A pondering on brain-computer interfaces

In particular the FDA aproving Neuralink testing on humans

I often stop to think about my resistance and reluctance to brain-computer interfaces (BCI). I ponder if it is because I see no grown-ups in the room when it comes to technology and how it is delivered to human beings.

We have access to technology that ‘should’ make life easier, more enjoyable, less stressful, inviting opportunities for all to be able to acheive their potential whatever that may be.

In reality what often happens is that we have not moved on from the 8 hour factory, manual labour working, instead doing more, more, more , more, but utilising our brains and central nervous system for heavily loaded cogntiive tasks that to be completely frank we simply do not have the energy for.

Then when people are unwell, get sick, burn out, can’t achieve, they are seen as the failures, the weak, the just did not work hard enough tribe.

Elon Musk has spoken out (a lot) about the possibilities that are available for humanity through Neuralink.

As well as potentially ‘curing’ many conditions and diseases (I will go on to that a little later) he proclaims the ability to augment human neural cognitive capacity to new heights and new domains including the skill of telepathy.

So, finally, the company has been given approval to test on humans.

I am not sure I would want to be one of the humans tested.

Neuralink has killed more than 1,500 animals since 2018.

Rats, pigs, monkeys and mice all being collateral damage in this quest to improve human brain capacity.

As a scientist who has researched I know that there can be untimely endings to test animals, however Neuralink is being investigated for alledged unnecessary deaths and careless experiments.

It is really important that we think about the ethics and culture surrounding careless experiments. We really need to care, a lot. Caring about what we are doing is so important, then we really will pay more attention to detail and be alert when things are not going to plan.

I am really unsure if the means justify the ends, especially when in the intent and purpose of Neuralink is to connect human brains with computers, Should cruelty and malpractice be allowed or cultivated when the company is endeavouring to in effect to interface technology internally with what makes humans, human?

Let’s consider some of the ‘conditions’ that Neuralink wants to ‘treat’ - obesity, autism, depression, schizophrenia.

The issue with this is that all these conditions do not just have biological mechanisms underpinning them.

There are no definitive pathological single causes of any of those conditions.

They are all subjected to many hypothetical and opinionated theories of what ‘causes’ them.

There are no single theories that say the brain needs ‘fixing’ by interfacing with a computer.

And.

This is a huge AND.

We need to be really careful about setting standards of what socially acceptable and socially normal is.

I love difference. You have read my words before about my passion for the atypical brain especially. The richness of experiences and awareness that I have been lucky enough to gain through my research with people who Neuralink wants to ‘treat’.

The one thing that these people consistently say makes a difference to them is how supportive the environment is (or not).

The environment is so toxic.

I say it all the time.

Not just pollutants in the air, the water, our food chain.

Pollutants in our social interactions, how we live together, the character traits we think are ‘good’, the ones we think are ‘bad’.

The people that we reserve for our out-group justification of meanness, nastiness and downright hostility.

Pollutants in our symbols of success heirarchy.

If you have this qualification you can do this. If you have this much money then you can get better services. If you have this car, then you must be like this. If you look like this then you will get airtime and a platform. The list goes on.

So when we have a tech company claiming that it can ‘cure’ conditions and ‘enhance’ human cognitive capacity I really wonder at the wisdom of giving freedom to do this when a lot of what is ‘wrong’ can be sorted by having a more supportive environment.

I read about the way that BCI can be used to help people who are paralysed, in that it can support the messaging between neurons and structures within the brain. I have no doubt that the quality of someone’s life could be improved if they placed a lot of value on their ability to walk, use their arms, hands, feet, those who have locked-in syndrome, those who have been severly debilitated by strokes.

This potentially is a risk/benefit analysis on an individual level. How much autonomy does an individual want to give to technology in return of being able to function as an able bodied human being? Is this a form of ableism? That an individual only feels value from being able bodied?

I also read the ethical discussions that are had, and the challenges that tech companies are making in these that if you are not a BCI engineer then you do not understand the full extent and capability of the technology so therefore the ethical discussions are a moot point.

As a neuroscientist I am always fascinated about the whole central nervous system, including the brain. I love to see how we can make tweaks to our routines, to our behaviour, to how we live to be able to be the best version of ourselves, whatever that may be.

I think this is my issue with Neuralink (and other tech services that are focused on the same).

They do not seem to be interested in how we can make the environment more supportive, just how they can ‘improve’ your brain by putting chips in it, wiring bits together, making you in a way, less human, more computer.

Is it not concerning too, that software is not free from being hacked? Although it is arguable that we are hacked daily by the relentless messaging targetted to the limbic system to encourage people to buy, how to be and, in essence to be bewildered, not quite knowing what is going on. I am still concerned at the prospect that we could have a demographic of people who potentially could be hacked directly into various brain structures and influenced to be a certain way.

Is this social engineering not health engineering?

I also feel strongly that there should be no profit in health. That health profiteering should be as derisive as war profiteering. That there should be no unreasonable and excessive profits made from health products. That everyone deserves to be able to live in an environment that supports health, good ageing, embraces wellbeing, understands humanity and celebrates difference in a positive, joyful, open way.

Finally, trust is a huge thing for human beings. We need trust in our tribe, in those we are amongst, in those who make decisions on our behalf, those who have power and control.

Since the dogmatisation of ‘THE SCIENCE’ I am not trusting of those who make decisions on behalf of the community. I do not trust in their integrity and their values.

The FDA have given permission for Neuralink to test on humans. This is the same organisation that gave permission for OxyContin to be marketed as a pain management medicine with less than a 1% chance of addiction. This was despite the precursor to OxyContin, MS Contin being the most abused prescription opioid in the USA.

More than 13 million Americans abuse OxyContin which includes children from the age of twelve years old.

The FDA have a poor record of ensuring safety and quality within the food chain, they have poor oversight of clinical trials and they base their decision-making on evidence based research papers. This is dangerous because of funding streams of said papers and the influence of tech and pharma on these journals.

The conflict of interest is hidden in plain sight!

So I am not sure that the watchers are particularly good at watching. Certainly it seems that they could be easily distracted from the potential dangers and lack of efficacy of health technology, with no robust internal mechanisms that really are there to keep people safe.

Over 56% of FDA employees leave the FDA to go and work for the biopharmaceutical and tech industry.

The UK is not better.

Those who make up the health regulatory body have more than a passing association with biopharmaceutical and tech companies.

In 2005 the House of Commons Health Committee produced a document censuring the department of health and the MHRA being too close to big pharma and tech.

The closeness has continued. Nothing has prevented it from getting closer.

We should all be bothered by this.

When human beings are able to be bought off and have a price. When their self-interest and self-preservation outstrips their ability to protect and serve the community we have a a problem.

Neuralink is not being run as an altruistic, humanist organisation.

It is a for profit company that is normalising toxicity and proclaiming a magic chip that can make it all better.

They are stigmatising conditions further that do not have a neurological pathological basis. This is not OK.

If we had a supportive and beneficial environment for all then I may be a little more welcoming of what we can do for the brain technology wise.

Until we have this then I am going to be skeptical.

This is healthy and we all should be skeptical instead of getting carried away with ‘new technology’.

We should be questioning -

Why are people more obese?

Why are people more depressed?

Why are more people being diagnosed with autism?

Why is schizophrenia more symptomatic and harmful in western societies? Why do those who have it in more tribal communities fair better and have reduction in symptoms?

When we know that the environment interacts with our genes and we express various ones depending on the environment then we need to ask questions about that.

Is the environment enhancing or detracting from who I want to be?

Can I perform in the way that is optimal for how I want my life to be?

Do I feel well?

Do I need to enhance my cognitive capabilities or do I need to rest them as they are simply burnt out?

Do I want to be more human or more computer?

Do I want autonomy or to be an automaton?

Do I want to accept other human beings or look to everyone to be deficit in social norms that are dictated as such by those with the most money or power?

Who benefits from working harder, working longer, working, working, working?

Do you?

OR

Does someone else?

There is so much to think about here, that is the beauty of scientific ethics, there is no one approach. It takes a community of people to discuss, and there always should be caveats and risk benefit analysis.

I do not think Neuralink is safe enough, caring enough or accountable enough to be trusted with anyone’s brain. They have shown their contempt and cruelty to our animal kingdom. We should believe who they are from how they have acted.

I want everyone I work with, communicate with, speak to, listen to, to be well and to be who they want to be.

That is my commitment to you all.

Do I think that Neuralink is going to help to create a better (and kinder) world for everyone, one brain at a time?

No I do not.

I am not ethically or value aligned with them nor their ambitions.

Just because we can do certain things, does not mean we should.

That is the bottom line.

Look at your own capacity, your own beliefs, your own biases.

You can change all of these without a piece of software implanted in your brain.

“It is easy to make pigs happy.” - Elon Musk, talking about Neuralink