In 2016, Noland Arbaugh suffered an injury that caused him to be paralyzed from the neck down. In January of 2024, in an out of the ordinary surgery, made Arbaugh the first human to receive Neuralink’s brain chip implant known as the “link”. The chip enables Noland to use a computer by controlling the cursor with just his thoughts. This enables him to message and connect with people on social media, read comics and play video games on his computer with the help of controlling the cursor using just his thoughts. Before getting the link, he had to depend on an unintuitive mouth-held tablet stylus (mouth stick) for these tasks. He believes that the link has helped him reconnect with his family, friends, and the world by giving him the ability to do things on his own again, without needing external help all the time.
“The link” is an example of a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), which is a device that enables the communication between a person’s brain and an external computer or machine, allowing for the control of digital or mechanical systems through brain waves, i.e. neural signals. Many companies are advancing BCI brain-computer interface technology in various ways. For instance, Synchron uses a catheter-delivered implant to capture brain signals from blood vessels, enhancing safety and accessibility, while Neurable aims to develop a brain-computer interface in a headphone form factor to bring it to everyone on the market.
The Transformative Potential of BCIs
Noland’s story is a testament to how brain-computer interfaces can help assist people with certain health conditions or impairments to regain the ability to do certain tasks. While the link can control a computer device as of now, further development plans include the use of the technology in the physical world to enable the control of robotic arms, wheelchairs and other tools that can help increase the independence of people living with quadriplegia or other conditions.
Ethical Concerns Surrounding BCIs
Despite the promising potential of BCIs, some significant concerns and drawbacks can often get overshadowed:
Invasiveness and Health Risks
The invasive nature of many BCI procedures, which often require surgery to implant electrodes, poses substantial health risks, including infection, inflammation, and potential damage to brain tissue. Neuralink’s BCI device – the link – about the size of a small stack of coins was placed on his brain after removing a circle of bone from his skull. While it functioned well in the initial months, gradually – 85% of the device’s tendrils slipped out of Noland’s brain – due to which the scientists have had to increase the sensitivity of the software components to achieve a similar but limited function.
Long-term Effects and Neuroplasticity
The long-term effects of having and using these “invasive” brain-computer interfaces are unclear as of now. Although non-invasive BCIs are less risky, they can still have a perverse effect on the user’s neuroplasticity, i.e. the ability of neural networks in the brain to change through growth and reorganization.
Privacy and Security
Along with the user’s safety, his privacy and security also warrant a paramount consideration. The collection and use of brain data could be vulnerable to unauthorized access and misuse. The ingenuity of bad actors in finding ways to attack and misuse new devices is limitless, and hence, ensuring the confidentiality and secure handling of this data is critical.
Research ethics and consent
Another crucial consideration is research ethics and informed consent. It must be ensured that the test subjects (users of BCIs) fully understand the risks and implications of using BCIs, especially for people who are already vulnerable due to specific conditions. Research practices must be transparent with unbiased reporting and clear communication about risks as well as benefits. The media portrayal of this technology should be done conscientiously balancing positive outcomes with the safety concerns.
Fairness and Inequality
The potential enhancement of human capabilities through BCIs further raises ethical questions about their fairness and potential for creating new forms of inequality. Unless the technology reaches all sections equally, the physical and cognitive advantages BCIs could provide have the potential to create and deepen the schism between different groups.
Legal Frameworks for BCIs
Like fingerprints, brain anatomy and, thus, brain activity are unique to each person. Such data can be used for identification and authentication purposes. Later iterations of the technology may also reveal sensitive information against the will or awareness of its users. These “neuro-security” problems could lead to unimaginable cybercrimes. The law does not develop as fast as technology. Thus, not many jurisdictions are ready to tackle problems of this nature.
Global Legislative Efforts
Notably, Chile has become the first country to legislate on “neurorights”. A 2021 constitutional amendment grants protection to neuro rights – i.e. brain rights for the protection of mental integrity and neuro data. A 2023 judgment by Chile’s Supreme Court has furthered the jurisprudence by protecting neuro privacy and supporting the rights to physical and psychological integrity. This has influenced many other Latin American countries to consider legislation regarding neurorights.
While countries like the US have evolving state laws to regulate neuro rights, these rights are not at the forefront of discussions in countries like India. To address the developing framework of neuroethics and neuro rights, UNESCO is all set to develop an ethical framework to address the challenges of neurotechnology.
Challenges in Regulation
BCIs fall into the intersection of many different realms of law like privacy, personality and AI. All of these are responses to recent technological developments and thus are in their nascent stages. This lack of established legal frameworks makes it difficult to regulate the use of BCIs. Creating legislation in this legal vacuum requires striking a balance between ensuring the protection of citizens while allowing the evolution and development of new technologies. Lawmakers should also consider the issue of access while considering regulation so that everyone can benefit from these advancements rather than BCIs benefiting just a select few.
Conclusion
Brain-computer interfaces like “the link” hold immense potential for transforming lives. Such devices will significantly improve the independence and quality of life of people with disabilities through direct brain interaction with digital and, in the future, possibly, physical tools.
However, with this promise comes enormous ethical and legal challenges. Some BCIs are invasive and, therefore, create health risks. Others go as far as to raise open questions regarding long-term effects on neuroplasticity, privacy, security, and informed consent.
Furthermore, the potential of BCIs to increase social inequality and the fact that there is no broadly written legal framework complicates their further application. Only balanced legislation that ensures fair access and maximal protection of users’ rights and data will enable one to maximize the benefits of BCIs while minimizing their risks. Ethical and juridical standards have to be adapted continually to advancing technology for responsible and inclusive development.
