed several transformations in the past but the ongoing transformation led by AI, ML, big data, cloud commuting, and quantum communications will cause major disruptions in naval warfighting. In fact, the autonomous nature of UAVs, UUVs and drones and their ability to ‘self-organise in sub-swarms’ could be a game-changer in naval operations and could well be the new asymmetric approach in warfare. Further, it is fair to argue that smaller navies can be expected to equip themselves with advanced AI and ML-enabled platforms and sensors which can be acquired from the open market, and rely less on military hardware imports which always attract a number of restrictions imposed by the supplier.
    Dr Vijay Sakhuja is a co-founder and trustee of  TPF.