It was not the first small device to be implanted into the human brain. Still, Elon Musk’s announcement Monday caught the attention of a small community of scientists who have been working for decades to treat certain disabilities and conditions by tapping directly into the body’s nervous system.
“Implanting a device into a human is no small feat,” said Robert Gaunt, an associate professor in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh. “But I don’t think even Elon Musk would have undertaken such a project without decades of research and proven talent in the field of neuroscience.”
Musk’s announcement was sudden and contained little information beyond the news: “The first human has been given an implant. @Neuralink yesterday and is getting better. “Initial results show promising neuron spike detection.”
While many scientists applauded Neuralink’s announcement, they also cautiously noted that the company’s clinical trials are in the very early stages and not much information has been released publicly. Still, researchers said Neuralink has made significant gains and is doing exactly what startups are good at: taking what’s learned through basic science and trying to make a real, viable product.
It’s too early to know whether Neuralink’s implant will be effective in humans, but the company’s announcement is an “exciting development,” said Gaunt, whose own work focuses on using implants known as brain-computer interfaces to restore motor control and function. like humans’ sense of touch.
He said Neuralink’s new milestone is to jump-start an industry that has already seen rapid progress over the past 15 years.
The first brain-computer interface was implanted into a human in the late 1990s through research conducted by a pioneering neuroscientist named Phil Kennedy.
The idea was that these devices could take advantage of brain circuits that remain intact after injury to perform basic movements and functions. For example, when a person thinks about moving their hand or watches someone else move their hand, many neurons in the brain activate as if they were performing the movement themselves, says Jennifer Collinger, an associate professor in the department of physics. medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pittsburgh.
“You can find patterns of activity in the neural data that correlate with these movements, so you can actually reverse that relationship and give them control over the actual movement,” he said.
In 2004, a small device known as the Utah array was implanted in a human for the first time, allowing a paralyzed man to control a computer cursor with neural impulses. The device, invented by Richard Normann of the University of Utah, looks like a tiny chip with thin spikes that are actually made up of dozens of tiny electrodes. The array is designed to connect to the skull through an opening in the skin.
Using the Utah array, scientists were able to demonstrate how brain-computer interfaces can help people control a robotic arm with their mind, stimulate their own muscles and limbs, use computers and other external devices, and even decode handwriting and speech.
“All of this was a really important proof of concept that showed that this technology could be useful,” said Collinger, who focuses on restoring arm and hand function to allow paralyzed patients to not only move but also use these appendages. It allows them to manipulate objects and perform more skilled movements that involve tactile signals and other forms of sensory feedback. The idea is to enable a wider range of functions essential for daily life.
Enter Neuralink. Musk’s initiative, along with other similar private initiatives such as Synchron and Precision Neuroscience, builds on decades of learning to make brain-computer interfaces more practical for more patients.
Neuralink received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last year to conduct its first human clinical study. Details on who was chosen and the implantation procedure for the device, which Musk said took place on Sunday, were scarce, but the company is developing a brain implant that would allow people, such as severely paralyzed patients, to control a computer. phone or other external device using your thoughts.
The startup has already made several big steps forward.
Unlike the Utah array, Neuralink’s device is fully implantable; This means patients may ultimately be less restrained; Most implants require people to perform activities in a controlled laboratory environment.
“This was a huge engineering challenge,” Gaunt said. “This is the kind of thing that academics and other people have been de-risking for decades, but it took a really difficult and concerted engineering effort to actually build this.”
There were some bumps on the road. The company has been mired in controversy after activist groups and internal staff complained that Neuralink mistreated some animals used in experiments. A federal investigation did not turn up evidence of any violations other than an “adverse surgical event” that the company self-reported in 2019, according to Reuters.
Neuralink isn’t the first company to implant a fully implantable brain-computer interface into a human patient, but Gaunt said the company is rapidly improving the recording capabilities of these devices.
Neuralink also uses innovative robotic surgery to implant the device, rather than a specialist neurosurgeon.
“This is very different from what people have done before,” said Sergey Stavisky, an assistant professor in the department of neurological surgery at the University of California, Davis and co-director of the UC Davis Neuroprosthetics Laboratory.
Automating the procedure with a robot could make it more efficient and effective in the future, Stavisky said.
“You can place more, you can place it quickly, you can avoid blood vessels,” he said, “but it’s also difficult and new, and you have to show that the robot is safe.”
Demonstrating safety will be a key function of Neuralink’s clinical trial. In the coming months, the startup will need to demonstrate that its device can function without serious adverse effects.
It is not yet known whether the implant works as intended. In his announcement about X, Musk said the patient was “recovering well” and initial results “show promising neuron spike detection.”
It’s hard to know what this means without data, but Gaunt said it likely indicates that the electrodes were in place, a nearby neuron was firing, and the implant was essentially able to detect that activity.
“Basically, that means it works, at least on some level,” he said.
Musk said the first clinical trials will aim to treat people with stroke or spinal cord paralysis. If the device works, it could one day be used to treat a variety of ailments.
D., a neurosurgeon who co-directs the UC Davis Neuroprosthesis Laboratory with Stavisky. David Brandman already uses fully implanted devices to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease, seizures and abnormal pain.
When it comes to medical needs, brain-computer interfaces could make a big impact, he said; including stroke survivors and patients with spinal cord injury, stroke, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Beyond clinical applications, it is easy for the imagination to run wild with science fiction concepts of bioengineering. Musk himself fueled these fantasies by saying he plans to receive one of Neuralink’s implants sometime in 2022.
But many scientists think such thinking is too far in the future and not very practical.
“I think it’s really too early to talk about it,” Brandman said. “There are people who need it, and the emphasis on ‘what if’ and ‘what could happen’ is a disservice to the people who need a device.”
Although the idea of brain-controlled devices holds the potential to enhance human abilities, scientists agree that there is so far no evidence to suggest that these implants can improve functions beyond what a non-disabled person can do.
“The idea that these devices will allow us to achieve any kind of superhuman ability is just science fiction at this point,” Gaunt said.
Still, Neuralink’s clinical trial represents a major advance in neuroscience and bioengineering. Instead of overshadowing its own efforts, Gaunt and others said it’s natural for industry to step in and build on what academia has accomplished.
“Universities and academic labs are places that are breaking new ground, going where no one has gone before, and getting really good at trying things that are too risky for companies and investors to put money into,” Gaunt said.
For example, when brain implants showed real capabilities, private companies began stepping in with resources and capital that dwarfed the resources and capital available through research grants to create a commercially viable product, he added.
Gaunt said Neuralink’s early successes are a testament to the importance of funding basic scientific research.
But it can be harder to predict where all the developments in the industry leave developments in academia.
Stavisky said it’s up to the scientific community to determine the next frontier in this field, likening the process to surfing ahead of the wave and pushing science forward in ways that could translate into commercial developments in the future.
That doesn’t mean all the flashy headlines and attention towards Musk and Neuralink aren’t necessarily having an impact, Gaunt said.
“Every once in a while when these things happen, I wake up with an existential crisis,” he said, “but then reality sets in and I always think about how the challenges and the basic science that need to be solved are solved.”
This article first appeared on NBCNews.com.