SCIENTISTS have revealed their views on Elon Musk’s Neuralink brain chip implants and raised some major concerns.
Bioethicist Nancy Jecker and neurosurgeon Andrew Ko were asked to provide their thoughts on the futuristic devices.
NeuralinkScientists revealed several concerns about the brain chips including manipulation and identity theft[/caption]
The scientists authored an article in The Conversation which highlighted some concerns they have regarding brain chips and hacking.
“However well-intentioned, medical interventions can produce unintended consequences.
“With BCIs (brain computer interfaces), scientists and ethicists are particularly concerned about the potential for identity theft, password hacking and blackmail.
“Given how the devices access users’ thoughts, there is also the possibility that their autonomy could be manipulated by third parties.”
Both Jecker and Ko are not alone in raising these concerns.
“Anything can be hacked; brain chips are no different. And when we have thousands and thousands of them, it’s likely,” computer security authority expert Roger Grimes told The U.S. Sun.
“But I don’t think we have to worry until we get lots of them.”
Jecker and Ko did note that a device like a brain implant has the potential to “profoundly improve” the lives of certain patients.
Musk has said that he’d like his Neuralink chips to help patients with brain diseases or neurological conditions that are negatively impacting their quality of life.
The billionaire also hopes the chips will help us compete with artificial intelligence in the future.
Despite the positives, Jecker and Ko did raise other ethical concerns.
They criticized how Neuralink is being funded and questioned whether it would be used for public good.
“When scientific research is funded by government agencies or philanthropic groups, its aim is to promote the public good.
“Neuralink, on the other hand, embodies a private equity model, which is becoming more common in science,” they wrote.
The scientists said that although Neuralink is striving for good, the private funding approach may also lead to a strive for profits.
Jecker and Ko worry that this could conflict with the best interests of the patients who receive the implants.