It has been a remarkable year for neurotechnology, with groundbreaking advancements such as a brain implant decoding the inner speech of paralysis patients in August and an eye implant restoring sight to the blind in October. However, experts caution that the sector’s progress is being overshadowed by the fantastical ambitions of its most prominent investors, including tech icons like Elon Musk and OpenAI’s Sam Altman.
Marcello Ienca, a professor of neuroethics at the Technical University of Munich, expressed concern over the narratives these investors are promoting. “It’s distorting the debate a lot,” Ienca noted, highlighting the long-term implications of their futuristic visions.
Michael Hendricks, a neurobiology professor at McGill University, echoed this sentiment, stating that wealthy individuals fascinated by “dumb transhumanist ideas” are clouding public understanding of neurotechnology’s true potential. “Neuralink is doing legitimate technology development for neuroscience, and then Elon Musk comes along and starts talking about telepathy and stuff,” Hendricks remarked.
The Rise of Neurotechnology Investments
Silicon Valley’s interest in neurotechnologies has surged, with significant investments from major players. In August, Sam Altman co-founded Merge Labs, a direct competitor to Musk’s Neuralink. Tech giants Apple and Meta are also developing wearable devices that utilize neural data—Meta with a wristband and Apple with EEG headphones.
According to Ienca, most of the major U.S. tech companies are now involved in neurotechnology research. Google is working on a neural mapping project, while Meta recently acquired Ctrl Labs. “The neurotech game is really in the process of going mainstream,” Ienca stated.
Potential vs. Investor Ambitions
Despite the promising therapeutic applications of neurotechnology, such as treating ALS, Parkinson’s, and paralysis, there is concern that investor ambitions do not align with these medical goals. Musk has speculated that brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink’s could someday allow people to “upload [their] memories” and transfer them into new bodies or robots. Altman has also discussed the potential “merge” between humans and machines.
However, experts like Hendricks and Ienca argue that such technologies are far from feasible. “Biological systems are not like computers,” Hendricks emphasized, suggesting that brain uploading might be impossible in the foreseeable future.
Regulatory Concerns and Sci-Fi Narratives
The speculative nature of these narratives could hinder real medical advancements by prompting regulators to impose broad, fear-driven laws. Kristen Mathews, a lawyer specializing in mental privacy issues, warned that “sci-fi hype could trigger regulation that would hinder advances in technology that would otherwise have the potential to really help people who need help.”
Hervé Chneiweiss, a neuroscientist who chaired a panel advising Unesco on global neurotechnology standards, agreed, stating that these unrealistic ideas obscure critical questions. “It’s completely unrealistic, and it’s hiding the real questions,” Chneiweiss said.
Categories of Neurotechnology
Neurotechnology can be categorized into three distinct areas: medical devices, consumer wearables, and speculative science-fiction projects. Medical devices, such as brain implants that decode speech or Neuralink’s electronic chip for controlling computers, offer the most significant potential for treating neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders. However, these devices are highly regulated and less advanced than media portrayals suggest.
Consumer wearables present a more complex regulatory challenge. Reports of privacy-invasive devices, like China’s EEG helmets, have raised concerns, but their effectiveness and potential for surveillance remain questionable. “The evidential robustness of the systems is very limited,” Ienca noted.
Science-fiction applications, such as brain-uploading startups or efforts to link brains to computers, rely on the premise that healthy individuals would opt for invasive brain implants. Yet, Hendricks argues that such surveillance would not surpass the data already collected by tech companies through other means.
The Future of Neurotechnology
As for the concept of brain uploading, Hendricks criticized the idea as stemming from a misunderstanding of biological systems. “If I could really be uploaded to be made immortal in a computer, then I should be happy to just kill myself right now as long as someone tells me, like, oh, you’re living in that metal box over there,” he said, highlighting the absurdity of the notion.
While the future of neurotechnology holds immense promise for medical advancements, experts urge a focus on realistic goals rather than speculative fantasies. The ongoing debate underscores the need for balanced narratives that prioritize genuine health benefits over sensationalized visions of merging humans with machines.
