Opinion Express View on Neuralink human trials: Mind and matter

With Neuralink, as with so many of Elon Musk’s ventures, it is important to separate science from speculation, product development from wishful thinking. Musk announced on X (formerly Twitter) on January 30 that “The first human received an implant from @Neuralink yesterday and is recovering well. Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.” Given that Neuralink had received approval from the US Food & Drug Administration in September last year, the announcement was somewhat expected. Last year, there was controversy over the company’s disclosures, which led to investigations into dead study animals and the transportation of hazardous materials. The surgery, however, marks an important milestone — the beginning of human-computer interfaces that can possibly address physical and cognitive limitations and disabilities. Moving forward, who controls the technology and how it is distributed will be important in determining its impact.

Neuralink is building on work done by laboratories and companies that came before it — the first Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) dates back to the 1970s. The wireless device implanted by Neuralink contains a chip and arrays of electrodes, which are meant to register thoughts related to movement. Eventually, if successful, the device should enable people with disabilities to move a cursor or type just by thinking about it. The initial users are likely to be people who have lost their limbs. But as with SpaceX and Tesla, the claims made by Musk around Neuralink’s BCI make it seem like the science fiction future is now. Musk envisions a future where Neuralink’s brain implants seamlessly merge with cognitive functions, offering a direct interface between the human mind and computers. Whether or not this comes to pass, it is important to approach the technological frontier with a discerning eye.

Advertisement

The first concern is around privacy. Who will control the data extracted from brains, and how can it be ensured that it is not exploited for nefarious purposes? As with AI, regulation must go hand-in-hand with the development of BCIs. Second, the development of significant medical technologies must not end up being a monopoly — publicly-funded research can help minimise the cost to the end user, who need not be only a customer who can afford the prohibitive cost of cutting-edge interventions. The Oxford Astra-Zeneca Covid vaccine, for example, was developed with public funds from multiple countries, and arguably reached far more people than its private-sector counterparts. Finally, if and when the technology gets closer to mass use, a dialogue involving experts, ethicists, and the public is essential to guard against its misuse, or even enthusiastic over-use. BCIs represent a potential paradigm shift in the relationship between people and technology. Its pitfalls, though, must be avoided.