Machine Brain Interface is one of
the most fascinating fields of neuroscience today as it continues to grow in
popularity amongst major neuroscientists and medical care providers. What once
was considered sci-fi is now a reality and though the field is exciting and
growing, it comes with many concerns and ethical dilemmas.
In
Soekedar et al’s paper “Brain-Machine Interfaces in Neurorehabilitation of
Stroke” researchers analyzed the various methodologies that employ brain-machine
interfaces to help rehabilitate stroke victims. They discuss two different
strategies that aim to use BMIs as a means of rehabilitation. The first strategy
being Functional Electrical Stimulation which allows one to bypass the orthodox
means of muscular stimulation through the corticospinal pathways and in turn
control a robotic device (Collinger et al., 2013). The second strategy being an attempt to nurture
the brain’s ability for neuroplasticity (Soekedar et al., 2011). In this
strategy, bio-signals are translated into brain-state-dependent transcranial
electric stimulation with hopes of increasing neuroplasticity. In 2014 an EEG-based Machine Brain interface system was used to treat a tetraplegic
successfully, giving further precedent as to how MBIs can be successful in
treating stroke victims. To treat stroke, a study done by Birbaumer and Cohen 2007
used SMR-based BMI that allowed for the severely affected stroke patient to
open and close their hands. This study proved that BMI has the potential to
become a regular treatment for stroke patients. The paper goes on to postulate
that both invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation by means of brain-machine
interface technology will ultimately be the future of medicine when treating these
neural deficits.
With the evidence for the benefit of Brain-Machine interfaces, there is another aspect to this field that must be explored. In class, Dr. Joseph Vukov presented on one of the hottest topics in neuroscience and the whole scientific world. In his talk, he referenced two articles, one discussing the infamous project of Elon Musk called Neuralink and another with a more general overview of the state of the Machine Brain interface today. As already discussed, we know that the brain-machine interface has already established itself as a legitimate treatment for neural diseases and deficits yet we must also consider the ethical implications of future uses of BMIs. Elon Musk and Neuralink have proposed the possibility of its BMI “fixing” disorders like ADHD or even obesity. The discussion in class revolved around the extent of BMI and how something like it can negatively impact not just a patient but society as a whole. The matter is very complicated and requires an interdisciplinary approach which would include ethics, philosophy, and science. I am personally very wary of advancements in machine brain Interfaces as I believe it can be detrimental the idea of what it means to be human. We are human because of our imperfections. Life itself would be boring without the problems we face on a daily basis. If something like neuralink became widely available to the public I believe it can be the start of the dystopian society, we often read about in sci-fi novels. Dr. Vukov made a distinction between BMIs that would be used for treatment and those that would be used for enhancement. The paper by Soekedar et al. illustrates the importance of BMIs for treatment in stroke victims and I believe this highlight what they should be used for. Ultimately the state will need to get involved in the regulation of BMIs, but we must focus on the therapeutic aspects of the technology now.
Surjo R. Soekadar, Niels Birbaumer, Marc W. Slutzky, Leonardo G. Cohen, Brain–machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke,Neurobiology of Disease,Volume 83,2015, Pages 172-179,
Drew, Liam. 2022. “The Brain-Reading Devices Helping Paralysed People to Move, Talk and Touch.” Nature 604 (7906): 416–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01047-w.
No comments:
Post a Comment