top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEveryday Med

The Future of Neural Implants



We’ve become more connected to technology than ever before. Especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic, billions rely on computers to work, travel, and just survive. However, cutting-edge developments in the biotech world may soon take this a step further, by melding machines with humanity itself. Brain implants may sound like science fiction: something found only in The Manchurian Candidate, or a Star Trek episode. Yet, what was science fiction just a few years ago is starting to become science fact. Companies such as Synchron and Neuralink, and even the U.S. military, are making great strides in designing and testing neural implants for human use. In fact, in a few decades, these accessories may be as ubiquitous as our cell phones are today. So, how exactly does this technology work, and how concerned should we be about these new developments?


Though neurons of the brain are biologically intricate, they can be simplified to nothing but human cells that communicate using electricity. From trillions of complex interactions between these electrical talkers emerges the human brain. Neural implants, placed directly in an organism’s nervous system, work by using electricity to stimulate, block, or record signals from these neurons (Waltz, 2020). In this way, brain implant technology can be used for countless applications, from circumventing brain damage, to direct mind-mind communication, to recording memories. Of course, if it were this simple, neural implants would already exist. The catch to this technology is that the implant must be able to send controlled electrical shocks to individual neurons and groups of neurons, both determining which neurons to interfere with throughout the entire brain, and exactly how to interfere with them. Furthermore, this interaction must be nearly instantaneous for most practical uses.


Neural implants are currently on the absolute cutting edge of biotechnology. This is why their exact mechanisms are so obscure: brain implant developers conceal their technology so that no one else can copy their work, and some of the technological solves for tech-to-neural communication just haven’t been ironed out yet.


However, primitive and simplified brain implants have been in development for decades. For example, the cochlear implant was invented in 1957, and was first used by humans in the 1970s (Hainarosie et al., 2014). The external part of the implant clips outside of the ear and picks up sound with a microphone. The internal section then relays these signals directly to the cochlear nerve, which carries auditory information to the brain. Bionic eyes, with similar but more complex mechanisms, are in development today (Merabet, 2011). With these extremely specialized brain implants, we see technology being used to directly manipulate nerves. The implants of the future can build upon this basic design to manipulate neurons on the scale of entire brains.

Since the 1970s, there have been several breakthroughs in the development of neural implants. In 1976, Dr. Edward Schmidt was able to record limited brain activity of rhesus monkeys for months at a time (Schmidt, 1976). More recently, scientists were able to train rats to control a robotic arm to bring it water, using nothing but the rats’ own thoughts (Chapin, 2008). Other researchers have attached electrode “backpacks” onto cockroaches to gain full control over their movements (Talmadoe, 2001). The U.S. Department of Defense has taken this a step further by researching remote-controlled “cyborg insects” (Schachtman, 2008). These insects could be piloted into hostile environments for reconnaissance and explosive detection, without risking human lives. As crazy as it seems, this technology is also being developed for underwater use in sharks. In 2016, researchers developed temporary neural implants for postoperative monitoring of the brain (Ahlberg, 2016). These new developments are impressive examples of how far implant technology is progressing.


However, the best evidence for the rapid evolution of brain implants comes from Elon Musk’s engineering company, Neuralink. Founded in 2016, this company is devoted to developing brain implants to treat nervous system damage and enhance the human species. On August 28, 2020, Elon Musk hosted a livestream in which he revealed Neuralink’s latest developments in implant technology. (Neuralink, 2020).


The star of the livestream, implant prototype Link V0.9, is far more advanced than any other brain-machine interface known to the public. It is composed of 1,024 electrodes, and is only 23 mm wide by 8 mm across. This is more than 100 times more intricate than other commercial implants. The big breakthrough, however, is the clandestine nature of the device. Previous designs always possessed an external, visible portion that was somewhat of an eyesore. However, since the Link V0.9 packs great processing power in a tiny frame, it can be placed inside the skull itself. In an automated surgical procedure, a robot would open a person’s skull, remove a small piece of bone, insert the electrodes directly into the brain, and close up the patient, all under an hour of operating time. The robot in question has already been partially developed. It scans the brain at the microscopic level to avoid puncturing any arteries or veins, and uses a sewing-like process to insert the electrodes into the cortex of the brain (with this proposed procedure, the patient could even leave the hospital the same day). The fact that this implant is the first to be placed entirely within the body is huge: in the words of Elon Musk, “I could have an implant right now and you wouldn’t know it.”


Musk and Neuralink were so confident about their design that they held a live demonstration. Two months previously, they inserted a Neuralink implant into a plucky test subject, Gertrude the pig. Though part of her skull had been replaced with electronics, Gertrude was lively and healthy, proving that the implant doesn’t have any significant short-term side effects. During the livestream, the electrodes detected firing from the neurons in Gertrude’s brain, processing sensory information from her snout. These signals were transferred to a monitor, where the audience could see a visual representation of her neural spikes, illustrating how Neuralink can “read” the firings of the brain. Other pigs were even given two Neuralink implants, and showed no adverse symptoms. However, Musk did not give a live demonstration of Neuralink “writing” to the brain, meaning the implant influencing the firing of neurons. Presumably, this technology has not been fully developed yet.


Musk ended the livestream by announcing the Link V0.9 had received the designation of “FDA breakthrough device” in July. This designation allows the company to start human trial experimentation (FDA, 2018), and Neuralink is currently preparing for human implantation. Finally, Musk reiterated the great potential for the Link V0.9 and its descendants. The devices could be used to cure any number of disorders of the brain and spinal cord, including memory loss, hearing loss, blindness, paralysis, depression, insomnia, anxiety, extreme pain, addiction, strokes, seizures, and brain damage.


This list includes several rare disorders, such as blindness and paralysis. However, nearly everyone experiences anxiety and memory loss at some point in their lives. With this potential to help literal billions of people, Neuralink and its technology at first glance seem like the greatest innovation of the 21st century. However, there are plenty of disturbing questions and ethical concerns to be considered, before we irreversibly fuse ourselves with machinery.


Firstly, our emotions and actions are nothing but the product of the neurons firing in our heads. If brain implants can control these firings, it follows that they can influence how we feel and what we do. How can we ensure Neuralink (or some other entity) will not tamper with our minds after implantation? It is very easy to imagine a dystopian world in which an unseen power gains dominance over the human race through these methods. No one with an implant would be able to overcome this, since the brain implants would override the very will to resist. And even if the original manufacturer turns out to be benign, the security of the implants would be of the utmost importance, so that a third party could not hack into them. According to Neuralink, “privacy and security are top priorities.” However, the consequences of a breach in security of an implant is unimaginably higher than that of, say, a smartphone or computer. A compromised system could lead to millions of deaths and ruined lives. Does a sufficient level of security exist to justify this risk?


Even more disturbingly, Elon Musk and others have suggested that, as neural implant technology and artificial intelligence develop, the two could be combined, allowing for extreme human enhancement. As neural implants incorporate the abilities of artificial intelligence, the following AI-human symbiosis could be amazingly beneficial for humanity. Yet, it could just as easily spell our doom. Firstly, the artificial intelligence could hijack the implant for its own use, disregarding the human ‘host.” Or, the reverse could happen. Those enhanced by implants might become so successful that a new species develops entirely, with unique abilities, emotions, and values. These super-powered individuals would be able to athletically outcompete normal humans, and run circles around them intellectually, with the computational power of a machine. This could cause the creation of an entire new social class of brain-implanted individuals, ruling over those without neural implant technology.


Disregarding these extreme scenarios, the future of brain implantation still has ethical wrinkles. For example, if a person opts to record his/her memories with an implant, who controls these memories? Are they the property of the human they were experienced by, or the company capturing and storing them? What happens to them after their original creator dies? Should law enforcement be allowed to access these memories to solve crimes? If so, should the government tap into these memory banks as a part of general surveillance, to prevent future catastrophes and deaths? Should people be able to “sell” their memories to others, or buy artificial memories? These questions barely scratch the surface of the consequences of implantation.


With all of these massive ethical concerns, it is important to realize that widespread brain implant technology is still most likely decades away. Though Musk states that his company’s designs will improve by “orders of magnitude” in the coming years, there are still many problems Neuralink and others face. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to choose proper materials for neural implants, since the designs must be functionally sound and yet not rejected by the body’s immune system (Chen, 2018). Though the Link V0.9 has been proven to work for a couple months in pigs, it can’t yet hold up to decades of use. Then there is the problem of controlling the neurons of the brain. Though current technology is easily able to stimulate neurons, influencing millions of them in exactly the right ways at once seems an impossibly complicated task. And implants have not yet penetrated beyond the cortex, or the first 4 mm of the brain’s surface. Manipulation of deeper tissues will require further innovation. Even if these problems are taken care of, years of extensive testing and experimental trials will be needed before a design is put on the commercial market.


Whether the technology arises in ten years or fifty years, neural implants are definitely coming. And as Musk states himself, “This is obviously sounding increasingly like a Black Mirror episode. Well, I guess they’re pretty good at predicting.” The ethical complications and potential fallout of this technology needs to be fully considered now rather than later. Neural implants have the potential to save billions of lives. They also have the potential to end billions of lives. One thing is for sure: they will change the world as we know it forever.



References


Ahlberg, L. (2008). Tiny electronic implants monitor brain injury, then melt away. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/312684

Chapin, J. K. (2008). Robot Arm Controlled Using Command Signals Recorded Directly from Brain Neurons. SUNY Downstate Medical Center, https://www.downstate.edu/pharmacology/faculty/chapin.html

Chen, A. (2018). Why it’s so hard to develop the right material for brain implants. The Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/30/17408852/brain-implant-materials-neuroscience-health-chris-bettinger

Hainarosie, M., Zainea, V., & Hainarosie, R. (2014). The evolution of cochlear implant technology and its clinical relevance. Journal of medicine and life, 7 Spec No. 2(Spec Iss 2), 1–4.

Merabet L. B. (2011). Building the bionic eye: an emerging reality and opportunity. Progress in brain research, 192, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53355-5.00001-4

Neuralink. (2020). Neuralink Progress Update, Summer 2020 [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvmgjBL74w

Schachtman, N. (2008). Pentagon's Cyborg Insects All Grown Up. WIRED, https://www.wired.com/2008/03/for-years-now-p/

Schmidt, E. M., Bak, M. J., & McIntosh, J. S. (1976). Long-term chronic recording from cortical neurons. Experimental neurology, 52(3), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(76)90220-x

Talmadoe, E. (2001). Japan's latest innovation: a remote-control roach. Associated Press. https://www.wireheading.com/roboroach/


Written by Alex Borengasser

Edited by Devanandh Murugesan

Graphics by Tiya Shah

Group advised by Lakshmi Sriram




11 views0 comments

コメント


bottom of page