It is hard not to feel sympathy for those who are unable to act on their own due to some form of paralysis. Whether they were born with a condition or a catastrophic event occurred, leaving them without the ability to take care of themselves independently, it becomes a lifelong struggle. For many of these people, one of their main desires are to do simple tasks without needing the aid of others, to take back control of their own bodies. From the development of science and technology together, these desires can soon be turned into a reality, specifically using BCI technology (Brain- Computer Interface). However, the main question from the outside looking in, is how ethical are these systems? It is not a question regarding wanting to help the paralyzed become more independent, but whether these BCI systems are the ethical way to approach these situations. BCI technology usually follows a long term invasive procedure, however, newer research has potentially brought a less invasive approach to the same technology. Regardless of which approach each BCI technology devices concurs, how far is the market willing to push in order to achieve a widespread success for those in paralysis.
BCI technology has been around for decades, trying to perfect its implications for humans specifically (Kawala-Sterniuk et al., 2021). With the continued growth from where BCI began until now, the market for this technology is at an all time high. The newest form of growth comes from entrepreneur Elon Musk and his company Neuralink, comparing their own brain chips to a smartwatch. According to Musk, the same brain chip will also "cure neurological diseases like Parkinson's to help people communicate through text or voice messages" (Kay, 2022). In time, these brain chips will be the ultimate direct link of humans to computers. Whether the brain chip predictions reign true or not, is the extent of their possibilities appropriate for the outcome? Is it ethical to turn humans into beings with chips in their brain?
Many questions arise from such a topic since it can be highly controversial. However, take a step back and look at the long run of these technology devices. It is very possible that within the implantation of these BCI technology devices, we lose the person that is underneath their paralysis. Yes, the technology uses the person's thoughts to control its actions and movements, however, this person's thoughts are always visible to the public. Their privacy is no longer available to them because that is the only way these BCI devices can function. As assumed, the greater amount of BCI implants throughout different parts of the brain, the more access and better control of these skills (Drew, 2022). So if someone with paralysis wants to have the best version of BCI technology, then it is required to have all the electrode implantations that come with it. If they don't want the majority of their brain to be filled with electrodes, then unfortunately, they can't have the best version of BCI; clearly it becomes very one sided.
Not only does BCI technology question the personal implications of the people that are implanted, but also the responsibility of these devices. BCI conducts its movements from neuron firing and signaling through a person's thoughts. Therefore, those who are implanted must control their thoughts at all times to ensure nothing bad occurs from any negative thoughts. If these people are expected to drive cars and act independently, who is to say they don't experience an aggressive reaction or a bad thought and their BCI device acts upon those neurons firing. What happens if these individuals experience road rage and accidentally think about speeding up into the back of a car that just cut them off on the street, who is to blame and how do we know if those thoughts occurred if they are just thoughts? The reliability of these technology devices lie within a fine line. Again, this is technology which has the possibility of malfunctioning. So what is supposed to happen at the times of struggle if these paralyzed people are now independent functioning individuals?
The original idea of BCI technology was made in the perspective of helping those in need the most. In recent years as the development of these devices have grown, it has turned more into a race of who can produce BCI technology the fastest to begin its trail on the market rather in laboratories. With funding in the hundreds of billions, this race doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. In time, these brain chips won't only be available for people with neurological defects or paralysis. More and more, people will begin to be closer linked to technology ever before. How close will too close be?
Coin, A., Mulder, M., & Dubljević, V. (2020). Ethical aspects of BCI technology: What is the State of the art? Philosophies, 5(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040031
Drew, L. (2022, April 20). The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch. Nature News. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01047-w
Kawala-Sterniuk, A., Browarska, N., Al-Bakri, A., Pelc, M., Zygarlicki, J., Sidikova, M., Martinek, R., & Gorzelanczyk, E. J. (2021, January 3). Summary of over fifty years with brain-computer interfaces-A Review. Brain sciences. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7824107/#:~:text=The%20very%20first%20tests%20with,2000%20%5B2%2C18%5D.
Kay, G. (2022, April 25). Elon Musk says Neuralink's brain chip will be 'similar in complexity level to Smart watches'. Business Insider. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-chip-similar-complexity-smartwatch-2022-4
No comments:
Post a Comment