Being trapped in your own body while fully conscious, being able to perceive everything but being unable to speak – it’s a horrible idea. A 36-year-old man, who could only make unintelligible moans and groans, survived after suffering a massive stroke. Then a chip was implanted in his brain and he managed to communicate again, at least in a very rudimentary way – just using the power of his thoughts.
An American research team recently reported on this case in the journal “Nature”. It is just one of many studies of so-called brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs for short. Researchers around the world are working on this technology, which uses mini-electrodes to record brain wave signals, transmit them to a computer and decipher thoughts. The hope is to empower severely paralyzed patients to live lives of dignity and self-determination.
In addition to universities, technology companies are also driving the development of brain implants, including Elon Musk, the richest person in the world. Last week, he announced that his company Neuralink’s brain implants should be ready for human testing in six months. In addition, the company mainly focuses on medical applications. But if it’s up to Musk, we’re all walking around with brain chips to fuse man and machine together. As stated on the company’s website, the long-term vision is to develop BCIs “so safe and powerful that the general public wants them.”
Meanwhile, experts warn that the technology should not be carelessly integrated into our daily lives. For example, Nita Farahany, a neuroethicist at Duke University, told the Wall Street Journal after Musk’s announcement, “Writing to the brain carries the great risk that our decisions and preferences will be manipulated and pushed aside.”
Everything we think, feel and experience is controlled by more than 86 billion nerve cells in our brain. To do this, the neurons must communicate with each other, and they do so using electrical impulses. This was discovered by the Italian naturalist Luigi Galvani in experiments on frogs in the 18th century: an electrical spark sent to a nerve activates a flaccid muscle. Electrodes implanted in the brain also measure these weak electrical signals.
In his research, electrical engineer and neuroscientist Ricardo Chavarriaga of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) examines how innovations can be promoted responsibly. He says:
Because, as history shows, our species ended up weaponizing almost every discovery or invention, from the atom to the virus. It is therefore true that the Organization for Development and Cooperation (OECD) and the European Parliament, among others, have already drawn up guidelines for dealing with the new technology in business and research.
Because even neurotechnology can be abused: A few years ago, Columbia University neurobiologist Rafael Yuste caused hallucinations in mice by stimulating their nerve cells. Why, he wondered with concern, could such brainwashing not also work on humans? Yuste is convinced that brain implants are a sensitive target to crack and manipulate our minds one day.
Or as the German neurophysiologist Pascal Fries puts it succinctly: “If I now use the radio as a mobile phone in the open air, then of course I also have the possibility that someone can break in.” The possibility of “brain hacking” has already been proven experimentally: In one experiment, for example, researchers “stole” a four-digit PIN from the brains of subjects wearing an over-the-counter headset that recorded brain activity.
While the scenario of mass mind manipulation still seems a long way off, exposing what we feel and think could lead to human rights violations, experts fear. Five years ago, ethicist Marcello Ienca of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) warned that neurotechnology has the potential to “threaten the freedom of the mind in an unprecedented way”. He elaborated that existing human rights may need to be expanded or clarified with so-called neurorights, including the right to cognitive freedom, the right to intellectual privacy and the right to intellectual integrity.
Such considerations have now reached the United Nations: only recently did the UN General Assembly pass a resolution to conduct an investigation to uncover potential human rights gaps. The resolution was driven by the NeuroRights Foundation, chaired by Rafael Yuste. It would not be the first time that human rights have been modified as a result of new technological developments: in 1997, new rights to protect personal genetic data were adopted as a result of the decoding of the human genome.
The demand for new human rights is understandable from a moral point of view, says Jan Christoph Bublitz of the University of Hamburg, who conducts research at the intersection of philosophy, law and cognitive science. But he resents the way the debate is conducted in some circles: with much fanfare, much symbolism and the urge for immediate action. “It is important to distinguish between science fiction and reality. But that’s not always done because science fiction gets better headlines,” says Bublitz.
Neurotechnology indeed offers worrying opportunities. But a well-founded scientific evaluation is needed: “Do we have another year or ten years before neurotechnology starts to influence our daily lives? It’s an incredibly important question because it drives the debate,” Bublitz said. His verdict: “We don’t have an acute problem.” Human rights provide comprehensive protection for the person and don’t currently need to be supplemented.
Because for him it is clear:
Like other legal scholars, he warns of an “inflation of rights and the ensuing devaluation”. If every concern were ennobled by a new human right, they would lose their effectiveness.
Neurotechnology already alarmed the public in the Cold War era. At the time, approaches to reprogramming the brain and overcoming free will were being considered. However, the horror of the brainwashing soon faded when it became clear that the idea was utopian.
It is difficult to estimate what neurotechnology is capable of, once again. This often leads to a dilemma, named after the British sociologist and technology assessment pioneer David Collingridge. The “Collingridge dilemma” states that in the early stages of a new technology, not enough is known about its potentially harmful consequences. By the time the consequences become apparent, the technology is already so ingrained in society that it can no longer be changed, regulated or controlled.
An example of this is social media. Founded in the early 2000s, it was completely unknown how they would change our lives. Now, twenty years later, we know the negative consequences, ranging from the spread of fake news to political polarization and the emergence of filter bubbles. “Will we be able to understand all the effects of neurotechnology early enough to intervene if necessary?” neuroscientist Ricardo Chavarriaga wonders. His answer: “I don’t know. But many of us are struggling to find ways to address the potential risks.”
Source: Blick
I am Ross William, a passionate and experienced news writer with more than four years of experience in the writing industry. I have been working as an author for 24 Instant News Reporters covering the Trending section. With a keen eye for detail, I am able to find stories that capture people’s interest and help them stay informed.
