Neuralink and the ethics of BMI

NEURALINK AND THE ETHICS OF BRAIN-MACHINE INTERFACES

By

Simeon Paul Leeleebari

University of Port Harcourt.

Abstract

The latest frontier of brain-machine interface (BMIs) technologies, which seek to have a brain-to-computer connection, is neuralink, a company founded by Elon Musk. The future advantages of neurological conditions, speaking and thinking might be immense, however, very little of the ethical ground has been explored. The paper addresses the most important moral aspects of the work of Neuralink, with primary attention paid to such aspects as autonomy, privacy, consent, and the influence on society. These implications are not hypothetical: Neuralink is gearing up to run increasingly invasive tests on human beings in the name of science and, possibly, a commercial release.

Introduction

Brain-to-machine interfaces have gone out of science fiction in the past years and into practical clinical trials. Businesses such as Neuralink are leading the way in super-high bandwidth BMIs that can record and activate thousands of brain neurons at once.

The device manufactured by Neuralink is like a coin and small in size and consists of thin electrode threads implanted in the brain. It has already been tested in pigs and monkeys, and in 2024, it was tested on a human subject (Klinenberg 2024). It has a lot of benefit and can possibily be use in the rehabilitation of paralyzed patients, the improvement of human intelligence, and even the treatment of depression. But these developments provoke a confrontation with very complicated ethical issues.

Fig 1: Schematic view of an implantable BMI (Shaeri, Afzal, and Shoaran 190)

Autonomy and informed Consent

The technology of Neuralink connects to the decision making total regions of the brain. The question that emerges here is basic, that individuals can provide informed consent to practices that may modify their agency as individuals. The conventional paradigms of informed consents cannot be freely used when dealing with cognitive interventions. In addition, even a group of people with serious neurological conditions- quadruplets, basic knowledge and may make an agreement out of desperation hence compromising the ethical integrity of their consent (Fins 2019).

Cognitive liberty and Privacy

Transmission of brain data directly also opens a new type of risk of privacy: cognitive privacy. What will happen to your brain, which is streamed or stored in a server? Who is the owner of such data? Can it be sold or subpoenased or hacked? Neurodata is not an issue that was addressed by the current data protection legislations such as the GDPR (Ienca and Andorno 2017). Moreover, devices such as Neuralink would also be susceptible to abuse at the corporate or governmental levels when they become commercialized. The distinction between reading minds and interpreting mind and filtering prediction is made terribly thin.

3. Equity And Social Justice

The possible development of an intellectual elite, people who can have improved memory, concentration, or the ability to make decisions, is an actual threat in case the BMI technology develops according to the plans. As of the latest roadmap, Neuralink focuses on niche applications (e.g. human-AI symbiosis) rather than the availability of the system to a large base of patients (Racine and Sample 2021). Consequently, this can aggravate already existing socioeconomic imbalances. Ethicists claim the equality of access to enhancement of the nerves should be controlled rather than be left to the market.

 4. Long-Term Risks and Unknowns

There is no report of the long-term neurological and psychological impacts of embedded BMI devices. Decades later, chronic inflammation, gliosis, or rather fine behavioral alterations may develop. Besides, when AI becomes more integrated, the line between the intellect of man and the reaction of machine can become indistinguishable, which in turn creates existential philosophical concerns regarding the nature of a person and identification (Yuste et al. 2017).

Conclusion

Neuralink and other BMI developments tend to create a paradox. They can cure, enlighten and give a sense of power; however, they can be used to exploit, to manipulate and to divide. Ethics should not be behind technology. It is our duty as neuroscience researchers to influence the regulatory models and educate the masses, as well as promote a cause in favor of vulnerable groups. Brain-machine interface should not be allowed to serve a means of social stratification and thought monitoring. Instead, it has to be formulated politely, transparently, and keeping the dignity of humans in mind.

Reference

• Fins, Joseph J. Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics, and the Struggle for Consciousness. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

• Ienca, Marcello, and Roberto Andorno. “Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 13, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1

• Klinenberg, Eric. “Neuralink's First Human Trials and the Dilemma of Consent.” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 23, no. 1, 2024, pp. 35–38.

• Racine, Eric, and Matthew Sample. “Ethics of Commercial Cognitive Enhancement Devices: A Neuroethical Analysis.” Neuroethics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2021, pp. 143–160.

• Yuste, Rafael, et al. “Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI.” Nature, vol. 551, no. 7679, 2017, pp. 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/551159a

• Shaeri, Mohammad, Arshia Afzal, and Mahsa Shoaran. "Challenges and Opportunities of Edge AI for Next-Generation Implantable BMIs." Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Circuits and Systems (AICAS), 2022, pp. 190–193. IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/AICAS54282.2022.9870008.