Future of Computer-Brain Interfacing

Brain-computer interfacing has quickly turned from science fiction to science fact. Imagine a patient, once paralyzed and unable to communicate, is now able to text on their own. Companies like Synchron are doing exactly this. They have been successful in enhancing the quality of life for patients by restoring lost functions. However, companies like Elon Musk’s Neuralink aim to surpass this. Their goal is to enhance natural human abilities. This application outside of the medical field raises significant ethical questions, and the potential for this powerful technology to be abused, and therefore, brain computer interfacing should be restricted to the medical field.

 

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are technologies that allow people to control external devices directly with their brain activity. This bypasses the need for physical movement and is focused on helping people who have neurodegenerative diseases. BCIs do not read thoughts. Instead, they capture specific patterns of neural activity for specific output through electrical signals. There are two different types of BCIs: invasive and non-invasive. These interfaces both have significant potential applications, specifically in the medical field, but invasive (implantable) BCIs have been more accurate and effective in restoring lost functions due to having a direct pathway to the brain’s signals. (University of Calgary). Both Synchron and Neralink are competitors, but with very different goals. Synchron is a pioneering company in BCI technology, focused on developing minimally invasive solutions for patient-device interaction. Neuralink, co-founded by Elon Musk, aspires to enhance human capabilities and push the technology's potential beyond medical applications.

 

Brain-computer interfacing has been successfully implanted in patients with paralysis or neurodegenerative diseases to improve their quality of life. Synchron has ten patients with successful implants, allowing them to control a phone, a computer, and compose emails. These BCIs have been successful in giving patients independence over their own lives. A Synchron patient, Mark, told CNN, “It’s an opportunity for a piece of technology to help someone that will not be able to help themselves otherwise.”  Another Synchron patient was able to write a book using his BCI. BCIs are giving patients the opportunity to leave a state of isolation and interact with the world around them. With a 97% accuracy in decoding messages from BCIs, they provide optimism and hope for these patients. 

 

Abuse of this powerful technology could lead to altering the qualities that define humans through enhancement beyond natural abilities. For example, Neuralink has also been successful in implanting a BCI in one patient to help regain functions, but Elon Musk’s goal for the company is to enhance human abilities. He says, "We have our little meat sticks that we move very slowly and push buttons or tap a little screen...and that's extremely slow," (CNN). By describing physical human features as “meat sticks,” he is degrading existing physical human abilities and abilities of intelligence. Dramatic enhancements of memory or processing speed and merging human minds with computers could change the very meaning of what it means to be a human. It also raises the question of whether it is ethical to enhance human abilities past existing natural ones.

 

In addition to the possible changes in what it means to be human, BCI applications beyond the medical field bring along ethical concerns and negative future implications. Existing public concerns include informed consent, privacy risks, accessibility, device maintenance, and further societal impact. There are already concerns that BCIs could have hacking risks that could directly affect human brains and their messages. Moreover, the future effect this would have on society remains unclear. With these risks already present in the experimental medical phase, the enhancements of human capabilities would further enhance these risks. If this technology becomes more widespread to enhance human capabilities, the accessibility gap would widen, and access would be prevented for people who truly need this technology. It would also give certain groups these enhancements with more money or power, favoring these groups and further tipping the scale of power dynamics in society. The power of BCIs would fundamentally change human interactions, affecting interactions with the world around us. 

 

Critics might argue that expanding BCI applications past the medical field is essential for innovation and that the possibilities outweigh the risks: human enhancements are not harmful but necessary. Even though this technology holds great promise, the ethical issues outweigh its potential advantages. There are ethical challenges in the experimental phases currently for BCIs, as stated in the paragraph above. Overlooking these ethical concerns, such as the accessibility gap and preventing patients who genuinely need it from accessing it, would enlarge them. Given the experimental stage of BCIs, they are still unpredictable, and there could always be complications. Therefore, launching this at a large scale far too soon would cause possible complications, overloading the research already being done. Finally, the enhancements could replace human characteristics and experiences that make humans, humans. 

 

Brain-computer interfaces have made significant progress in restoring independence and communication for patients with paralysis and neurodegenerative diseases, but their implications extend beyond medicine. Companies like Synchron focus on helping patients– they have helped these patients regain agency over their lives. However, this technology could lead to the next technological breakthrough, and companies like Neuralink aim to use this to enhance the abilities of humans, abusing this power. This technology must reach the patients and people who truly need it for a better life. As this technology continues to be developed, there needs to be a balance between innovation and ethical considerations. Given our current phase in this revolutionary research, I believe brain-computer interfacing should be reserved for the medical field.