Neurotech, a field brimming with potential to revolutionize healthcare, is facing a unique challenge. While the past year has seen remarkable advancements, such as brain implants decoding speech and restoring sight, the debate surrounding its future is being distorted by some of its most famous investors.
Tech magnates like Elon Musk and Sam Altman, co-founder of OpenAI, have captured headlines with their ambitious, and some would say controversial, visions. Their focus on merging with AI and uploading brains to computers has raised concerns among experts.
"It's distorting the debate a lot," says Marcello Ienca, a neuroethics professor. "There is this long-term concern regarding the narratives they use."
Michael Hendricks, a neurobiology professor, adds, "Rich people fascinated with these dumb transhumanist ideas are muddying the waters. Neuralink, for instance, is doing legitimate neuroscience, but then Musk talks about telepathy."
The neurotech game is going mainstream, with Silicon Valley firms like Apple and Meta investing in wearable devices that leverage neural data. Google's neural mapping project and Meta's acquisition of Ctrl Labs are further examples.
These technologies offer near-term solutions for neurological issues like ALS and Parkinson's. However, their investors' end goals sometimes seem misaligned. Musk, for example, has spoken about "uploading memories" and "downloading them into a new body." Altman, while more subdued, has blogged about the impending "merge" between humans and machines, suggesting genetic engineering or plugging an electrode into the brain.
But here's where it gets controversial: experts like Hendricks and Ienca argue that brain uploading is not only unrealistic but also probably impossible in the foreseeable future. "Biological systems are not like computers," Hendricks emphasizes.
The concern is that these far-fetched narratives could hinder actual health advances. Kristen Mathews, a lawyer specializing in mental privacy, warns that "sci-fi hype could trigger regulation that hinders helpful technological advances."
Hervé Chneiweiss, a neuroscientist who chaired an expert panel advising UNESCO on global neurotechnology standards, agrees. "It's completely unrealistic, and it's hiding the real questions."
The neurotechnology frontier can be divided into three distinct categories. The first, medical devices, offers the most powerful advances, from restoring senses to treating neurodegenerative diseases. These devices, however, are tightly regulated and less advanced than some media reports suggest.
The second category, consumer wearables, presents a regulatory challenge. While there have been concerns about privacy-invasive brain-measuring devices, such as China's EEG helmets, the evidential robustness of these systems is limited, according to Ienca. Hendricks adds that devices like EEG earphones are unlikely to be effective surveillance tools due to noisy and unreliable data.
The third category, science-fiction efforts like brain uploading, often assumes healthy people would voluntarily get invasive brain implants. This assumption is questionable, and even if it were to happen, it's unclear if the resulting surveillance would be significantly more useful than the data big tech companies already have, Hendricks argues.
"We have so many ways to influence people through language and visual media," he says. "I don't think brain implants would catch up for a long time."
As for brain uploading, Hendricks attributes the idea to those in technology who "think about computers too much." He believes that most people would instinctively reject the idea as absurd.
And this is the part most people miss: while neurotech holds immense promise, it's crucial to separate the realistic from the fantastical. The debate surrounding its future should be driven by ethical considerations and a focus on actual health benefits, not science-fiction hype.
