As a rising senior at Loyola Chicago, I have had the great privilege of attending a Neuroscience Seminar class hosted by Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Director in Neuroscience, Dr.Robert Morrison. At the last seminar presentation for my Spring 2022 semester, students and those in attendance for the talk had the opportunity to be introduced to two articles which cover the Neuralink brain chip engineered by Elon Musk and a clinical trial of a brain-computer interface (BCI). During this last seminar meeting, Dr.Joseph Vukov, Director of Graduate Studies and Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Loyola Chicago, led a fascinating discussion titled “Does Neuralink Help or Hinder Humanity?” which further analyzes the core ideas and ethics behind brain chips such as the Neuralink.
Now, having a childhood and growing up during the early 2000’s, I remember watching many science fiction movies which entail a basis of disaster due to factors such as brain implants or brain chips (if you will). Naturally, when I saw the topic of discussion, I had a mini heart attack and thought “oh great– so it begins.” Funny enough though, the Neuralink is a chip introduced by Musk as a medical device (and not so much as a genesis for the destruction of human existence).
The two articles discussed by Dr.Vukov are “Elon Musk says Neuralink's brain chip will be 'similar in complexity level to smart watches'” written by Grace Kay and “The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch” written by Liam Drew.
In “Elon Musk says Neuralink’s brain chip will be ‘similar in complexity level to smart watches’ by Grace Kay, Kay shares that Musk had drawn a correlation between Neuralink and a smartwatch/phone back in 2020 which he had said would be able to do anything from curing neurological diseases like Parkinson’s to helping people communicate through text/voice messages. Grace Kay includes that Musk more recently exhibited that the brain chip could also help treat morbid obesity and that the company was on track to launch human trials in transition from implanting chips in monkeys. In the second article written by Liam Drew, Drew shares the story of patient James Johnson who, in 2017, broke his neck and incidentally remained paralysed almost completely below the shoulders in a go-carting accident. In 2018, researchers from California Institute of Technology (Caltech) invited James Johnson to participate in a clinical trial of brain-computer interface (BCI). It seems that results enabled James Johnson to be able to control and move around a cursor on a computer screen merely by thinking. Researchers from CalTech implanted two grids of electrodes into his cortex via neurosurgery which record neurons in the brain as they fire, then using algorithms, researchers could decode James Johnson’s thoughts and intentions. After time, James Johnson was able to control a robotic arm, use Photoshop, play video games, and even drive a simulated car through a virtual environment. Liam Drew includes how James Johnson is one out of 35 people who have had a BCI implanted long-term in the brain. Other creators of BCI chips such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Blackrock Neurotech, and Synchron, are conscientious of the overlapping issues which may arise when launching these devices to the public. Some of these issues include the ability of the device to be able to function properly without professionals overseeing and “babysitting” the individuals and if that, making sure that the device will work properly from one person to the next since every person is different. Liam Drew concludes his article with the argument of ethical oversight: privacy and personal autonomy alike.
This is the approach that Dr.Joseph Vukov led concerning the brain chips. During his talk, Dr.Vukov mentions an important aspect of the devices because there is no way to be absolutely sure when you can turn the device on or off.. Dr.Vukov states “sometimes people I don’t feel quite like myself when the tremor is gone,” hinting at the idea that people question their identity when they use the device to resolve their health issues like tremors.
In an article posted on March 30th, 2022 by Jim Hammerand, Hammerand discusses the BCI technology manufactured by the Synchron company, called the Synchron Stentrode brain implant. What makes this BCI different from the others is the way the Stentrode is implanted: instead of having neurosurgery done, the Stentrode is delivered by catheter. It expands inside of a blood vessel on the brain, sending motor signals where another device in the chest translates the signals into laptop computer commands. Inside of Jim Hammerand’s article “Synchron says study shows safety of its brain-computer interface implant,” a quote by Dr.Thomas Oxley, co founder and Ceo of Synchron, reiterates and makes sure to proclaim that this device is an endovascular approach of BCI implants which allows patients to accomplish online tasks without invasive surgery.
Though Synchron's approach is less invasive than Elon Musk's implant via neurosurgery, the ethical issue which Dr.Vukov brings up is still a question for concern. Dr.Vukov speaks with an emphasis on the idea that the companies who implant the devices would have the ability to access every single aspect of our thoughts and have the ability to threaten the dignity of human activity. Alongside the moral/ethical issue of individuality, is the huge disadvantage which most people will face, of not being able to afford the BCI devices. Meaning those people who actually need the device will not have access to it. After reading a few articles about BCI’s, I definitely feel that the idea behind the device for medical use is pretty amazing and a huge advancement in medicine for patients who suffer from paralyzation and other life altering neurological diseases.
I think that artificial alterations and manipulation to the brain should be more spoken about and deeply discussed between those who are open to receiving the device and the creators of the device as well.
Perhaps for a future direction and when researchers advance more into this subject of brain-computer interfaces, the ethical questions of distribution of the devices and invasively collecting information alongside the issue of individual efficiency may be answered. These devices provide a promising treatment for those who are in absolute need of the device contrary to those patients who may only want the device as a form of enhancement.
Work Cited
Drew, Liam. “The Brain-Reading Devices Helping Paralysed People to Move, Talk and Touch.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 20 Apr. 2022, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01047-w.
Hammerand, Jim. “Synchron Says Study Shows Safety of Its Brain-Computer Interface Implant.” Medical Design and Outsourcing, 31 Mar. 2022, https://www.medicaldesignandoutsourcing.com/synchron-study-safety-stentrode-brain-computer-interface-implant-catheter/.
Kay, Grace. “Elon Musk Says Neuralink's Brain Chip Will Be 'Similar in Complexity Level to Smart Watches'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 25 Apr. 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/elon- musk-neuralink-brain-chip-similar-complexity-smartwatch-2022-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment