Bionic Bug Podcast

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 42. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 26, 2019. 

I’m sad to say that this is my final episode of the Bionic Bug podcast. This is somewhat bittersweet because I’ve grown fond of sharing my thoughts with you. If you’ve been listening from the beginning, thank you so much for joining me on this journey. If you want to keep listening to me, I’ll be launching a new podcast called the Authors of Mass Destruction Podcast. 

I’ll talk tech and weapons of mass destruction, but will take a slightly different approach. I’m planning to focus on helping authors write great stories about national security issues while getting the technical details right. Tune in for interviews with leading experts on weapons of mass destruction and emerging technologies, author interviews, technical modules, and reviews of what TV shows and movies get right and wrong. The podcast will help authors who write about mass destruction develop impactful ideas for their page-turning plots and provide tips for conducting research.

Let’s talk tech one more time. I have two headlines for this week:

The first is “Beware the Jabberwocky: The AI Monsters Are Coming,” published on www.natashabajema.comon January 22.

I wrote this essay as part of A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Periodic Publication entitled AI, China, Russia, and the Global Order: Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives edited by Nicholas D. Wright and Mariah C. Yager. I’ll link to the full paper in the show notes.

Science fiction plays an important role in shaping our understanding of the implications of science and technology and helping us to cope with things to come. 

I describe three AI monsters depicted in science fiction films as one day disrupting the global order and potentially destroying humanity: the automation monster, the supermachine monster, and the data monster. 

Fears about the implications of the automatic and supermachine monsters distract us from the scariest of them all. 

Below the surface of our daily lives, the data monster is stealthily assaulting our sense of truth, our right to privacy, and our freedoms. 

My second headline is “AI can be sexist and racist — it’s time to make it fair,” published in on Nature.com on July 18, 2018.

If you listen to this podcast, you’re aware of the growing influence of machine learning algorithms in our lives. One of the more troubling issues about the excitement around the power of algorithms for helping society, is the lack of attention to data.

Machine learning algorithms rely upon huge datasets to train them on the relationships between data. But what if the data is biased?

Humans are biased, therefore the data we generate is biased. If data scientists do not take special care to ensure the data does not under or over represent certain groups, things go wrong with the algorithms they develop.

Data is not the only place where bias can occur; algorithms are created by humans. As such, they can inject bias into them as well.

This is one of the most important issues of our time, and it’s not well understood or even regulated by policymakers.

Okay, let’s turn to the final chapter of Bionic Bug. Last week, we left Lara in a bit of a sticky situation, with a deadly syringe pressed to her neck. Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the...

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 41. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 20, 2019. 

Two episodes in one week? Yes, it’s true. This is my second to last episode of Bionic Bug. If you’ve enjoyed the podcast, I hope you’ll tune into my new podcast called Authors of Mass Destruction, which will be launching in March.

Let’s talk tech:

I have one headline for this week:

“Twins get some 'mystifying' results when they put 5 DNA ancestry kits to the test,” published on CBC online on January 18. 

Throughout this podcast, I’ve talked about the power of data and warned you to think about how freely you give it out. I’ve talked about the potential risks in sending away your DNA to companies like 23&Me and Ancestry.com. Many of you do it anyway since you’re curious about your ancestry, and I can understand that.

However, this article raises questions about the value of that data. The DNA of twins is identical. In other words, if a pair of twins each send off their DNA for ancestry result, then the results should be exact matches. 

A pair of twins, Charlsie and Carly Agro decided to test this premise and sent their DNA to five companies:  AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA.

They were surprised by the results, which were not exact matches.

“The results from California-based 23andMe seemed to suggest each twin had unique twists in their ancestry composition. According to 23andMe's findings, Charlsie has nearly 10 per cent less "broadly European" ancestry than Carly. She also has French and German ancestry (2.6 per cent) that her sister doesn't share. The identical twins also apparently have different degrees of Eastern European heritage — 28 per cent for Charlsie compared to 24.7 per cent for Carly. And while Carly's Eastern European ancestry was linked to Poland, the country was listed as "not detected" in Charlsie's results.”

“None of the five companies provided the same ancestry breakdown for the twins.”

Dr. Mark Gerstein, a computational biologist at Yale University thinks that this must have “to do with the algorithms each company uses to crunch the DNA data.”

What does this mean? Detecting ancestry from DNA is more an art than a science. But this isn’t what the companies are selling in exchange for your precious data.

“Despite the popularity of ancestry testing, there is absolutely no government or professional oversight of the industry to ensure the validity of the results.”

Let’s turn to Bionic Bug. Last week, Lara interviewed Fiddler and tried to get information about CyberShop. Will she bring Sully’s killer to justice? Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 40. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 20, 2019. 

Let’s talk tech:

Outerspace is heating up. My headline for this week is “Pentagon to Study Putting Anti-Missile Laser Weapons in Space,” published on Defense One by Patrick Tucker on January 16. The Pentagon released its long-awaited Missile Defense Review, the first one since 2010.

It includes a controversial proposal by the Pentagon “to study the possibility of space weapons — perhaps particle beams, ray guns, space lasers, or orbiting missiles — that could intercept enemy missiles coming off the launch pad.”

This is a response to a dramatically altered security environment since 2010 in which we face “not just ballistic missile threats but also cruise missile threats and novel types of weapons like hypersonics.”

The proposal is reminiscent of President Reagan’s Star Wars effort in the 1980s; it’s controversial because it involves the weaponization of space, will cost billions of dollars and may not be any more effective than the ballistic missile defense system we currently have. If it is effective, it could lead to a decline in strategic stability and increase incentives for first-strike nuclear attacks.

For decades, since the dawn of the exploration of space, countries have agreed not to weaponize space. Today, we rely upon space for satellite communications and GPS tracking. If shots are fired in space at missile launches, they will also be shot across space at the missile defense laser systems. What could possibly go wrong? We might get into satellite wars, and our country could go dark.

To offset this troubling news, I have another headline that’s going around. Netflix announced that Steve Carell will star in a comedy based on Trump's space force. According to Twitter’s website, this show will be a story about how the U.S. government stands up the new branch of the military.

.@SteveCarell will star in a new workplace comedy series he co-created with #TheOffice’s Greg Daniels about the people tasked with creating a sixth branch of the armed services: the Space Force! pic.twitter.com/6GEFNgP18w

— See What's Next (@seewhatsnext) January 16, 2019

Let’s turn to Bionic Bug. Last week, Lara and her team worked to stop Fiddler from carrying out his plot to kill thousands of innocent people with his beetles. Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 39. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 13, 2019. 

Thanks to the winter storm, you’re getting a bonus episode this weekend. 

Let’s talk tech! I have one more tech headline for you this weekend.

“DARPA Thinks Insect Brains Might Hold the Secret to Next-Gen AI” published on Defense One on January 10.

If you’ve read Bionic Bug, then you know why I love this headline.

DARPA is soliciting “ideas on how to build computing systems as small and efficient as the brains of ‘very small flying insects.’”

The new program is called the Microscale Biomimetic Robust Artificial Intelligence Networks program, or MicroBRAIN. Gotta love the acronym!

“Understanding highly-integrated sensory and nervous systems in miniature insects and developing prototype computational models … could be mapped onto suitable hardware in order to emulate their impressive function.”

Think about it. Much of AI has focused on developing systems that mimic the human brain. A human brain contains “between 60 to 70 billion interconnected neurons... By contrast, some insect brains contain less than 1,000 neurons, making them much easier map.

Despite the smaller number of neurons, insects are capable of sophisticated activities, especially coordinated activities over thousands of individual insects. Think about how ants work together to build their mounds and tunnels or how certain insects swarm to devour a target.

“DARPA will provide up to $1 million in funding to groups to create a physical model of insects’ neural systems, analyze how insects’ brains develop over time and design hardware platforms that mimic the neural structure of those brains.”

“Responses to the solicitation are due Feb. 4, and the program is expected to launch April 3.”

Since I read this article, I’ve been tinkering with the notion of a return of the beetles in the Lara Kingsley Series. I can’t make promises, but this idea of converging insects with AI has definitely lit a fire.

Speaking of beetles, let’s turn to Bionic Bug. Last week, Lara got closer to uncovering Fiddler’s true intentions and tries to stop him. Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 38. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 13, 2019. 

No personal update today except that we’re stuck inside in the middle of a beautiful winter snow storm. 

Let’s talk tech. I have one headline for this week:

“I Gave a Bounty Hunter $300. Then He Located Our Phone,” published on motherboard on January 8. I talked about the power of location data a few weeks ago.

As a nation, we are behind the curve in understanding the power of data. Many Americans still believe that data without direct connection to identity is somehow anonymous. Policymakers have failed to address privacy issues for data and issue proper protections. Private sector companies who gather your data are selling it off.

If this article is true, it’s possible for anyone to pay a couple hundred bucks to geolocate your smartphone. In other words, anyone can find you wherever you are because of your handheld tracking device. How is this possible? I thought even the police need a warrant to track cell phones.

It’s possible because the cell phone companies are selling access to their customer’s location data.

Scary stuff, eh?

Let’s turn to Bionic Bug. Last week, Lara realized that Fiddler had fooled her about his true intentions. Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 37. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on January 6, 2019. 

Happy New Year everyone! I hope this year is full of promise. For the past three years, I’ve spent the end of the year reflecting on what I’ve achieved as an Indie author. I also set my publishing goals for the coming year. My first of two posts is entitled “Sowing the Seeds for your Writer’s Journey” and takes a look at how I met my writing goals in 2018. I’ll include the link in the show notes.

We are nearing the end of this podcast with five more episodes left to go. If you enjoy following my writer’s journey and listen to me discuss technology, you’ll be relieved to know that I’m launching a new podcast in March 2019 called “Authors of Mass Destruction”. For this podcast, I’ll be helping authors get the technical details write on WMD and emerging technology. I’ll feature interviews from subject matter experts and authors who write on these issues. We can use fiction to generate awareness among the public about technology issues.

Let’s talk tech. Only one headline for this week:

“Sequencing the DNA of Newborns Uncovered Hidden Disease Risks and a Whole Lot of Tricky Issues,” published on gizmodo.com on January 3.

“In the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to get a complete readout of a person’s genetics with ease, even right after they’re born.”

“many children are born with genetic conditions that can’t be found with current screening”

What will this mean for the practice of medicine? How will this information change society and change how we think about genetic tinkering?

“Doctors and researchers at the Brigham Women’s Hospital and the Boston Children’s Hospital, both in Massachusetts, began a trial in 2015 that would test just how practical and useful sequencing could be if it were regularly done on newborns. They called it the BabySeq Project.”

If you want to read more, the study was published in The American Journal of Human Genetics.

More than 300 families volunteered for the BabySeq Project; they were randomly assigned to two groups.

“Those in the control group would get the same sort of usual care, including standard genetic screening for the newborns and genetic counseling for caretakers with a family history of genetic disease. Newborns in the second group would get all that and also have their DNA sequenced in whole.”

159 babies received genetic sequencing. “15 (9.4 percent) were found to have mutations that raised their risk of health conditions likely to show up before they turned 18.”

“None of them were anticipated [to have a risk] based on their family or clinical histories.”

“the team was initially allowed to tell the families only about mutations known to raise the risk of childhood genetic conditions. But they could also spot mutations that raised the risk of conditions that would pop up in adulthood.”

“Of 85 families who consented to having this information disclosed, three newborns had such mutations. And when the parents of these children were tested, they too were found to have the mutations.”

Let’s consider the implications:

First, the study shows that DNA mapping at birth is superior to other screening in detecting potential health problems. Having this knowledge from the outset will change behaviors. Many genetic conditions are recessive, meaning that people carry one copy of the gene (not two) and do not develop the condition. Instead, they carry it to future generations.

Second, genetic conditions are often inherited. Medical treatment could involve from treating an individual to an entire ...

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 36. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on December 24, 2018. Happy holidays!

First off, I have an update for Bionic Bug fans. Last week, I produced my first “Bionic Bug On Location” video where I take readers behind the scenes to visit a real location in my novel. I show how the location inspired the drone show that takes place at the beginning of the book. I’ll include the link to the video on YouTube in the show notes.

Second, the drones are coming. And I don’t mean as presents for Christmas. They’ve made headlines quite a bit this past year, most significantly in the alleged assassination attempt on the President of Venezuela. Most recently, drones made the headlines for closing down Gatwick airport in London last week, the second largest airport in the UK. The sightings of two drones shut down the airport leading to the cancellation of hundreds of flights and disruptions for thousands of passengers. The incident has demonstrated how woefully unprepared we are for the misuse of existing technology. These types of disruptions have been predicted for years, but governments have done next to nothing to prepare for the era of drones. Today’s off-the-shelf drone capabilities allow individuals to project power into the air. Until recently, this was the sole domain of nation-states. 

Read about our lack of preparedness and possible solutions in “Drones At Gatwick Airport Was Just Waiting To Happen,” published by Noel Sharkey on forbes.com on December 20. One of the many unrecognized dangers of not preparing for drone incidents is the potential for knee-jerk reactions to the use of drones. In reality, drones offer far more benefits to society than risks—think agriculture, film, construction, humanitarian aid, emergency response, and delivery.

In the latest reporting on the incident, it’s not even clear that there were any drones sighted. Again, this speaks to our lack of preparedness. Drones are hard to detect, but it’s not impossible. If we start shutting down airports for fear of sighting drones, we’ve lost the war before it’s even started. This lowers the bar for anyone who wishes to cause mischief leading to major economic loss. We can’t afford to keep things as they are.

Last week, Lara made it out of the beetle tank with some unexpected assistance. Now they need to figure out a plan to stop Fiddler from killing thousands of innocent people. Let’s find out what happens next.

The views expressed on this podcast are my own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 35. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on December 16, 2018. 

Let’s talk tech:

“Does AI Truly Learn And Why We Need to Stop Overhyping Deep Learning,”published on Forbes.com on December 15.

This is great article that clearly articulates what today’s AI is and more importantly what it isn’t.

The media hype about AI has led the general public to have misconceptions about the art of the possible

When I talk about AI to my students, I refer to it as the next generation in software applications. Of course, that’s an oversimplification. Hardware is important as well. But it’s important to understand that machine intelligence at this current stage is not all that intelligent, at least not when compared to humans. Can machines outperform humans in certain areas? Yes, but that’s been true for decades. 

Machine learning refers to a new approach that allows computers to “learn” from data rather than be limited to manually coded sets of rules and to “reason” their way to accurate outcomes. But it’s important to understand what “learning” and “reasoning” means when it comes to computers. It’s not even close to human notions of learning and reasoning.

The author of this piece argues that data scientists “treat their algorithmic creations as if they were alive, proclaiming that their algorithm ‘learned’ a new task, rather than merely induced a set of statistical patterns from a hand-picked set of training data under the direct supervision of a human programmer who chose which algorithms, parameters and workflows to use to build it.”

When a machine learning tool “learns” to identify dog breeds, it does so using “spatial groupings of colors and textures with particular strings of text.” The tool doesn’t understand what “breed” or “dog” means or that the dog is wearing a collar and why that is the case. 

A slight change of context and this tool would fail to perform its task. For example, what if we dressed the dogs up in Halloween costumes? Unless the tool was specifically trained on images of dogs in costumes, it would most likely fail to identify them as dogs. Compare this to human ability to learn – once a child understands what a dog is, it doesn’t matter if the dog is wearing a hat, boots or a costume, it is a dog.

For a detailed understanding of the current status of AI, I encourage you to check out the Artificial Intelligence Index, 2018 Annual Report. It will give you current numbers, but also analysis on the current capabilities and limitations.

 “Congress Can Help the United States Lead in Artificial Intelligence,” by Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre on foreignpolicy.com on December 10

The U.S. has fallen behind in the development of AI. Last year, China released its “Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan.” It plans to become the world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030. Many other countries have released AI strategies. The US does not yet have a comprehensive AI strategy.

Congress is about to hold hearings to assess Department of Defense’s progress on AI.

The most recent National Defense Authorization Act mandated the creation of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Members will be appointed by senior congressional leaders and agency heads and will develop recommendations for advancing the development of AI techniques to bolster U.S. national security.

The authors make three important recommendations for the commission:

First, we need to accelerate the pace of bureaucracy to le...

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 34. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on December 9, 2018. 

First off, a quick personal update. I’m now in the editing phase for Genomic Data, Book Three of the Lara Kingsley series. If you’re enjoying Bionic Bug thus far, you can order Project Gecko. I’m offering print versions on Amazon and the ebook version on Kobo or Walmart. Also, I’ve selected a professional narrator to produce the audiobook for Bionic Bug. I expect that will become available in February or March of 2019.

Let’s talk tech. Two headlines for this week:

Last week, I talked at length about the CRISPR baby controversy. This week’s headline is “Despite CRISPR baby controversy, Harvard University will begin gene-editing sperm” published on November 29 in MIT’s technology review by Antonio Regalado.

This article highlights a critical dilemma surrounding many emerging technologies, the many benefits they offer to society. Of course, these are juxtaposed with risks and ethical gray areas. What troubles me most is the lack of discourse and awareness beyond the scientific communities who are concerned with the research. Do we want to prevent genetic diseases from birth? If so, under what conditions?

At Harvard University, scientists will use CRISPR to edit the DNA of sperm cells in order to reduce the risk of Alzheimers. Unlike the controversial experiment in China, this research will not produce embryos or the birth of genetically modified babies.

We’re getting closer to the reality in which we can alter the DNA of children before they are born to enhance their health prospects. But should we?

This article raises some important questions: “What if a new killer virus arises and sweeps the world? Maybe there will be no vaccine but some people will be able to resist it thanks to their genes, as some fared better with the Black Death in medieval times. Wouldn’t we want to then give the genetic antidote to all members of the next generation?”

Last week, the Atlantic came out with a great summary of the issues surrounding the CRISPR baby controversy: “The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day.” I’ll include the link in the show notes.

My next headline is “The coming cyberwar: China may already be monitoring your electronic communications,” an opinion editorial published by Morgan Wright on The Hill on December 4.

Over the course of this podcast, I’ve talked a lot about China and its appetite for data. I’ve also spoken about some of its predatory technology transfer practices. In fact, this is a running theme in the Lara Kingsley series that starts in Project Gecko, the second book.

This op-ed highlights yet another example of China’s activities designed to support its “Made in China 2025” strategy. And it shows how we’re missing the big picture. 

In the article, Mr. Wright discusses how U.S. subsidiaries of Chinese transportation companies are competing for contracts in the United States. In fact, they’ve “won four contracts valued at $2.5 billion.”

For example, one of these Chinese-owned companies won the bid for producing 254 subway cars for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. The bid was half the amount of the next highest bid. How’s that possible? The Chinese government offered the company massive subsides to give it the upper hand in the competition. 

If you’re upset about this, then you’re really missing the big picture. The real issue is the technology installed on these subway cars: “Wi-Fi. Surveillance cameras. Automatic passenger counters.

Hey everyone, welcome back to Bionic Bug podcast! You’re listening to episode 33. This is your host Natasha Bajema, fiction author, futurist, and national security expert. I’m recording this episode on December 2, 2018.

Several distinct threads are converging in this episode—my personal update, tech news and Chapter 33 of Bionic Bug. For my personal update, I just finished the first draft of Genomic Data, Book Three in the Lara Kinsley Series, which features topics such as genomic data, CRISPR, germ-line genetic engineering, in-vitro fertilization, designer babies, and China. Chapter 33 of Bionic Bug features Fiddler, our rogue scientist, explaining how and why he created bionic bugs; he used CRISPR and gene drives to modify the beetles to bite humans and spread disease. The big tech news last week came out of China.

“Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies,” published in the MIT Technology Review on November 25.

We knew this was on the near-term horizon and in my novel, I anticipated the development coming from China.

In 2015, Chinese scientists modified human embryos for the purpose of curing genetic disease. Scientists in the U.S. have carried out similar experiments. Germ-line engineering, i.e., producing humans with edited genes has been banned in the U.S.

Germ-line engineering is fundamentally different from the kind of gene editing or gene therapies that show promise for curing disease in humans. This type of fix affects only the person whose genes are edited. Germ-line engineering—editing embryos—makes changes that are passed on to future generations.

CRISPR combined with in-vitro fertilization made genetically modified babies a theoretical possibility.

According to MIT Review, Statnews and the NY Times, this possibility is no longer theoretical.

Last week, Chinese scientists announced the birth of genetically modified twins who have been edited to be immune to the HIV virus

He Jiankui, on leave from Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, led the experiment.

Risks include unwanted mutations or children with mixed batches of cells edited in different ways. Also, “studies are already under way to edit the same gene in the bodies of adults with HIV.”

There are other issues with the study such as the utility of making humans immune to HIV when exposure to the virus is not pervasive, and there are simpler ways of protecting against infection. Some think the experiment is in the ethical gray zone between treatment and enhancement

This experiment has not yet been verified and a Chinese investigation is now underway.

Statnews provides some supplementary information in “What we know — and what we don’t — about the claim of world’s first gene-edited babies,” published on November 26.

The twin girls were born a few weeks ago. The parents consented to the experiment. The infants appear to be healthy.

The scientist’s home university has denounced the experiment.

The announcement has led to a major outcry across the scientific community.

The scientist claimed later in the week that another genetically modified child is on the way.

Are we a step closer to a future of designer babies as portrayed in the film Gattaca?

For more information, read “Gene Editing for ‘Designer Babies’? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say,” published in the NY Times on August 4, 2017.

Researchers are getting closer to being able to correct single gene mutations that lead to genetic diseases

But it’s unlikely that we will be able to use gene editing to producer smarter, better looking, and more talented children any time soon.

“That’s because none of those talents arise from a single gene mutation, or even from an easily identifiable number of genes.