In the past 3 years, there has there is promise for neurological technological advances. Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla, Inc. and discusses the neurochip, which he thinks can cure neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s, at the disposibility of an Apple Watch. The company, called Neuralink, is facing surgical issues, as the electrodes are “too small for a person to handle” (Kay). As of now, the chips are being tested on monkeys, and Neuralink has been teasing human trials since 2019. Musk did not give much context to the success of the monkey trials, which brings the question of neuroethics. On the Neuralink website, Musk states, “ We’re designing the first neural implant that will let you control a computer or mobile device anywhere you go. Micron-scale threads are inserted into areas of the brain that control movement. Each thread contains many electrodes and connects them to an implant, the Link”. The Neuralink website does not even list the potential benefits of the chip besides being able to control IOS and Apple devices via the brain. The lack of information and varying benefits raise eyebrows on how neurologically ethical Neuralink can will be. Additionally, Musk has been cited for ethical workplace violations within Tesla, Inc., with massive product recalls and workers’ rights violations. How will this bode for ethics going to the healthcare field?
Although Musk’s technological advancements come with concerns about neuroethics and overall success, a new technology has arisen. In the other news articles, a patient recounts his experience with his Brain Computer Interface, which allowed him to use a prosthetic arm. There is limited research on BCI, but all patients who have used the technology have improved fine motor movements. This shows promise for the future of brain trauma.
While both situations thoroughly explained and exemplified the future of neuroscience technology, there are many questions pertaining to the realm of neuroethics that remains. How will these technologies be tested before the human level? Is there any way these can be employed cruelty-free? How will these technologies be kept from large companies to keep healthcare accessible, or make it even more accesible? Will these be insurance-approved? How will these be implemented in clinical research institutions or hospitals?
As the Brain Research through Advancing Neurotechnologyies, better known as the BRAIN Initiative moves forward at a rapid pace increasing attention has focused on neuroethics. The BRAIN Initiative called more increased diversity in human patients, and that “ As such, consideration should be given to insuring that diverse populations of subjects are welcome to participate in studies, and that researchers from diverse backgrounds have research opportunities where their background and experience can impact study design and data analysis. To the greatest extent possible, all neuroscience research should be developed in an equitable manner” (Eberwine and Kahn 2020). Oftentimes in research, studies will have a target demographic, or will focus on mechanistic research, disregarding big-picture diversity completely. Including diversity in subjects will all everyone to benefit from the research being conducted. In non-human research, such as primates, there are ethical issues of suffering and conciousness that arise when these animals are being used for their genetic and physiological parallels to humans. The BRAIN Initiave calls for careful assessment, stating, “In particular, the ethics frameworks for using NHPs in research should be carefully assessed and updated as necessary when the research involves research models that approximate human brain function” (Eberwine and Kahn 2020). They ultimately conclude that there should be a greater integration of neuroethics in neuroscience.
This conclusion indicates that while the neuroscience world grows in more innovative and advanced technology, it is imperative to ensure that this is done as ethically as possible, so that everyone can receive the benefits of the growing and ever-evolving world of neuroscience without facing any repercussions or disparities. When this happens, we will be able to implement these new forms of technology in a more widespread manner, such as in clinical laboratories, or even hospitals.
Literature Referenced
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.
Eberwine, James, and Jeffrey Kahn. (2020, July) The Brain Initiative and Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society. Taylor & Francis, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21507740.2020.1778121.
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.
Perrone, Alex. “Tesla Accused of Worker Rights Violations: What Is Known?” Endurance Warranty, 10 Sept. 2020, https://www.endurancewarranty.com/learning-center/news/tesla-worker-rights-violations/.
Studio, Play. “Approach.” Neuralink, https://neuralink.com/approach/.
No comments:
Post a Comment