Neuralink gave an update on their progress on Friday. There was a moderate level of buzz before the event, as is typical for any Elon Musk affair, as well as a lot of well stated criticism.
The first deep brain stimulation (DBS) device was approved in 1997 and there are four approved for clinical use today. DBS devices consist of leads implanted in the brain, and a neurostimulator device - they are programmed to deliver small pulses to the brain to alleviate Parkinson’s symptoms, for example. They’re fairly rudimentary.
Brain computer interfaces (BCI), that allow a paralyzed patient to manipulate a robotic arm, to restore some level of sight, or replace other lost functions, have been used in humans, in small scale trials, for decades. Neural implants like the Utah array have 100 electrodes, and others now in animal use have around 1000 electrodes, similar to the Neuralink device. Live data collection and transmission via bluetooth low energy are well established in this space. For a more detailed history I recommend this post by Sheeva Azma.
You can see why many neuroscientists and academics did a collective eye-roll at the presentation. Array implanted in a pig? Yep. Live neural readouts and gait correlation? Been there. 1000 electrodes on a microwire in the brain? Done that.
So why should we care about what was presented and Neuralink more broadly? I’ll posit two reasons: public awareness and multi-disciplinary team building.
Public awareness
The state of the industry isn’t well known outside of the neuroscience community. People are shocked by Neuralink because they don't know about the current state of the art. Does the means (Neuralink hype) justify the ends (public knowledge)? I think so. Public knowledge will lead to better education. How about more neuroscience majors, or how about teaching neuro in grade school? It also leads to more funding, both private and public sector. Venture investment in neuro startups hit $500m in the first half of 2020, six times the amount that was invested in the first half of 2019, according to a SVB healthcare VC report.
Multi-disciplinary team building
The big device makers like Medtronic, Boston Scientific, St. Jude, and Stryker all have large neuro divisions. These companies have been around for decades, and like most in the medical device sector are relatively conservative. The best chip designers, software engineers, photonics experts are hoovered up by the likes of Apple and Alphabet, and don’t choose to work for stuffy medical device companies. Shouldn’t our best and brightest be working on big problems in neuro? The attractive force of a big lofty goal can draw in the most talented people, of course with Elon marketing it from the top (it was the explicit goal of the presentation). By recruiting the best multi-disciplinary team, there is a shot of building something truly novel which the other medical device companies couldn’t hope for.
What’s the root of the criticism? Highly technical folks, who have worked for many years in this field, are understandably skeptical of new-comers. When someone busts in like the Kool-Aid Man and gets a lot of attention, that smarts. I’m not defending Elon’s personality and penchant for over-hype. I’d like to reflect on the rationale for the criticism. If the critique is about the technical merit and veracity of the presentation, please do. If the criticism is rooted in the desire to protect an exclusive club or over frustration of not getting due coverage for all the other work that has been done, don’t bother.
I believe we all have a duty to support open science and be sure innovation isn't locked up in walled gardens. Neuralink should publish more. They should recognize the past and publicly partner with leading institutions in this space.
But, if our collective goal is to build a better future for humanity, to better treat and cure disease, then the question that needs answering is: would development of Neuralink products help or hinder?
The answer is help.