New Brains
Cautious Excitement Around Neuralink’s First Human Trial
A. J. Li
ELON MUSK, THE MADMAN, HAS DONE IT. NEURALINK HAS PUT IN ITS FIRST HUMAN BRAIN CHIP IMPLANT. The human implant marks a watershed moment in the development of “brain chips” as decades of research and progress are vindicated, yet the cries of critics only continue to grow louder.
But what is Neuralink in the first place? The company is one of several of Musk’s pet projects alongside The Boring Company, which first made an appearance in 2017. Its ambitious objective is to revolutionise brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and allow people to control other connected devices through thoughts alone. For example, one could theoretically call someone else or surf the web simply by thinking, rather than having to physically touch a phone or computer like we have to at the moment. This technology thus has far-reaching implications for giving or restoring autonomy to those who are paralysed or otherwise unable to function independently through the use of a device connected with Neuralink. Much of the debate surrounding the ethics of Neuralink and brain implants as a whole is rooted in the use and proliferation of such technologies, with some even dubbing it the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Neuralink’s first patient is reportedly “recovering well”, with “initial results show(ing) promising neuron spike detection”, according to Musk, referring to the cellular activity between a person’s brain and their nervous system. But that’s as much information that has been released to the public for now and where concerns surrounding transparency and ethics begin, thus the term “cautious excitement” shared by many in the medical and technological world. Previously, Neuralink has completed trials and experiments on monkeys and pigs, drawing widespread criticism from animal rights activists and other such activist groups. These trials demonstrated the monkeys playing basic video games and controlling devices such as computers and screen cursors through their Neuralink implants. Musk will be wanting to closely observe his first human patient, though, as several issues reportedly plagued the monkeys involved in previous trials, with paralysis, seizures, and brain swelling being some of the primary concerns. We can thus comfortably infer that the primary objective of this first trial is safety and the continued optimal functioning of all the body’s systems. According to Neuralink’s study brochure, volunteers will be followed for five years with patients using the device at least biweekly to control a computer.
While Neuralink’s trial was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it had previously been rejected, and even now, it is not listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry where hospitals, medical research centres and other medical institutions usually register their trials. This is perhaps a consequence of the collision between the business world and the medical world, which often have conflicting philosophies. This is also not completely surprising given there are approximately forty BCI trials ongoing right now and perhaps Musk simply wants to maintain an edge over his competitors. The ever-mercurial Musk also does not help to allay fears of the misuse of such groundbreaking technology with speculation rife due to his opaqueness of the trial and Musk’s history of meddling with degenerate culture.
Neuralink opened its patient registry for clinical trials in September last year for individuals with diseases of the spinal cord, i.e. those suffering from paralysis and paraplegia. This is where the big question mark lies surrounding the ethical use of BCIs and similar technology. Under what circumstances should BCIs be used and sold? Should it be free access in a free-market, or should it be government regulated? For now, it seems Neuralink and BCIs in general, seek only to improve the quality of life of those who have been robbed of their autonomy, whether from birth or from a catastrophic accident. From an ethical standpoint, this seems to be the happiest and optimal, albeit naive solution. Undoubtedly, the restoration of autonomy and elevating those who are handicapped is a very palatable idea, much more so than extending the reaches of human capability, but how long will this philosophy hold? It seems ridiculous to suggest that such powerful technology will only serve to restore autonomy, a very noble cause, and not to extend the realm of human advancement. Perhaps not this year or even in this decade will Neuralink be used to further human capability rather than simply restoring it, but it remains a glaring possibility – one which has left the wider public and not just ethicists uncomfortable. There are countless allegories and cautionary tales warning against a dystopian future stemming from the misuse of BCIs; we need only look at our advanced English syllabus with texts such as Blade Runner and Never Let Me Go elucidating the concerns of these technologies in the hands of corporatocracy. This is where government regulation seems most likely, but even still, can we trust human nature to prioritise the benefit of all over the benefit of self?
Neuralink has made great strides in the development of a BCI that will hopefully restore autonomy to those who need it most. But Musk’s mercurial nature and opaqueness of his trial leave big question marks hanging over the ethics of such practices. Will the world come to rejoice in the advent of BCIs, or will it one day come to regret their very inception?
