The Path Towards Proliferation of Neural Technology
Abstract
The field of neural technology, including brain-computer interfaces, neuroprosthetics, deep brain stimulators, and a plethora of other technical terms, is facing an upsurge in attention, funding, and trepidation. While the exact possibilities aren’t known, already some humans benefit greatly from having a silicon chip in their skull. Reaching the techno-progressive goal of widely available, technologically mediated enhancements to the human condition however must bring neural technology to the masses, who are deeply wary of the field. A similar wariness was shown during the inception of the internet, where users feared the innovation in large part due to privacy concerns. These fears, however, were directly mitigated by numerous consumer and privacy protection laws, which allowed the popularization of the internet. The path toward the popularization of brain implants must also address the public’s fears surrounding the technology, which do include privacy concerns, but the intimacy with which the technology interacts with its user develops new, personal fears that also merit attention. One path forward is minimally invasive technology, which will provide a palatable proof-of-concept for the masses, before more invasive technology can reach prominence.
A Short History of Internet Privacy and Popularity
The first web browser, for graphical interfacing to this new network of computers called the internet, was made in 1990 by Tim Berners-Lee. This was one of the first, real, public-facing applications that existed, as computers had been somewhat relegated to military, business, and technological work. However, the internet carried many fears, not least of which was the privacy of communication. Access to the outside world would, intuitively, give the outside world access to you. Importantly, however, the government took real steps to strengthen the populous’ security and faith in privacy.
In the 1990s, 6 different privacy advocacy groups were founded:
Electronic Frontier Foundation (1990), Privacy International (1990), Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (1992), Electronic Privacy Information Center (1994), Center for Democracy and Technology (1994), and Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN). In addition, numerous legislative measures were passed that further strengthened the privacy of users on the internet, including the telephone consumer protection act of 1991, the driver’s privacy protection act of 1994, the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (HIPAA), and the Children’s online privacy protection act of 1998. It was at this same time that the internet rose to real prominence in society, and rose to a place of widespread utility and necessity to businesses and individuals across the developed world. It is impossible to say the exact effect that these laws and groups had on the burgeoning internet, but it is reasonable to assume that a lack of consumer protection would have driven away consumers.
However, online privacy and security fell with the twin towers in 2001, after the PATRIOT act was passed, stripping away consumer rights for the pursuit of national security. The fears that plagued internet consumers throughout the 90s were now validated and real, but the shift away from the internet didn’t occur. Even without real privacy, consumers used the internet more than ever, with nearly 50% of Americans using the service at the turn of the millennium. But why? The government’s oversight of electronic communication was nearly absolute, and especially after Snowden revealed the NSA’s tracking capabilities, the public was well aware of their lack of privacy. So why continue using the internet? Because it was already seen as useful, even necessary, for day-to-day life and business. A lack of privacy did not strip away the utility. It could be argued that the lack of privacy, which spawned the user-data market currently present across all sectors of the internet, even strengthened the popularity of the internet, as services became cheaper or free due to the selling of user data.
Neural Technology
As it stands, the current field of neural technology faces wariness and trepidation similar to that of the internet in the 90s, which, outside of religious doctrine, predominantly stems from two separate but related causes:
- A lack of consumer and privacy protection directly related to the technology
- A feeling that such technology is “crossing the line” and “meddling with nature”, more than any other enhancement in history.
The role of privacy in the modern age and the conflict between the public’s increased technological capability and the necessary surveillance to protect society is too great a topic to be covered in this essay and is the focus of major attention across different disciplines. Instead, I will focus on the second of those two problems.
The current image of brain implants in the US is rife with cyberpunk dystopias and inhuman, unfeeling cyborgs. And the current trends in neural technology are not helping the issue.
The industry-leading benchmark for neural testing is the Utah Array. I would be hard-pressed to find any individual willing to get this implanted in their brain, not least of which is because it looks like a medieval torture device. Furthermore, the way to get data onto and off of these devices involves the chronic implantation of a wire protruding from their skull. Even the most popular neuro-tech company, Elon Musk’s Neuralink, falls prey to this same issue. Their surgical robot could be taken right out of star wars.
So the question stands: what can be done to address these concerns and to push neural technology towards the same level of utility and proliferation that the internet currently occupies?
One path toward normalization of the technology is simply waiting. There are already silicon chips inside human skulls, which give the patients immense capability over their unimplanted state. Recently in Germany, a man with advanced ALS, unable to even move his eyes, communicating with the outside world using nothing but a brain-computer-interface. It is possible that, after decades of growth in the medical field and implantation in thousands of sickly, invasive brain implants might become attractive to the general populous. However, the ableism that permeates western society might hinder technology that is associated with disability and weakness from appealing to the mainstream.
But the technologies shown above are not the only methods of accessing the human nervous system, simply the methods that are gaining the most popularity and funding.
I posit that a preferable and faster path towards the techno-progressive future is through minimally invasive technology. It is the middle ground between highly-invasive technologies, involving craniotomies and other surgeries that seriously disrupt the human system, and non-invasive technologies (MRI, EEG, etc) which are undoubtedly valuable, but simple biology and physics prevent them from reaching mainstream, commercial viability. Minimally invasive technology can still interact with the nervous system but does so with an overarching goal of minimizing blood loss, muscle disruption, and incision size during implantation and use. The Synchron Stentrode is the current leader in this field. The device is implanted, as its name would suggest, like a conventional stent, through the blood vessels up into the brain, and electrodes on the device grant access to recording and stimulation of the nervous system. I believe it is these types of devices that can address the concerns outlined above. A stenting procedure is simply more palatable than a craniotomy, and is consequently less likely to be seen as dystopian and “meddling with nature”.
The impacts of minimizing the invasiveness, while maximizing the utility, of neural technology can not be understated. From a regulatory perspective, the difference and preference are obvious. A new, untested procedure using an untested robotic surgeon is much more prone to failure than a stenting procedure, which is done millions of times each year. The evidence is already being shown in real time: Synchron has begun the FDA approval process for its human trials, while Neuralink is still preparing for its application. Even beyond regulation, the invasiveness of Neuralink will directly restrict its ability to reach large populations of possible patients. Their surgical robot can not be built in small towns across the developing world, but the doctors there can easily be trained to implant a new kind of stent. However, there are downsides as well. An electrode in direct contact with neural material will have much higher precision than one placed inside of a blood vessel. In addition, the number of devices that can be implanted in a minimally invasive fashion is only a small segment of the devices that can exist. It imposes a limitation and a restriction on the possible field of neural technology, but one that I believe is necessary.
Ultimately, minimally invasive technology will provide a faster, safer, and more palatable introduction to neural technology for the entire world, directly addressing the fears that such technology is too invasive and “crossing the line”. Its limitations, stemming from indirect access to neural material and limiting of possible implantation surgeries, can be addressed later, once the utility of the technology is widely understood and accepted. Just as the internet continued to grow after the PATRIOT act, highly invasive technology can reach prominence and proliferation, but only after the populous’ fears about its invasiveness have been addressed, and neural technology becomes accepted and valued.
