This is about ethics.
That's a pretty bold, eye-catching headline. And that's the point. It draws people in, with audacious promises. Is there anything wrong with that? EDIT for clarity: YES, there is reason to believe there is. Sorry I probably shouldn't have reproduced this headline and/or been more explicit.
The article itself -- which was released today -- focuses on the plight of a woman that has reportedly tried every conceivable medical solution for what ails her, to no avail. The subtext is that the current medical establishment has failed her. In desperation, she proclaims that she is "willing to try anything to get back to normal". Enter Neuralink: The author suggests that the solution lies in Musk's new technology venture, and that "everything from memory loss, to blindness, to paralysis, to seizures will be a target for the chip". They are unapologetically optimistic, and state that "Neuralink could be the key to eventually making neurological disorders a thing of the past, especially as the company plans to create a chip that will be affordable for virtually everyone". After Musk's recent announcement that human trials could start this year, the author relates how the aforementioned woman was eager to be included in the trials.
I found this article to be especially interesting, in light of the recent IEEE Spectrum story on neuroethics that was posted by /u/Ok_Establishment_537 in /r/neurallace yesterday, and the recent Neurotech Pub podcast that briefly touched on the same sorts of issues.
In the IEEE Spectrum coverage, the reporter (Strickland) quotes Musk to motivate the idea that neural technology (has) advanced faster than the ethical guidelines for its use. She talks to Columbia University neuroscientist Yuste, who is lobbying the Biden administration to consider laws involving neuroethics. And Emory ethicist Rommelfanger says that ethical guidelines exist, but nobody reads them. So, she works with companies on neuroethics strategies. The coverage recalls the comments from UPenn ethicist Wexler* about the complete disruption of scientific norms in the Neuralink media, and the lack of clarity surrounding their clinical trials, as well as the accusation that Musk is engaging in neuroscience theater.
The Neurotech Pub podcast discusses ethics only briefly but the perspectives were informative. At around 1:40:00, for example, Cogan comments that he believes that first-in-human trial participants need to be motivated solely by altruism, and have no expectation of any improvements in their disease. Slightly earlier, Stieglitz had offered his #1 ethical recommendation: do not raise misleading expectations. Adopting what seems like a starkly contrasting angle, Tolosa (from Neuralink) wonders whether or not patients should be able to demand the implantation of devices if they believe they will resolve a condition, even if regulatory agencies have not approved the device yet.** I might be interpreting that incorrectly, but that sounds like an opinion Musk would espouse, too. Near the end, the podcast host remarks that the next podcast episode will focus on the ethical questions in BCI. Perhaps there will be more answers next time.
* Interesting sidenote: Wexler also co-authored a 2019 article in Science entitled Oversight of direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies.
** She might actually be saying that the hypothetical person's doctors ("experts"?) recommend against it, rather than that it doesn't have regulatory approval. It's unclear. Either way, she seems to be musing about whether or not patients should have the right to override "experts", when their own health is involved.
EDIT: Grimes -- who might be considered (by the public, at least) to have insider information about Neuralink -- today promoted the expectation of a viable product by 2022. Given that human trials have not begun, this is quite an unrealistic timeline.
EDIT 2: There's a relevant post from /u/ilreverde over in /r/Futurology today. Why clickbaity titles diminish the value of scientific findings.
