Future Tech

Biohackers Create “Riddick”-Style Night Vision Treatment

Andre Infante 30-03-2015

Sometimes, science is about doing patient, deliberate research over many years. And, sometimes, science is about squirting dangerous research chemicals into your eyes to let you see in the dark.


Meet Science For the Masses (SFM), a group of biohackers Biohacking: The Creepy but Exciting Trend in Body Modification "Sorry about the mess," says Steve Haworth, as we walk down the stairs to the surgical theater, where he merges consumer technology and the human body to produce uniquely functional body modifications. Read More and independent researchers dedicated to pushing the limits of the human body with biotechnology.

Screenshot 2015-03-26 at 3.12.36 PM

In the “Riddick” science-fiction films, the most memorable piece of future technology is the protagonist’s surgically modified eyes (a “shine-job”). A reflective layer at the back of the eye allows him to see in the dark (creating the iconic eye-shine effect from the film).

SFM has achieved a similar effect by using a protein called Ce6, which is used to sensitize cells to light. Ce6 has previously been used as a treatment for night blindness and also as an experimental chemotherapy treatment. In their research, SFM used a mixture of Ce6, insulin, and DMSO, and dripped it into the eyes of their volunteers. The mixture diffused into the retina and dramatically improved the low-light vision of the human guinea pigs for several hours.

eyeballinjectionWithin hours, the experimental subjects were able to pick out targets against a tree-line at fifty meters on a dark night with 100% accuracy. The control group, without the treatment, could pick out only about one third. This could potentially be useful in a number of real-world scenarios, from special forces to search-and-rescue.


There are however, some reasons for caution.

Risks and Dangers

Let’s rewind back to the chemical cocktail that the researchers used. The insulin is probably fine, but what about the Ce6 and the DMSO?  DMSO is a mutagen and was banned from medical applications for a period in the 1960’s due to its risk of causing permanent damage to the eyes.

Beyond that, Ce6 itself isn’t exactly sunshine and roses either. It’s used in chemotherapy because it serves to amplify the effects of light on tissue — so much so that it kills cells that are directly exposed to light. By dosing a cancer patient with Ce6, light can be used as a non-invasive way to burn up tumors Google's New Nanotech Pill Will Help The Fight Against Cancer Google is reportedly working on a pill that could potentially identify cancer, heart attacks and other illnesses, without resorting to painful and invasive surgery. Is this the future of medical science? Read More . However, saturating your eye with it carries the risk that regular light exposure could destroy your retina.

The solution to this problem was light-blocking contact lenses (similar to the dark welding glasses worn by Riddick in the film).



However, these can only be used for planned light exposure. If the researchers had encountered a surprise source of light (like, an unplanned conversation with flashlight-wielding police), they could have gone blind.

This kind of biohacking is very cool, but also very dangerous. It seems irresponsible to use the therapy on both eyes: the experiments could have been designed for just a single eye, with both the subject and the control group wearing eye patches over the other. That way, even if the drugs wound up causing retinal damage or eye cancer, the test subject wouldn’t be rendered completely blind.

On the other hand, I have to admit that this research clearly has practical applications, and probably wouldn’t have happened in academia or industry. So long as mainstream medicine refuses to pursue this kind of transhuman research How Technology May Be Influencing Human Evolution There's not a single aspect of the human experience that hasn't been touched by technology, including our very bodies. Read More , there will still be significant value to be gained from crazy people way outside the mainstream using themselves as guinea pigs. So I salute these folks for their contribution, and hope to hell they start being more careful.


Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Their website lists another project which involves trying to see infrared by (among other things) eating a diet totally devoid of vitamin A. Regardless, it’ll be interesting to see whether mainstream science conducts further experiments on human night vision based on their work.

Are you interested in this kind of transhuman research? Worried about the risks? Could you benefit from better night vision? Discuss in the comments!

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Jay bauer
    May 11, 2020 at 5:47 pm

    I want permanent night vision in my eyes can anyone help

  2. Alfonzo Garboon
    April 10, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    By any chance, was the proximity to April 1 noted?

  3. s0lj0n
    April 3, 2015 at 8:51 am

    Hello, "Andre Infante".
    Your info RE: DMSO is extremely wrong,
    & extremely out of date.
    The so-called "evidence" for the "risk of causing permanent damage to the eyes" was experimental only, in rabbits only, & it was later determined to have been the effect of using a contaminated sample, instead of using "pharmaceutical" grade supplies.
    I have used a prescription medicine' "Pennsaid®," which is manufactured by Nuvo Manufacturing, Quebec, Canada, & distributed in the U.S. by Mallinckrodt Brand Phamaceuticals, Inc. It contains DMSO as an excipient.
    The U.S. FDA has also approved DMSO for treating head injuries where swelling could damage the brain. MANY veterinarians use it to treat horses, which is important because the owners usually have invested significant sums of money in their stock, & they would *not* waste money on unproven or dangerous remedies. BTW, there is *no* "placebo effect" on animals; either a treatment actually works, or it doesn't.
    At this moment, I have over half a gallon of pure (99.9%) DMSO in my bathroom. I can assure all that I would *not* apply a "mutagen" to my skin, regardless of whatever 'claims' were made for its 'efficacy'.
    Such biased & unsupported "journalism" may be the norm today, but I for one DO NOT approve of the use of propaganda. I look forward to the time when all such dishonest, disreputable, & sleazy so-called "journalism" is no more, along with corrupt politics & corrupt government. In the event that you have been mislead by your "sources," I'd like to remind that competent "journalists" DOUBLE-CHECK, usually verifying via an independent & unbiased third party. Then again, I may be showing my age, as that is how it was done, in the last century.

    Have a GREAT day, Neighbors!

  4. dragonmouth
    April 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    Throughout history, whenever an advance in medicine was made, the ethical question of whether we should be playing God was asked. Invariably the answer was/is "Sure. Why the heck not."

  5. b
    March 30, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    That sounds amazing, but also quite dangerous! It is one thing to hack your toaster, but hacking living things is not something I would personally delve into. More power to them though!