In May 2024, Neuralink moved closer to its ambitious goal of creating a brain-computer chip bridge. Despite facing animal rights violation charges, it received FDA approval for human trials after 294 tests on pigs, sheep, and primates.
Noland Aubargh, a 29 -year-male volunteering for the N1 human trials last September, is showing overwhelming results as the engineer engaged in the experiment himself shared a video of Aubargh on 30th Jan where Nolan said,
Neuralink reports no cognitive impairments in the subject since the implant, stating that the subject can control devices with their brain. Paul Nuyujukian, a professor of bioengineering and neurosurgery at Stanford, explains that this is made possible through neuro-electrophysiological recordings via 2,048 electrodes in the implant, which track imaginary movements. He also highlights the company’s success in overcoming challenges like bleeding, infection, and tissue damage during robotic surgery on the brain’s outer layer (dura). Additionally, Nuyujukian notes that similar experiments have been conducted since 2012, with Neuralink likely being wireless.
-Elon Musk
Neuralink plans to conduct 11 human operations this year and estimates it will take 18 months to get new results. The goal is to treat Paralysis and nerve-oriented disorders, the company concludes. Personalities like Leah Croll, a Physiologist at Temple University, look forward to the positive side. The dream is a happening reality then.
DOWNSWINGS FACED:
On May 10th, Neuralink experienced glitches when the chip was removed from Aubargh’s brain, leading to storage malfunctions and raising concerns about the chip’s vulnerability to hacking. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan voiced strong opposition to widespread brain chip use for enhancing cognitive function, citing public fears around mind manipulation and questioning whether tracking somatic impulses might fuel fears of mind control. Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist and author, also opposes chip implantation. Meanwhile, Justin Sanchez, a technical fellow at Battelle, a non-profit research organization in Ohio, highlighted the gap between current advancements and future possibilities in brain-computer interface (BCI) technology. Caplan further criticized Neuralink for withholding key data from its monkey trials, suggesting the company is uncertain about the safety of its subjects.
We asked Dr. Arthur Caplan, American Etheist and professor of bioethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, a few questions about which he replied:
•Is there any speculation regarding side effects?
“No one is sure and the lack of transparency makes it very hard to know.”
•According to your comment, ” There’s a public fear of Brain Manipulation”, what are your personal views in regard to this context?
“I am very worried bout the future of implants—will they be voluntary, mandated for some groups—prisoners, people on parole, government workers, who?”
Neuralink isn’t legally required to disclose details about its human and animal testing, raising the question: are we heading toward a future dominated by brain-computer “power chips,” or are we merely the final subjects in a larger experiment? The lack of transparency fuels uncertainty about safety and ethical implications, leaving the public to wonder if they are participants in the cutting edge of technological advancement or unwitting guinea pigs in uncharted territory.
Copyeditor: Madhupriya Sengupta