Tracking Vaccination History With Invisible Tattoos

Tracking Vaccination History With Invisible Tattoos | Hackaday

Nowadays, we still rely on medical records to tell when our last vaccinations were. For social workers in developing countries, it’s an incredibly difficult task especially if there isn’t a good standard in place for tracking vaccinations already.

A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology may be providing a solution – they’ve developed a safe ink to be embedded into the skin alongside the vaccine, only visible under a special light provided by a smartphone camera app. It’s an inconspicuous way to document the patient’s vaccination history directly into their skin and low-risk enough to massively simplify the process of maintaining medical records for vaccines.

Tracking Vaccination History With Invisible Tattoos | Hackaday

The tatoo is made up of tiny quantum dots – semiconductor crystals that reflect light – that glow under infrared light. The pattern is delivered using dissolving microneedles made up of polymers and sugar. While the solution remains in the proof-of-concept stage, the researchers were successfully able to detect patterns embedded into the skins of rats nine months after the initial injection. On human cadavers, the patterns remained identifiable after five years of simulated sun exposure.

This could certainly mean new possibilities for decentralized information delivery and storage. Alongside biodegradable implants and power pills, we could be looking at an exciting frontier for biohacking.

Tracking Vaccination History With Invisible Tattoos | Hackaday

41 thoughts on “Tracking Vaccination History With Invisible Tattoos”

  1. “they’ve developed a safe ink to be embedded into the skin alongside the vaccine, only visible under a special light provided by a smartphone camera app.” First off, is other ink used for regular tattoos not safe? And secondly, “special light provided by a smartphone camera app.” should trigger anyone’s BS detector to be fair, especially on a tech site like this… But at least they got something magical sounding for the marketing department.

    “The tatoo is made up of tiny quantum dots – semiconductor crystals that reflect light – that glow under infrared light.”
    Last time I checked, non biologically degradable materials tended to be rather bad for the body in general, especially long term, but I guess these things aren’t going to be flowing around in one’s bloodstream, so it might be safe.

    But, if it only is an IR reflector, then why the hell does it need to be “semiconductor” based?

    It is at least a semi interesting idea, though, there is likely simpler solutions in existence, like stamping one’s medical details onto a necklace like a lot of organizations already do…

    1. It’s probably IR fluorescent, emitting visible light when exposed to IR.

      I wouldn’t want this though, because it’s basically the definition of an unnecessary medical procedure. It could leave a scar, or maybe be visible under the right lights, and… I’m quite sure there’s better ways to do this.

      Most people post their vaccination history on Facebook. I’d rather use some experimental open source central database tech, even if it’s not private, than get an unnecessary tattoo.

      2. “Most people post their vaccination history on Facebook”
        Really? Would be interested in seeing statistics to back up such a bold claim.

        Besides, if you read the second line of the article, you would find Facebook (or other online “open source central database tech” is not an option which is why a method that is stored with/on/in the recipient is being researched.
        “For social workers in developing countries, it’s an incredibly difficult task especially if there isn’t a good standard in place for tracking vaccinations already”

        1. Ok, “most people” might be a bit excessive, but a lot of my friends do.

          Tech is generally cheaper than mechanical or bio stuff, so it doesn’t seem hard to imagine a cheap satellite based system, if you were willing to relax the privacy requirements enough to develop such a thing quickly.

      3. Fl dyes loose energy and have to output a longer wavelength. If this is an IR dye it can only become a longer wavelength. That means you are not seeing that dye with out a special camera.

      4. “emitting visible light when exposed to IR.” “maybe be visible under the right lights”. Like when out in the sun, the world’s largest IR emitter, and would defeat the whole “only visible under a special light” idea.

        Though the idea that a regular smartphone camera can see it is a fairly bogus thing to start with. Not that specialty cameras are expensive. After all, we likely don’t need anything too fancy here, just a regular CCD/cmos camera without an IR filter should likely suffice. And resolution wise, it probably doesn’t need to be the fanciest thing either.

    2. did not have your morning coffee yet or something?
      ink is a general term you would for sure not want to put inkjet ink under your skin so yes safe ink as in safe to use on or in your body whats so hard to understand about that?
      plenty of specialty inks/pigments that only react so certain wavelength the wording is a bit vague i agree but it could be as simple as using a VIS blocking filter on you phones camera to pick up infrared light form the tattoos.
      err soooo basically your saying implants, prosthesis , tooth-fillings and tattoos are bad and unsafe? because they are all non biologically degradable things we put in our bodies. you should google for bio-compatible materials and you will see that there are plenty of substances which can be uses without any problems in the body.
      semiconductor based ink/quantum dot pigment would be a big advantage for durability. most natural/biological dyes tend to be susceptible to degradation by light over the long run.
      necklace and paperwork get lost limbs not so much remember they are talking about developing countries here.

      1. Yes, ink is a very general term, that is why I specifically wrote, “ink used for regular tattoos”…

        My statement in regards to the “only visible under a special light provided by a smartphone camera app.” is that it is marketing BS, regardless if there is a grain of truth behind it. Though, a lot of smartphone cameras do have IR filters. (Though, some IR of shorter wavelengths can for some cameras make it through the IR filter.)

        That there is cameras that can see IR light without much issue is a fact, and that some smartphone cameras lack IR filters is also a thing. But calling that “special light provided by a smartphone camera app.” implies that ANY smartphone can provide IR light by just having the right software, and that frankly isn’t true.

        “err soooo basically your saying implants, prosthesis , tooth-fillings and tattoos are bad and unsafe?”
        No.

        I specified: “non biologically degradable materials tended to be rather bad for the body in general”
        Do note the word “tended” ie, not all material….

        That there are many materials that are bio-compatible is true, though, is quantum dots such a material? (Now, quantum dots is likely a vague term, just like “ink” so it probably depends….)

        But most semiconducting materials tends to be toxic, like arsenic, boron, indium and even antimony is toxic in some of its forms. Not that silicone (as in crystalline silicone), nor germanium were bio-compatible to start with.

        So for something as simple as an IR reflector, why does this need to be so fancy is my main question?
        (Though, skin is a rather good at attenuating IR, so that is one reason it needs to be better at its job.)

        But in the very end, why even use something this involved, when there are other solutions already in existence, by far the simplest one is to just stamp a letter or two into a piece of metal and hang that around the person’s neck.

        Not that vaccinations should have any long term effects on one’s medication regardless.

    3. AFAIK the UV ink used in tattoos is ‘not approved for human use’ but is used for cattle and fish. There’s lots of people who have the unapproved tats that seem to be ok but medical issues can take a lifetime to show up. I presume it’s mostly a matter of the manufacturer not wanting to jump through needless hoops

    2. If you give a benign system an axe, it will use it to chop firewood.

      If you give a totalitarian regime an axe, it will use it to cut off your arm.

      Of course this could be misused, there is no technology that cannot be used to inflict harm. In this use case any systemic gathering of personal information has a large potential for public benefit and personal harm, depending on how it’s used.

      You can’t make an instantly searchable, difficult to control or erase database out of tattoos though. This concept has the right to be forgotten built right in.

      1. Exactly. I remember with horror stories of children having their “vaccinated arm” cut off by some rebel terrorist opposition group in some African country. It is a mad idea.

  4. Robert Heinlein described this in one of his Juveniles. I think “Farmer in the Sky” but can’t find my copy.

    They are emigrating to Ganymede (after terraforming and an atmosphere added) and have all kinds of medical tests, and probably inoculations, and medical results tattooed on.

    Obviously it’s very tiny print.

    There’s a passage about where the tattoos go, I think the main character chooses an otherwise hidden place, but decides against the foot because he had things to do so avoiding sitting down while it healed wasn’t a problem. But some women had it done in invisible ink.

    I may not be reme!bering properly as to who got it where, but nvisible ink and out of tye way was covered.

    Of course with so many getting tattoos in recent times, a medical tattoo wouldn’t stick out, but anyone close enough could read it. A variation on “The Scarlet Letter”.

    Is tyere a reason this reality uses tattoos and not biochips?

    1. “Is there a reason this uses tattoos and not biochips?”

      Probably to keep the equipment needed to read the information simple, like a cellphone camera which can detect the IR light reflected from the dots. If it were a biochip, and if I’m understanding what you mean by that term, then a special reader for the chip would be needed to access the info, which may not be available in third-world situations.

      1. NFC based ID implants are both cheap and fairly common. (Typically used for house pets and such, the world over.)
        Though, tagging people with such is seen as a bit 1984-ish. (Especially since a lot of people think NFC communication reaches for miles and has GPS tracking included… I don’t need to say that this is bogus, and that the first to letters of “NFC” stands for Near Field, as in a few centimeters or less. But people get squeamish regardless and there are other security implications in the end too.)

        And the equipment needed to read them is almost as simple as having a smartphone with NFC communication. (IIRC)

        1. If you can think of it, then some governments already be looking into it.
          https://twitter.com/summerinsmokehk/status/1201160056454053889?s=21
          >Fishy facial recognition technology was suspected to be spotted in today’s march from Charter Garden to the U.S. Consulate in #HongKong.

          Some comments below:
          >I think it’s collecting data which is generated from the new HK ID Card. I saw there were some small green boxes flashing on the persons. I think it shows ID Card no.

          FYI: HKID has been upgraded with high res pictures specifically for facial recognization as well as RFID along with full finger prints. Citizens are also expected to carry their ID at all time.

  5. A custom plasmid would last longer and be more biocompatible, just slower and more expensive to read (at the moment), but you could always update or edit it in the future using CRISPR related tech. The problem with anything tattooed is that it migrates and eventually you end up with a mess of it in the lymphatic system where it can concentrate, so if it reacts with near future very high field MRI scanners you are going to get your nodes cooked.

  6. “human cadavers, the patterns remained identifiable after five years”
    Excuse my ignorance, but, no decomposition? Do they keep the bodies frozen, and if so, wouldn’t that affect the test?

    2. and the next part of that sentence is : “of simulated sun exposure.” that sounds pretty self explanatory to me. basically shine a very strong lite ( laser maybe?) on the tattoo worth 5 year of normal exposure and see if the ink is still stable.

  7. They really need to get on with getting microneedle patches and pretty much any and every other non-hypodermic method of vaccination into widespread production FAST. Anyone feeling worried about vaccination will have a lot less ground to argue from if they can just slap a patch on the skin rather than suffer the horror of a long piece of metal being driven into their flesh. There isn’t much need to worry about tracking vaccinations, in general it is safe to vaccinate someone a second time if they can’t be sure they’ve had it aleady. The point is to make vaccination trivally quick and effective, something you don’t even think about. These patches could be sent through the post, they don’t need all the fancy refigeration that injected vaccines do. If there’s an epidemic predicted you just mail these to everyone in the predicted area where it is likely to start. I fear needles and there are one or two vaccines I might have missed years ago that I ought to catch up on, I for one am f***ing pissed off that the NHS isn’t providing patch vaccines in the UK. Take away the needle and I’ll be at the doctor’s surgery in seconds (not that they’d need to waste a doctors time with routine vaccination any more if they go to patches, anyone can slap them on for themself, freeing the doctors to handle trickier tasks).

  8. Seems a bit premature to be preparing ways to track vaccination histories before we’ve even got patch vaccinations into widespread use. They need to hurry up and get these onto market in every country in the world. All suggestions are that patch vaccines will be dirt cheap, very easy to transport and store and won’t need to take up the time of medically trained personnel to administer them. Furthermore without that violating feeling of a long piece of metla penetrating your skin anti-vaccs nutters will have much less emotional aguments to use to con those who feel wary about getting protected. PATCH VACCINES NOW!

  9. Too much invasive. What about a simple online db, maybe blockchained, based upon biometric data like fingerprints? Still a mobile phone would be enough. Even, fingerprints and their answers don’t need necessarily internet, but also just SMS data

  10. Why not just tag them with RFID ear tags like cattle? I mean that is what they are being treated like, you might as well go full throttle. At least they can rip an ear tag off if they don’t want to be numbered for life.

  11. I might be being stupid here, but if you’re in this line of work (or volunteering) could you not just get all the vaccinations done, say, on your birthday, and then just repeat them every single year? It’s an obvious date to you, secret to everyone else unless you share it…. and while it sucks a bit to be getting them when they’re likely to not be required, it’s less invasive than this (and this would require someone at the location youre at understanding how to get the data).

    Maybe this *is* what currently happens, I don’t know…

  12. Will the non tattoo versions be available or is the tattoo compulsory. People already cite religious grounds for the vaccination, no need to muddy the waters by adding tattoos in the mix (which many also refuse on religious grounds).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search

Subscribe