27th Apr 2020
Neural Interfaces (NI) are rapidly gaining the attention of governments, companies and scientists alike. This technology allows for stimulation and recording of the nervous system by a machine, which can be used for a variety of functions.
Despite its relatively recent rise to mainstream attention, NIs have been used since the 1930s [1]. These have been clinically useful in many situations such as with cochlear implants, Deep Brain Stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, and identification of dysfunctional areas in epileptic patients [2].
Recent research also shows promise in using such technology for new and innovative clinical purposes [3] [4].
There is also a huge amount of theoretical uses for NIs, such as immersive gaming [5] and control of everyday devices [6], that could be possible if both our technology and understanding of the brain is enhanced.
Many large organisations have shown interest in NIs over the past few years, with each making their own contributions relatively recently. These include Facebook funding research into typing using brain activity [7] and Neuralink demonstrating the use of a high-precision robotic implantation of individual electrodes into brain tissue [8]. Both the Royal Society [9] and Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology [10] have also released reports on the technology.
However, as attention and funding into to the field increases, many risks must also be considered. The need to address the ethical and security concerns of NIs has been highlighted by the Royal Society [9] and multiple academics [11].
An important consideration is cybersecurity because the possibilities of a hacker gaining remote control over a NI could be devastating. Research has shown that non-invasive stimulation of the motor cortex using an NI can drive limb movement [12]. While this is far from being able to puppeteer someone, imagine a surgeon using a NI to aid a surgery, when even a small mismove could be fatal.
Another issue is that data privacy laws and their enforcement may no longer be suitable for technology that interact with something as personal as a brain. While current technology does not give access to thoughts or memories, this may change, and so it is important to consider the possibility of an event such as the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal.
To avoid such events, it is vital that public engagement with shaping regulations occurs early and continues as the technology develops and further possibilities open.
Bibliography
