Elon Musk鈥檚 brain-computer interface (BCI) company Neuralink grabbed headlines this year with the announcement of its first human trial in January, followed by its second in August. The firm aims to mass-produce a tiny, implantable chip that will initially allow people with paralysis to control computers with their mind, before a wider rollout for anyone who might want it.
The company鈥檚 first subject, Noland Arbaugh, said that the device was 鈥渓ike using the Force [from Star Wars] on the cursor鈥�. He had a coin-sized chip implanted on the surface of his brain, with 64 extremely fine electrode threads weaved directly into the brain by a surgical robot.
A month after the procedure, however, some 85 per cent of those electrode threads , dramatically reducing Arbaugh鈥檚 ability to control a computer. Software changes later reversed some of that decline, and the procedure for the second subject鈥檚 implant was changed to reduce the chance of similar thread retraction, the in an update in August.
Advertisement
Since then, Neuralink has gone silent, with only occasional blog posts from the company and snippets of information from Musk. The billionaire founder announced earlier this year that Neuralink is working on another device called Blindsight, which he said in a post on X will 鈥渆nable even those who have lost both eyes and their optic nerve to see鈥�. The firm didn鈥檛 respond to a request for comment.
Despite the media attention it receives, Neuralink is far from the only group developing BCIs. at University College London, who works with non-invasive BCIs that use electroencephalography and require no surgery, says there will be applications for a variety of different devices depending on the user鈥檚 health problems, intended use and appetite for risk.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not VHS versus Betamax,鈥� he says, though he concedes that invasive devices such as Neuralink鈥檚 can get 鈥渃loser to the signal鈥� and are likely to offer more accurate control.
Carlson says that Musk鈥檚 backing has enabled Neuralink to invest heavily and recruit skilled researchers. This has allowed it to catch up with other groups that began work years before, and has probably brought the company near to the state of the art. But the lack of detailed information is troubling.
鈥淚 think the concern that the scientific community have around the approach is that it鈥檚 a bit of a black box from the outside,鈥� says Carlson. 鈥淭here鈥檚 been very little in terms of scientific publishing and peer review. I think there鈥檚 a lot of value in open science. If you report negative results, it saves other people from making the same mistakes. And I think that鈥檚 possibly something that the community feel is a bit missing here.鈥�
