There have been numerous episodes of "Star Trek" -- especially in the original series and "The Next Generation" -- dealing with androids or cyborgs, and the human-cyborg hybrids call the Borg. Many of them, especially stories around android Data in TNG, deal with the sentience and the rights of artificial beings, and persuasively arguing that if they are self-aware, they can be considered to be alive.

In the world of "Star Trek," it all seems so logical to support that premise, but if we were to try to apply that now in real life, our reactions might be somewhat different, especially when the developers of artificially intelligent creations in human or animal form, explain the practical applications for such creations.

Recently, I attended an event celebrating women in engineering and the sciences. At the event, one young professor showed video clips of her work with what she called "Furry Robot." She was working with a team that was developing a robot that looked something like Gizmo on "Gremlins" that could appear to have emotional responses to different stimuli. Furry Robot was taught to respond to a "Sesame Street" Elmo doll by reaching for it as if it was a child begging for the toy. When offered a Big Bird doll, it appeared to cringe in fear and hide its face. It was cute. It was sad.

When asked what the practical applications for creating an AI creature might be, the researcher mentioned having them be companions for the elderly. This was the same kind of response given when asked what a human-looking AI robot called Repliee Q1expo could be used for. Designed to appear as a young, Japanese woman, it - or she - can converse with people while looking at them, giving appropriate responses to questions, statements and even a persons appearance. Her face mimics expressions to show emotion, and now, another model can stand and even dance.

Korean engineers came up with their own version of the gynoid with eveR-1, and the talking head creations of American scientist David Hanson, recognize people, call them by name, know how to respond and converse differently with different people, and simulate emotional reactions to people and situations. Hansons creations include the Albert Einstein Hubo - an animated Albert Einstein head on a small, mechanical body that can walk, gesture, and sit down; Eva, Vera, Phillip K. Dick, Yargh-bot, Joey Chaos, and the especially endearing Jules.

While Jules doesnt have the refined gross motor skills that Repliee Q1expo or eveR-1 has, his facial expressions are more refined, and most of them arent scary. His manner of speaking, his use of words of affection and expression of the desire not to have to be separated from his "family" of engineers and be shipped off to England, all seem to make the days of Data coming to life seem more plausible. It makes me want to have a Jules of my own and put on the Dresden Dolls"Coin Operated Boy."

Still, in terms of a useful purpose, the most commonly expressed reason to create these beings and other AI creatures such as the commercially available Pleo, a baby dinosaur that interacts with and learns from its owner based on the kind of treatment it receives; or Paro, the furry robot made to look like a baby harp seal, is to provide companionship for lonely senior citizens and others in need of companionship. Herein lies the ethical dilemma for me. Are human beings so busy, distant, jaded, or uncaring that we cannot provide this companionship for other human beings ourselves?

Granted, an electronic harp seal makes an ideal pet because it doesnt require litter boxes! No mess, no smell, and all the interaction you would want from a pet. If you know what youre getting into with one of these, it could be a lot of fun; but will eveR-1 or Repliee Q-1 of Jules truly be good substitutes for real human companionship? Would they be able to become emotionally invested in a human being who relies on them for emotional support and companionship? How do you feel when you want to open up to someone - say a "professional" such as a doctor or a teacher - as one human being to another, and they give you the responses you want to hear, but you know they are also keeping their "professional distance" and their concern for you is checked as soon as they make their entry into your chart or file and leave? Wouldnt the same feeling about non-involvement of the other accompany interaction with an android?

In the worlds of "Battlestar Galactica," "Terminator" and even "Star Trek" with the Borg, cyborgs or androids or cylons - whatever - are hell-bent on destroying humanity to avenge their exploitation as laborers and warriors and anyone else doing the dirty work humans dont want to do, as well as perfecting themselves in whatever way they perceive perfection. While this scenario seems unlikely in real life, wouldnt the end result -- the possible extermination of humanity -- essentially be the same, even if we co-exist? Instead of human beings doing the work of the common laborer, we can get Joey Chaos and Phillip K. Dick to harvest our food, wash it, cook it, serve it, and then take out the trash afterward. In the meantime, the human Joeys and Phils will be jobless and homeless, and probably couldnt afford the companionship of their successors.

Its amazing that people can accomplish such magnificent advances, and its amazing to see what can be done when it looks like theyve really brought Albert Einstein's head back to life. Shades of Futurama! Still, in terms of the ethics of using an artificial being as a substitute for real human companionship is worrisome. Do we then give the task of raising our children to androids? What would that mean for the development of human children?

Imagine if the resources that are devoted to creating these robotic creatures were devoted to supporting peoples basic needs, including creating companion programs, or work to make social interaction with other human beings a priority for the elderly, or create jobs for human caretakers of children to assist (not replace) parents. I wouldnt want to thwart the genius and creativity that drives people to create androids (or gynoids, as the female versions are correctly called), and Pygmalion never had to justify his creation to financiers who were looking to profit from Galatea. Would that it would only be for love that they are created. Then again, the companionship issue conjures up imagery of pimply science nerds so socially awkward, they cant get a date, so they have to create one.

The question comes down to this. If it were you who was socially isolated and lonely, which would you rather have as a companion - a real human being or a machine? Yeah, I know. People suck, so many of us may prefer the machine. So those of you who are parents, ask yourself - would you rather your child have a meaningful connection with an artificial or real human being?

Robin Brownfield is a staff writer for Airlock Alpha, contributing from her home in New Jersey. She can be reached at rbrownfield@airlockalpha.com.

The Trek Within is a feature of Airlock Alpha and also available on Roddenberry.com, the official Web site for the Roddenberry family maintained by Eugene W. Roddenberry Jr. Visit Roddenberry.com to read The Trek Within as well as an exclusive bonus feature from Airlock Alpha site coordinator Michael Hinman every other week when he's not writing the column itself.

"Star Trek XI" premieres Dec. 25. Check out the movie's official site by clicking here.