8/5/2024
It’s 2024, and the race for brain-computer interface supremacy is heating up. It’s been nearly a decade since Elon Musk founded Neuralink, but they have finally begun human trials. To advance to the next stage of technological evolution, all Neuralink has to do is successfully implant their chips in human brains.
And so they did. Early in the year, a team of neurosurgeons successfully implanted Neuralink’s brain-computer interface, dubbed “The Link,” in Noland Arbaugh, a 30-year-old quadriplegic man. After the clinical trial, Arbaugh could control a computer cursor using thoughts. Looking back at the footage of the initial demonstrations, you can see the audience’s stunned silence as Arbaugh moved the cursor across the screen.
This achievement was made possible by technological advancements in miniaturization and neural encoding. Neuralink’s device, a coin-sized chip with hair-thin electrodes, is inserted directly into the brain. It was designed to process neural signals and translate them into digital commands, potentially restoring mobility and communication for those with severe disabilities.
While Neuralink has helped push the remarkable boundaries of neurotechnology, it has also brought a certain level of ethical concern to brain-computer interfaces. Patients can’t fully comprehend the long-term implications of having such a device implanted; they have to trust the assurances provided by Neuralink. The pitfalls of this technology have been debated repeatedly throughout medical ethics conferences.
In a recent Forbes interview, leading Columbia neurobiologist Dr. Rafael Yuste raised concerns about the technology’s potential misuse due to the lack of regulation. While some medical researchers acknowledged that Neuralink intends to help those with neurological conditions, Neuralink interrupted the usual pace of medical device approval. Knowing that external forces can access or manipulate your thoughts isn’t good, especially without the medical board’s thorough discussion and approval. This rapid development makes the scientific community concerned about the ethics of brain-computer interfaces.
More recently, Arbaugh’s case has brought up some challenges this pioneering technology faces. A setback occurred when around 85% of the device’s tendrils slipped out of Arbaugh’s brain. The current technology relies on these threads to interpret specific neural signals related to movement and essential communication, making these threads crucial for the device’s functionality. This issue was somewhat concerning, seeing as Arbaugh lost control of the cursor when only about 15% of the threads remained in place.
Neuralink’s setbacks overshadow their actual achievements. Instead of focusing on the remarkable progress in assisting those with paralysis, the public discourse shifted to concerns about the technology’s reliability and safety. However, in a recent interview with WIRED, Arbaugh remained upbeat, saying, “I think it’s a real possibility, and it’s a real bright future.“
Issues such as these bring up the question of Neuralink’s ethical standing. Technology is advancing at a pace that exceeds our ability to grasp its implications, yet its development continues unabated. Looking at the potential applications Neuralink provides, the public agrees that more evidence about ethical boundaries needs to be established. Brain-computer interfaces need concise regulations and ethical guidelines, as with any other groundbreaking innovation.
As Neuralink announces its recruitment for a second human subject for its clinical trials, the landscape of brain-computer interface technology continues to evolve. While setbacks like Arbaugh’s case underscore the need for improvement, the company is determined to refine its technology. As Neuralink pushes boundaries, the world anticipates potential breakthroughs for neurological patients while grappling with the technology’s ethical implications.