Elon Musk Must Be More Transparent About Neuralink

When researchers with Elon Musk’s company Neuralink implanted a chip in someone’s brain, they were working under a Food and Drug Administration clearance. But that doesn’t mean this experiment was safe or ethical.

The FDA’s permission only extended to willing volunteers with severe paralysis, like quadriplegia or ALS. But when Musk announced in a post on X last week that they had carried out the procedure on the first subject, he didn’t specify which condition the person suffered, how severe it was, how this patient gave consent, what benefit the doctors hoped to achieve or whether the implant helped the patient. 

This cloud of secrecy creates an ethical problem. To advance, medical science must take some risks, but society and the scientific community limit those risks with rules and ethical standards. Are Neuralink’s experiments within those bounds? Ethicists can’t say. Musk’s vague post didn’t give enough information.

In principle, an implant could restore the ability to communicate in someone unable to move or speak. Earlier experiments by other researchers have enabled people to move a cursor or robotic arm by simply thinking — the electronic device was able to translate brain activity into usable signals. 

Musk has said that his ultimate goal is to equip the public with brain implants that enhance our cognitive abilities and help humans keep up with AI. It’s possible that the road toward these grandiose visions will channel money and expertise to technology that can help the most severely disabled members of society. 

It’s also possible someone will be harmed or killed. 

In 1999, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania had secured FDA clearance when they began human experiments with early gene therapy. They accidentally killed one of their volunteers, an 18-year-old named Jesse Gelsinger. That experiment was vastly more transparent than Musk’s endeavor. There also has been more transparency behind other experiments to restore function and communication to the profoundly paralyzed with implants.

The chip Neuralink developed is radically different from existing designs. As described in detail last year in a Bloomberg feature by Ashlee Vance, the quarter-sized implant has hundreds of tiny electrodes strung along a series of flexible threads, and replaces cumbersome wired connections to implanted batteries with wireless ones. The device can be inserted using a specially designed robot. But its innovative features doesn’t necessarily mean it will work better than existing designs when implanted in humans.

In a column I wrote last year on the non-invasive brain imaging studies, researchers told me they were hoping to help people with a terrifying condition known as locked-in syndrome, which can happen from the degenerative disease ALS or after an injury or stroke. A few people have recovered enough to recount what it was like being treated like a vegetable for years, or, for one man, listening to his wife and a doctor discuss whether to end his life. 

People suffering from such devastating conditions deserve to benefit from new technology, but they also deserve safe, ethical and transparent experiments. After the patient died in the 1999 gene therapy trial, investigators found that the researchers had ignored warning signs of unexpected inflammation and rushed ahead. They were in a race for scientific fame and fortune. 

Musk seems to be in a race not only to beat rivals developing other implants, but to stay ahead of potentially hostile AI. But at this point, the nature of any threat posed by AI is not understood. It’s also not clear there would be a benefit to implanting chips in thousands or even millions of healthy people’s brains. 

The fact that Musk’s motives seem to not be aligned with the best interests of Neuralink’s experimental subjects is another reason medical ethicists are expressing doubts. 

“Ridiculous … Just overhyped nonsense,” wrote New York University medical ethicist Arthur Caplan via email. “This implant merits transparency, not nerdman speculation.” Caplan also noted that reporters uncovered examples of botched Neuralink experiments that caused pain and suffering in monkeys. 

Law professor and ethicist Henry Greely, director of the Stanford program in neuroscience and society, said it’s common for private industry to be secretive about drugs and medical devices, but that secrecy is not in the best interest of patients. He considers Neuralink’s invasive brain procedure particularly worrisome.

The Silicon Valley ethos of move fast and break things has generally failed in health care, said Greely, who told me he has visited the Neuralink headquarters and found it a chaotic place. He also is doubtful about Musk’s visions for endowing humans with the capacity to communicate directly through brain activity. The unfiltered nature of such conversations might be uncomfortable. (Perhaps Musk doesn’t feel the same way — he appears to communicate with very little filter.)

Musk may dream of a day when people are directly wired into the internet and each other, but most of us of don’t — and for good reason. The future of brain implants isn’t one of super-productive cyborgs, but of restoring basic functions to people who’ve lost them.

One more thing! We are now on WhatsApp Channels! Follow us there so you never miss any updates from the world of technology. ‎To follow the HT Tech channel on WhatsApp, click here to join now!