Exposome Moonshot launching in Washington D.C.

Global coalition assembles to set foundation for the Human Exposome, a complement to the Human Genome Project

Exposome Moonshot

Facebook

XLinkedIn
MessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Exposome Moonshot Forum Poster

view more 

Credit: Eliza Cole

 

Who?      500+ public health researchers, thought-leaders, policy-makers & civil society actors.

What?     Inaugural Exposome Moonshot Forum.

Where?   Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, Washington D.C.

When?    Monday May 12th to Thursday May 15th, 2025: www.exposomemoonshot.org      

 

Background: The Human Genome Project, initiated in 1990 and completed in 2003, was a global scientific effort to map and sequence all genetic material, the information needed to code life. With that code was a promise to understand the genetic roots of disease and health. Funded by the US federal institutes, such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and international partners at a cost of $3 billion, it remains one of humanity’s greatest scientific achievements, revolutionizing our understanding of genetics and driving medical and biotechnological advances. 

 

Today’s challenge: The Human Genome Project transformed genetic discovery, but it only tells a small part of the story. What are the environmental factors that underpin disease and health?  That’s where the Exposome comes in. From fighting childhood autism or asthma, to treating cognitive decline in our elderly, addressing the environmental and lifestyle factors affecting cancer, building supportive healthy living environments, and better regulating of environmental and psychosocial stressors such as atmospheric pollution, pesticides or food colorants and even social isolation. Better understanding these exposures is where today’s research efforts must lie. That said, science has been slow to take on this new collaborative challenge of mapping how our environments shape our all-round health from conception to death, until now. 

 

The Human Exposome marks an unprecedented change in how the world views both understanding what can harm us and fighting disease. It aims to match the Human Genome Project in its scope and ambition. The Human Exposome can provide usable metrics and data points to inform targeted public health interventions while still being in the early stages of development and planning. This has been made possible by the integration of technologies like advanced sensors, high-resolution mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance, bioinformatics, expanding datasets on environmental stressors obtained through geospatial applications, and enhanced understanding of social determinants of health. All this combined with recent advances in artificial intelligence and big data analytics, is making such a discovery-driven initiative feasible and actionable, even as the initiative develops. Furthermore, this Moonshot is timed to integrate and complement ongoing research projects worldwide. From a recent Department of Defense reportcalling for the US to be more exposome-driven, the EU’s clean industrial deal, European Climate Adaptation Plan, One Health Strategy, or Cancer Mission initiatives along with increasing public awareness and academic interest, it is clear that research efforts, funding and policy-making are all pointing in the same direction: we need to chart the exposome.      

 

The Exposome Moonshot Forum, May 12-15: Liftoff to the Next Phase. The inaugural Washington D.C. event will culminate in a Declaration Ceremony, signaling a commitment to global collaboration, innovation and inclusion in shaping the future of exposomic science as a new field. This is a critical first step in establishing shared responsibility in meeting the goals identified and strategy outlined during the intensive four-day event.  

This multi-day, onsite gathering with further inputs from select speakers given remotely, is purposely intended as an open platform for discussion towards the agreement of a next-steps roadmap. To encourage new-thinking and impact-orientated suggestions, delegates will be asked to actively respond to fixed thematic panels and contribute to breakout sessions designed around four core objectives:    

• Defining the ethical, legal and societal dimensions of exposomics;
• Leveraging A.I. and big data in environmental health analytics;
• Establishing global coordination models and shared research infrastructures; &
• Crafting a launch strategy for the Human Exposome.

The Organizing Committee is actively fielding interest from individuals and organizations to join newly established global working groups. Their task will be to create a viable framework for the Exposome Moonshot to categorize, document and chart all of our biological and chemical exposures. 

 

Hearing from Experts and Participants: 

• Professor Gary Miller, Organizing Committee Member & Director of the Center for Innovative Exposomics at Columbia University speaking at the Moonshot Forum’s Opening Ceremony stated that: “For many of us, this is without doubt the greatest public health opportunity of our time. We will succeed. If we simply pool together the ongoing exposome research capabilities we have available right now, like that occurring in labs throughout the U.S. and Europe, we will already kickstart a revolution in medicine, public health and environmental protection saving countless lives.” He added that: “It is important that those of us who have been actively engaged in the scientific research do not prejudge outcomes and remain in listening mode. We must get out of our bubbles and make this a truly open, transparent and global endeavor and learn from the wide variety of stakeholders who are participating. The readiness to get involved has been tremendous. That is why there is so much palpable excitement here today.”
• Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer, Organizing Committee Member & Acting NIH Deputy Director for Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives. stated that: “My background is in mathematical and computational modelling of biological systems to better represent human health and disease pathways and their susceptibility to external factors. For me, if set up correctly, mapping the Human Exposome is an absolutely essential project to understand the impact of the environment on our health and support important initiatives like chronic disease research.”.
• Professor Thomas Hartung, Organizing Committee Member & Executive Director for the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) stated that: “I’ve worn many hats in science but mapping the exposome is the biggest and most welcome challenge of my career. When you think that we know conservatively of 350,000 chemicals registered for marketing world-wide, for which we have data on less than 10% or that we add 4,500 chemicals in our food in the US with data on less than 20%, it seems like a public health world gone mad.” He added that: “The value-added of doing this for the public purse is tremendous. By correctly identifying what does and does not harm us, we not only bring up to speed 60-year-old animal tests that are 20-40% inaccurate, but we also drastically help cut the costs and administrative burdens on federal resources. Vaping alone gave us 6.7 million registered products to test. It’s unsustainable.”
• Professor Rémi Quirion, Chief Scientist of Quebec & President of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA), Organizer of the second day’s ‘From the Lab to the Law Policy Plenary Panel’ stated that: “We have seen with GMOs and Stem Cells how difficult it can be to get everybody on-board when new technology trains are fast leaving the station. Science can get ahead of itself and the dialogue between experts, policymakers and end-user citizens has never been straight-forward. Giving and taking scientific advice are two different things.” He added: “That is precisely why the Exposome Moonshot Forum Community are hitting the nail on the head by bringing all stakeholders to the table early-on. Foresight knowledge is the only way to iron out the wrinkles and set yourselves up for success. Going forward, we at INGSA are happy to stay involved to help explain and bridge the science and policy worlds.”      
• Dr. Fenna Sillé, Organizing Committee Member, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins University and Deputy Director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), leading the exposome program and studies on how environmental exposures change the immune system, stated that: “This gathering has made it clear: from Washington to Wellington, from Dublin to Durban, there is a shared global commitment to charting a new course for public health. The exposome has emerged as a shared scientific frontier, with leadership taking shape across continents. This forum marks a historic milestone — the first exposome event of its kind to unite international stakeholders across disciplines — and a turning point toward a future where health is understood not only through our genes, but through the full complexity of our environments. Crucially, we have begun addressing the core questions of data ownership, governance, and ethical responsibility that must guide this work from the outset. The Human Exposome will redefine medicine, prevention, and equity — shifting our focus from what we inherit to include what we encounter. We are proud to have sparked this momentum here, and even more determined to carry it forward together."
• Professor Roel Vermeulen, Organizing Committee Member & Professor of Environmental Epidemiology and Exposome Science at Utrecht University and the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands stated that: “Mastering the exposome is key to building a healthier, fairer future for everyone, not just in the EU but in the 46 countries of our continent and worldwide. We have many excellent, ongoing EU studies already showing remarkable results on Parkinson’s disease, chemical mixtures in the blood of pregnant women and the crucial role of socioeconomic determinants of health.” He added that: “I am very proud to have led a major exposome report at the European Parliament mapped onto seven key policy areas: cities, chemicals, climate, child health, career, clinical practice, and citizens. We are calling for investments in data and analytical infrastructures, advanced data analytics, and for the creation of a 10 million-people strong research cohort and biobank to give us the statistical power and subpopulation diversity we need to study life-course exposures and their biological impact at scale. I am confident that the carrier-wave created here in D.C. can help us form a powerful start of a Human Exposome Initiative. Watch this space, because we are creating momentum to fully integrate exposome into Europe’s data-driven health future. My personal conviction is that this important work must be a shared public good, anchored in citizen involvement and open data.”
• Professor Dimosthenis (Denis) Sarigiannis, Organizing Committee Member, Director and Chairman of the Board of the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Professor of Environmental Health Engineering at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece) and the Institute for Advanced Study of Pavia (Italy), stated that: “Unraveling the human exposome is one of the noblest endeavors modern science and society can fathom. Doing so, will complete the puzzle that started to get filled by the decoding of the human genome in order to combat disease effectively, while at the same time promoting sustainable innovation for all. The Human Exposome Moonshot is a game changer in public health, environmental science and engineering and international cooperation for the benefit of mankind and the planet. Our work over the last twenty years in deciphering the exposome now has the chance to bring about real positive change on the world scene. If as the father of Medicine, Hippocrates, once said, “it is better to prevent than to treat”, the human exposome is the key to efficient and comprehensive precision prevention. The National Hellenic Research Foundation of Greece is steadfastly supporting this global initiative with all its resources.” 
• Professor Jana Klanova, Professor of Environmental Chemistry at Masaryk University and director of RECETOX, stated “Considering the thousands of chemicals we are dealing with as well as other physical, biological, socioeconomic and psychological stressors, the Human Exposome Project is even more challenging than the Human Genome was. We cannot succeed without building an international framework and sufficient infrastructural capacity to match the million human genome projects. This framework must embrace not just scientists but innovative companies, policy makers and the public. Interdisciplinary collaborations across the scientific and infrastructural domains, and the strong focus on quality, accessibility and reproducibility of data are crucial for future success.”

 

Definition: Exposome is the integrated compilation of all physical, chemical, biological and psychosocial

influences that impact the body.

 

Further Media Briefing Information 

Even though the Exposome Moonshot Forum is full and closed for general registration, the organizers are keen to involve reporters and public information officers in the discussions. Science communication is an integral part of the project’s success. 

If you would like to pre-register to attend the full conference; would like to drop-in any day; attend the technical press briefing on Thursday 15th May (details below); or if you have any follow-up questions or requests for specific comments or interviews, please contact:

Eliza Cole: ecole28@jh.edu

A technical media briefing will be held live and online at 12 PM EST Thursday, May 15th, 2025.

Please register in advance to join the virtual briefing: https://jh.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_h2Sn41zkR1CtZP0CtQRoiA

 

Useful Links:

To learn more about the Exposome Moonshot Forum and the Human Exposome Project, visit https://exposomemoonshot.org

Organizing Committee - Exposome Moonshot Forum

Event Program

Women non-smokers still around 50% more likely than men to develop COPD

Findings challenge idea that heightened vulnerability to cigarette smoke is to blame

BMJ Group

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChat
WhatsAppEmail

Women’ are around 50% more likely than men to develop COPD, the umbrella term for chronic lung conditions, such as emphysema and bronchitis, even if they have never smoked or smoked much less than their male counterparts, suggests observational research, published in the open access journal BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

The findings challenge the widely held belief that women’s increased vulnerability to cigarette smoke likely explains this disparity, conclude the researchers.

Smoking is the principal cause of COPD. But despite significant falls in cigarette smoking over the past 50 years, it remains a leading cause of death in the USA, with the prevalence of COPD in women approaching that of men, say the researchers. 

Women with COPD tend to have more severe symptoms, and at a younger age, than their male counterparts, prompting the suggestion that the explanation may lie in a heightened susceptibility to the effects of cigarette smoke, explain the researchers.

To clarify the associations between gender, cigarette smoke, and COPD, and to update previous estimates of the prevalence and impact of COPD, the researchers drew on a large nationally representative US survey of adults from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). 

Respondents (12,638 women and 10,390 men aged at least 40) were asked about their smoking history, what tobacco products they used, and whether they vaped.

Women reported lower rates of both current and former cigarette, cigar, and pipe smoking, and smokeless tobacco use than men, but similar rates of vaping.

The prevalence of COPD was just under 8% for women and 6.5% for men. Women with COPD were more likely to have never smoked cigarettes than men with COPD (26.5% vs just over 14%), and less likely to use other tobacco products except for e-cigarettes (26.5% vs 20%).

Women also reported smoking fewer daily cigarettes than men, averaging around 18 compared with around 22, and to have done so for fewer years. And they were less likely than men to have started smoking before the age of 15:19% vs 28%.

Yet the prevalence of COPD was higher among women who had ever smoked than it was among men: 16% vs 11.5%.  And among women who had never smoked the prevalence of COPD was almost twice as high as it was in male non-smokers: just over 3% compared with just over 1.5%. 

In further analysis, female gender was associated with a significantly (47%) higher risk of being diagnosed with COPD after accounting for potentially influential factors. 

This gender difference in risk persisted, irrespective of smoking history: among those who had never smoked, women were 62% more likely to be diagnosed with COPD, and among those who had ever smoked they were 43% more likely to do so. 

The researchers acknowledge that their study relied on self report rather than objectively measured data. And they lacked potentially important information on hormonal influences, family history, or infectious, occupational, and environmental exposures.

But they nevertheless suggest: “These findings should raise questions about whether differing susceptibility to tobacco smoke is the key factor driving the increased COPD prevalence in women in the USA. 

“If women were more susceptible to the effects of smoking, we would not expect to see a nearly identical risk per 10 pack-year exposure, nor would we expect to see a similarly increased relative risk among those who had never smoked.” 

And they conclude: “Our findings refine prior estimates of COPD among those without a smoking history and re-emphasise the high burden of COPD in women, underscoring the need for thoughtful efforts to prevent, diagnose, and treat their disease.” 

---

Journal

BMJ Open Respiratory Research

DOI

10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002462 

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Gender, tobacco and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis of the 2020 National Health Interview Survey

Article Publication Date

8-May-2025

Depressed and Lonely? There Could Be a Robotic Sex Partner in Your Future

Stewart Lawrence

 April 18, 2025

Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

For years, anxious and lonely men – and women — have despaired over their prospects for ever finding a love partner. For those wallowing in misery – or just seeking an edgy diversion – there may be a new and “freaky” solution. Robotic love partners, some with customizable body parts, including genitals – dubbed “sex bots” – are beginning to flood the market. And according to industry experts, they’re more functional – and satisfying – than ever.

Critics say sex-bots, in principle, are no different from inflatable sex dolls – an inanimate sex toy designed to pleasure male consumers in the crassest way possible. They’re horrified by reports that sales of sex-bots are booming, though still largely under the radar.

A decade ago, few had even heard of sex-bots, though surveys suggested that the public was hungry for news about them, with about 20% of those interviewed in 2017 saying they would consider having an encounter with one.

Today, that desire is no longer just hypothetical. According to research data compiled by AI Mojo, sex bot sales have quietly mushroomed over the past five years, growing by nearly 25% annually. That translates into 150 sex-bots sold daily – and 250 per day in Europe – the firm reports.

In the US alone, the sex-bot market now stands at $200 million, a seven-fold increase since 2019. Experts expect it to reach over $300 million by 2026.

Indeed, according to the robotics survey firm AI Mojo, more than 15% of all adult Americans – and more than 18% of Europeans and 27% of Asians, especially Japanese  – already own a sex bot – or have interacted with one, at least once.

Among US adults, that translates into 40 million (at least) one-time consumers. For comparison, about 35 million US adults regularly vape e-cigarettes. Sex–bot users may be “freaks” to some, but with these numbers, they already comprise a distinct sexual subculture – on par, perhaps, with devotees of “swinging” or BDSM.

In fact, the sex-bot sub-culture may be more “mainstream” than outsiders realize.  Who buys and uses the sex-bots? Everyone it seems – single and married, young and old – and at broadly comparable rates (though 18-25 year olds are the heaviest users).

According to AI Mojo, 45% of men use their sex-bots weekly, compared to 30% of women. In addition, 70% and above of each age group say they use their sex-bot at least “monthly.” That’s not an addiction but it does seem to constitute “regular” use

Another interesting finding concerns user satisfaction. While 60% of users report “improved mental and emotional health” as a result of their sex-bot use, 40% do not. Indeed, some admit that far from filling a void, their robot makes them feel “lonelier than before” – which is telling. But so far, few sex-bot owners seem to be giving up on their mechanical partner for good.

Liberation or dysfunction?

Sex-bot owners disdain the comparison to blow-up sex dolls – and the implication that they’re just creeps obsessed with sexual gratification. Sex-bots that can talk and even respond to their owners are a source of genuine companionship, they say. They’re not sex-obsessed – they’re just lonely.

The degree of “autonomy” of a sex-bot is easily overstated. And the relationship, such that it is, could hardly be called “consensual.” After all, the sex-bot is always available for sex – and of course, never takes “no” for an answer. She can also be made to perform lewd sex acts that many real-live partners, given the choice, might resist.

But those attracted to sex-bots say a real interaction, though, in part, fantasized, does occur. And the sex, which may include fondling and kissing and much more, is enjoyable. Amazingly, some users even suggest that sex-bots are better partners in bed than their one-time spouses or girlfriends — which seems like a fanciful claim, in light of their admitted romantic difficulties.

“It looks like a doll, but you feel as though it’s really alive. When you make love to your wife, there can be some problems. With a doll, none of that matters,” says one avid consumer.

It’s easy to dismiss these comments as emotionally insensitive at best – and misogynistic at worst. Don’t cheating men say the same thing about their favorite prostitute – or their mistress? My loyal wife just doesn’t understand me – but “Candy” does? And those intimate substitutes are at least flesh-and-blood women!

But there may be far more to this trend than outsiders think. Sex and relationship experts appear to be evenly divided – some bemoaning the trend, others suggesting it points to important changes in social mores, and pressures among youth especially for new relationship options.

Katheryn Richardson, a leading critic, says sex-bots can only fuel a loss of intimacy and a decline in commitment to real relationships.  “Sex robots emerge from commercial and illegal ideas about sex where you don’t have to have empathy for another. You don’t have to take into account what they’re thinking and feeling and experiencing and you can objectify them… I’m anti-anything that turns human bodies into commercial objects for buying and selling,” she says.

But others claim sex-bots aren’t as creepy as they sound, and might well serve a useful purpose. Journalist Marina Adshade, who’s written her own book, Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, on the subject, believes sex-bots could spice up stale marriages crippled by sexual anxiety and dysfunction – or sheer boredom.

Having a bot available might ease sexual demands on marital partners, she says, leading them to focus more squarely on companionship and emotional intimacy.  And the bots might even allow couples to explore new sexual options, without either party falling into the temptation of extra-marital affairs, which can devastate an otherwise loving marriage.

The fact that experts are even debating the issue suggests just how far the broader culture has evolved on this issue in the space of a single decade.

What’s changed?  For one thing, robotics has become more widely accepted by consumers as a part of the evolving economy – both in manufacturing and in cars and household products. At the same time, traditional norms regarding sexuality and gender identity have been called into question.  What once might have seemed fanciful and outlandish is increasingly being deemed credible – and for some, even desirable.

In 2019, when Japan’s first sex-bot brothel opened to great fanfare, there was a huge outcry. The venue promised “futuristic sex” and openly catered to men seeking bisexual threesomes. Some alarmists suggested that Japanese sex bots – which were hardly mainstream – were somehow responsible for the country’s declining birth rate. Some even suggested that the bots were turning Japanese men into “sex addicts.”

In Houston, TX, citizens angrily protested when they learned that a sex-bot brothel had been granted a business license to open a similar establishment in their city. At a community meeting before the city council, one attendee warned: “A business like this would destroy homes, families, finances of our neighbors and cause major community uproars in the city.”

In response, the Houston council voted unanimously to revoke the brothel’s license and passed an ordinance saying such establishments would not be tolerated. Supporters of “traditional” family values claimed a huge victory.

But the moral panic has clearly subsided.

Robot developers say critics are overemphasizing sex as a motive for developing robotic companions. Many of those currently in use in Japan are designed to help with housework and child care, they note. If robots are increasingly useful in the home, why should they be restricted – arbitrarily – from the bedroom?

Of course, most robotic work helpers currently on the market are less than life-like; most resemble simple machines, without heads or faces, and without private body parts. Sex-bots, by contrast, are a special class of robots, designed especially for close companionship and sex.

So, clearly a Rubicon of sorts is being crossed once that bedroom door opens.

Functionality is improving 

Science is still a long way off from creating fully functional sex robots – which may well be limiting their utility – and desirability – beyond the most avid  trend-setting early adopters. Artificial intelligence has allowed for more sophisticated body movements – to the neck and above, mainly – an array of facial expressions and some limited vocal capabilities, which makes the bots seem “life-like.”

But even these sex-bots are not yet available on the mass market, mainly because of the exorbitant cost – about $8,000 for a top-line model. In 2020, a Dutch company sold 2,000 advanced sex-bots in Japan at prices only the super-wealthy could afford. More primitive sex-bots – mainly motorized life-sized plastic or metallic replicas – may go for as little as $600 per unit.

“I think that technological advances in this sector have to be looked at in the medium-long term since they require very advanced technology and mechanics,” notes one sex-bot developer.

But Dr. Deborah Soh, a neuro-scientist and gender expert who has studied the rise of sex-bots, says she has changed her assumptions about their long-term viability.

“I previously thought most people would prefer a real-life person,” she told Joe Rogan in a podcast interview late last year. “I also thought the technology is still so far off. But I’m not so sure anymore.”

Soh notes that the early robot prototypes had fully-formed heads and attractive faces and might whisper a sweet-nothing or two, but they didn’t have truly functional bodies or voice activation. Performing interactive sex was more fantasized than real, she says.

But the latest models express a full range of expressions and emotions, oohing and ahhing in response to stimulation, with more elaborate body movements beyond swivels and turns of their head. Some can move their arms and legs, simulate cuddling, open their lips and mouths, and reach out for a kiss.

China, for example, has several companies, including W.R. Doll, that hand-craft their sex-bots, with skin-like soft silicone and articulated joints, including finger and toes and wrinkles and freckles. Trained artists design each body to be unique and irreplaceable.

With continuing advances in AI and robotics, Soh says it’s “only a matter of time before sex-bots appear and act even more shockingly real.”

Soh credits the 2014 movie Ex Machina – which featured a romantic relationship between a young man and “Ava,” a seductive AI-generated female android – with helping to stoke public acceptance of sex-bots.The movie – a racy noirish sci-fi thriller – enjoyed critical and popular acclaim, earning a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Another popular movie, Her – released a year earlier, in which a lonely writer falls in love with a female “phone operating system”– has also stoked the sex-bot trend.

Will sex-bots survive?

The jury is still out on whether sex-bots will survive beyond the current early adopter phase. While social acceptance – or at least tolerance – is growing, cost remains a huge obstacle to the expansion of the current market.

Even with limited functionality, sex androids aren’t cheap – and getting the cost down won’t be easy. Is the sex-bot market robust enough to justify mass production at a price the working class can actually afford? Probably not. In fact, with more advanced animatronics, sex bots are likely to be even pricier, pushing them further out of reach of the average consumer, experts say.

In the end, sex bot users could prove to be fickle – or perhaps, of two kinds. For the bored and idle rich, they might soon become the latest gadget fad – a titillating play-toy that ends up consigned to the attic, dumped in a landfill or posted for auction on eBay. In the meantime, their invited guests might get a real hoot out of seeing a sex-bot perched in a chair alongside them at the dinner table.

Like an obscure work of art, a sex-bot could become an interesting conversation piece – or simply a source of amusement. But in the end, just a passing fancy.

But for others, disgusted with dating, to say nothing of cohabitation with human partners, sex-bots might well turn into something far more meaningful – a newfangled form of enduring partnership. Something like a precious and obedient pet to care for – a relationship of dependence, conducted largely on one’s own terms, without constant haggles. A crutch and a placeholder of sorts.

It sounds far-fetched, largely because most sex bots on the current market are still just a mechanical version of sex dolls. But as they become far more advanced – not just in their mobility but with a thinking and memory capacity that could one day allow them to participate in a more complex and interactive relationship – will sex-bots still be considered and treated as mere “machines” and objects of mere fantasy?

It’s noteworthy that men are not the only prospective consumers of sex-bots. A UK-based company, Realbotix, has already developed “Henry,” the first sex robot for women. Henry’s figure includes 6-pack abs and stubble on his cheek. But Henry’s most compelling feature may be his “customizable penis,” which women can adjust to their personal tastes.

According to Henry’s developers, there’s more than sex at stake for women. Many prospective purchases say they are more interested in companionship than sex per se. Female consumers also want a robot that will talk to them about their life concerns and meet their needs for genuine intimacy, the company says.

In fact, many men express the same desire. And that means none of the ugly arguments and discord they might encounter in a messy real-life relationship with a woman – or another man for that matter. But it also implies a “relationship” of some kind, and not one that can be easily dispensed with on a whim.

Consumers also get attached to their cars, their laptop, their favorite chair and other inanimate personal items in which they invest their values and vision.  And of course, their pets, which for some sad lonely-hearts, are the only “sentient” relationship they’ve ever known. So, why not add a lifelike talking sex-bot that can do more than just purr and cuddle? Is that really such an outlandish idea?

The current regulatory void

The sudden explosion of interest in sex-bots has certainly caught regulators and lawmakers by surprise. In the United States, fear that some unscrupulous companies might produce sex robots in the image of children has already spurred congressional action. In 2019, the House of Representatives passed a bill outlawing the manufacture and sale of child sex robots. Many states can be expected to follow suit.

Beyond that, except for the local sex-brothel ordinance, not much has happened. As was the case with another breakthrough consumer technology – vaping – regulators were reluctant to step in without a body of scientific evidence demonstrating there was a documented risk of real harm to consumers. The market exploded – and the Juul pen soon took over the market and sales to youngsters skyrocketed.

It’s taken a good decade, but regulators have since imposed heavy restrictions on vaping pens and products. It could happen with sex-bots, but probably not preemptively. The free market implies that consumers have a right to weigh their own options – and to spend their money as they please – unless a clear and present danger is present.

It may well be, as some doomsayers suggest, that the arrival of sex-bots is somerhing akin to a social and moral apocalypse. Even Joe Rogan in his recent podcast with Deborah Soh, wondered aloud whether something akin to a death wish with was lurking in the fascination with robotic love partners – a withdrawal from meaningful social engagement bordering on a disdain for the “human life-form itself,” he suggested

Kate Devlin, author of Science Sex and Robots, has made a similar observation, noting that a semblance of human-like behavior can be enough for us to assume a degree of sentience, but a lot depends on the imagination and fantasy of the consumer.  “A significant factor may be that ‘human-looking but not alive’ is redolent of death,” she suggests, noting that a sex-bot, when completely stationary, resembles “nothing but a corpse.”

It would be for those outside the emerging sex-bot subculture to disparage the movement as bizarre and exploitative – if not downright toxic and dysfunctional.  But just as one can easily stigmatize politicians that seem to represent a decline in moral values, one is still obligated to ask, how is it that such figures rose to such prominence in the first place?  What is it about the quality of our political leaders – or the quality of our life and culture –that make such seemingly unsavory options “choosable”?

A growing niche of consumers are seeking romantic and sexual satisfaction outside of “mainstream” dating and relationship practices seemingly content to survive within an orbit of asocial self-gratification. But are the rest of us as content as we pretend with the status quo? Of life on hook-up sites like Tinder or Grinder. Of never-ending relationship counseling to try to heal and sally forth in search of finally finding the “One” – or at least someone.

Maybe sex bot enthusiasts are the real seekers – they’re onto something new and edgy, and in search of a liberation of sorts. Maybe, in their own desperate and inchoate way, they do sense that the current “life form,” as Rogan puts it, or the current state of life, is indeed, deeply unfulfilling. They don’t want death or oblivion; they want a hint of freedom, something special to hold onto, just someone to “call their own.”

Stewart Lawrence is a long-time Washington, DC-based policy consultant.  He can be reached at stewartlawrence811147@gmail.com.