The statistic of 5.4 million people grappling with paralysis in the US alone in 2013 painted a stark reality of the sheer population facing physical limitations.
In this era where innovation knows no boundary, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) stand as a promising technology to bring hope to these individuals. BCIs capture brain signals using electrodes, then hardware processes and sends them to external devices like computers or mobile phones without the need for any physical movements. In simpler terms, whatever you think, the electronic devices will do for you. Sort of like Jean Grey from X-Men.
Neuralink, established in 2016 and publicly announced in March 2017, is a BCI company and brainchild of the visionary billionaire Elon Musk. Its flagship product, dubbed N1 chip, or Neuralink, boasts a staggering 1024 electrodes that can be implanted by a surgical robot, allowing individuals to control digital devices with only their minds. A video demonstration released in April 2021 on their YouTube channel, with a monkey playing a video game through mere thoughts, showcased the capability of this implant.
Fast forward to May 2023, Neuralink announced a significant milestone: the approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initialise its first-in-human clinical trial, dubbed the “PRIME Study”, short for Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface. The company then began recruiting amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients for its six-year-long study, and in January this year, the first volunteer successfully received the implant, with updates provided by Musk himself on X (previously Twitter).
While heralded as a potential game-changer for the paralysed, its ethicality has also been looming large, prompting scrutiny from many.
Issue #1: Transparency and lack of communication
One of the foremost concerns surrounds Neuralink’s transparency, or the lack thereof, in its communication with the scientific community. Unlike conventional scientific research, which undergoes rigorous critiques by experts in relevant fields via peer-reviewed journals and transparent documentation on platforms like ClinicalTrials.gov, Neuralink’s communication strategy has been critiqued for its opacity. Brief updates on social media platforms like X fall short of the expected standards, leaving experts and the public in the dark regarding the true impact and implications of the company’s work.
Issue #2: Inhumane animal testing
Reports of inhumane treatment and egregious animal casualties during its research have also raised significant ethical red flags. According to a Reuters report, 1500 animals have tragically lost their lives since 2018. Physical Committee for Responsible Medicine and WIRED investigations have also uncovered distressing instances of extreme pain and stress inflicted upon test monkeys during surgical procedures, such as the use of BioGlue, which is a widely known neurotoxin, to adhere the chip to the brain tissues. These revelations, as a result, have promoted federal investigation into the company’s operations. Musk’s dismissive reply, asserting that “No monkey has died as a result of a Neuralink implant” and the animals were already in “terminal” conditions, has only served to erode the trust and accountability of Neuralink. If one could be critical enough, every life holds value, regardless of its terminal status. The unnecessary suffering of the animals, which Neuralink could have easily avoided, cannot be justified.
Issue #3: Possibility of misuse and privacy concerns
Musk also envisions achieving “Human-AI symbiosis” by making the technology accessible beyond medical applications. Should this vision materialise, the consequences could be dire. In extreme cases, BCIs could be repurposed to manipulate one’s brain function, serving as tools for psychological warfare to propagate ideologies or induce certain emotions in targeted individuals or populations without any external stimuli. With these devices also tapping into a person’s brain activity, they can also be susceptible to cyber intrusions, potentially allowing hackers to gain unauthorised access to people’s minds and pilfer sensitive information, including personal thoughts and emotions. Having our own mental privacy and freedom of thought is a fundamental human right that should never be compromised as technology advances.
Issue #4: Invasive nature of the implantation and unknown long-term effects
Unlike Synchron, another company with an FDA-approved BCI, Neuralink’s reliance on surgical intervention and direct brain tissue contact poses unnecessary dangers to patients. Additional concerns have also been raised regarding the potential for the lithium battery powering N1 chip to overheat, electrodes moving to undesired brain regions, as well as the difficulty in removing the implant in the case of a malfunction. Moreover, research on the long-term effects of BCI on humans is still lacking. Patients should never bear any consequences from this hastily implemented technology.
Issue #5: Socioeconomic implications
The likelihood of it being exorbitantly expensive can also threaten to deepen existing disparities, privileging those with financial means and access to healthcare. If BCIs were to be widely adopted, it could cause a digital divide, privileging those who embrace technologies.
A revolution or a Pandora’s Box?
BCIs are certainly the marvels of modern science, but the stakes are high, and we do not know how far this technology can take us to. But one thing is for sure: the development and use of BCIs must proceed with utmost caution and transparency to ensure that they serve humanity’s welfare rather than becoming Pandora’s Box of troubles.
