Rob Davis

Dr. Keeler

FIS 307

5 November 2020

Neuralink and Its Ethical Implications

A common element of science fiction and other dystopian stories is the idea of a chip,

implanted in a person’s brain. Some find this idea inherently dangerous and nefarious- in the

wrong hands, this technology could be used for malicious purposes. However, there are those

that grow excited at this idea, seeing it as a technology that could be used to revolutionize human

thinking and communication, allowing us to reach new horizons. This year, Elon Musk

introduced the general public to the idea of Neuralink, a chip that could be implanted in

someone’s brain to increase their capability for communication and to otherwise enhance the

human brain. According to Miśkiewicz, the original idea for Neuralink, before Musk bought the

company, was to treat brain injuries and more general health problems. However some

professionals believe that “many devices are often intentionally classified as… ‘wellness’

devices to avoid regulatory oversight” (Dadia & Greenbaum 187). So, while some are optimistic

about the future of Neuralink, others are far more skeptical.

The future of this technology is extremely uncertain: scholars are divided in assessing

whether its benefits outweigh the risks, or vice versa. Scenario assessment will aid research in

deciding what the potential downfalls and benefits exist in regards to the implementation of this

technology. There are many aspects to consider: who will receive this technology? What privacy

violations are possible with this technology? Finally, how would regulations have to be

implemented in order to ethically and safely implement this technology, if that is even possible?
In order to better understand this technology, it is essential to examine why scholars are excited

or pessimistic about this future technology. On one hand, certain professionals agree that “the

basis for new communication systems and advanced assistive technologies for paralyzed people

as well as control external devices and interact with the entire environment” (Pisarchik et. al)

could stem from the widespread implementation of Neuralink. Alternatively, certain

professionals believe that “ethical questions are already central to the public neurotechnology”

(Moss & Amadio 205). This diversity of opinion has created a feeling of uncertainty when

looking at this technology and its future implications.

Research Question: What ethical implications are there in relation to the widespread

implementation (or lack thereof) of Neuralink as a future technology?

Research Approach:

This research will evaluate several scenarios related to the future implications of

Neuralink, and will do so using the intuitive logics approach. The “roadmap” for this research

will look as follows:

Scoping: The focal area of this product has already been identified as the technology of

Neuralink, and its capabilities of being invasive, yet its uncertainty regarding proliferation,

dispersion, and effectiveness. For these scenarios, a future time period ranging from 2030-2040

seems reasonable. This is evidenced by the fact that Neuralink is already in its early stages of

development and testing, and is already being advertised and thrusted into the public discourse

by Elon Musk. It would seem somewhat pointless to do this if the product would not be ready in

another 10-20 years. This is not to say that the product will certainly be effective or popular
during this time period: only that it will exist, and will be available for at least the wealthy class

to obtain.

Analysis: Effective analysis and scenario building will require research on Neuralink as a

company and a product, the capabilities of neural implants, the history of neural implants, the

ethical implications of these technologies, and the extent to which these technologies are

available or will be available. Research will not be confined to only these subjects: this is the

starting point for the research, but if other aspects of this technology or scenario planning seem

especially relevant, they will be looked into as well. As for experts, neuroscientists and scenario

builders seem to be the most fit to analyze Neuralink as a product. In addition, people with

insight into tech governance and/or ethics regarding future and existing technology will be

essential in examining the future of Neuralink. The driving forces of this product and its

development could actually defined as one of the key uncertainties: the company says its mission

is to aid those that are mentally or physically impaired, but recently it has taken a new direction,

advertising to the general public about direct playback of music to the brain, and peer-to-peer

interaction and communication. Further research should help narrow down who the target

audience for this product is, and whether that target audience will have the capability or desire to

obtain Neuralink as a product. This brings in the second key uncertainty: availability. How

widespread will this product be? Who will use it and who can afford it? These questions must be

hypothesized in order to create effective future scenarios.

Development: The scenario axes as of now will be the intent of the technology (whether for

impaired people or the general public) and the availability/accessibility of the technology (who

can get it, who would want it). This could change after further research, but right now these are

the best distinguishers between future scenarios. After establishing the compass of future
scenarios, the implications of each scenario will be analyzed, and in turn, long form stories and

scenarios will be created.

Assessment: Here is where the future scenarios will be taken and applied to the present. The

future scenarios will also be seen as to where some overlap, and the gray areas that could exist

outside of this binary future planning. This step is the hardest to plan, as so much of it depends

exactly on the research, analysis, and development of the scenarios surrounding Neuralink.

However, this step is also crucial in establishing the relevance and importance of this research.

Expected Results:

This scenario planning will inform modern technology in the way that it will examine

some of the ethical implications of invasive technologies, as well as the availability of certain

present technologies. What is or isn’t available to the public will be examined in the scenario

planning, and insights for the present day regarding essential technologies will be provided

through the examination of how things might look if Neuralink is or isn’t dispersed properly.

Furthermore, this scenario planning could help inform governance regarding certain present and

future technologies. The scenario planning regarding Neuralink will be helpful in looking at what

kind of governance should be established in case something goes wrong with bodily technology

or privacy violations in the future. In addition, it will help developers of future technologies to

examine the ethical implications of their current developments, and ask what they as a company

or developer could do to ensure that the technology is ethical and widespread.

STEEP Drivers:
Driver Name Description STEEP Category

Societal Do people trust this technology? Are people Social

Acceptance familiar with or skeptical of technology being
inserted in the brain and used in tandem with
one’s thoughts?

Economic How expensive is this technology? How many Economic/Social

Availability people can feasibly pay for this technology and
(Axis 1) its insertion into the body? How will this be
reflected in how the technology is built and
marketed?

Restrictive To what extent does the government implement Political

Legislature restrictions or limitations on this technology and
or Lack its consumption? How much will Neuralink as a
Thereof company attempt to sway policy? How will this
(Axis 2) impact the creation and dispersion of Neuralink?

Hardware What resources are required to produce the Environmental

Manufacturing hardware portion of Neuralink and how will this
impact the environment?

Effectiveness How well does the product achieve its goals? Technological
How efficient is it and how practical is it

Import Tariffs In tandem with hardware manufacturing, do the Political/Economic

natural resources needed have come from places
with tariffs? How does this impact production?

Software How much work is it to program, debug, and Technological

Manufacturing perfect the software portion of the product?

Interest of Are investors trusting of this product and Economic

Investors company? Do they see profit in the future?

Data How rampant is data collection among other Technological/Social

Collection technologies at this time and how rampant is data
collection in the Neuralink technology just to
have it function properly?

War With How does international conflict factor into the Political
Foreign prices to produce and distribute this product
Producers throughout the world?

Centers to Because this product has to physically enter the Economic/Environmental

Distribute body, are there stations in place where people can
Product have it inserted safely? Where are these stations,
 and how much land and capital do they
necessitate?

Funding How much capital is put behind this product Economic

initially, during the prototyping phase, and
during the dispersion phase?

Safety of Has this product been thoroughly vetted and Social/Technological

Product tested? How safe is it in the minds of the average
consumer (whoever that may be)?

Purpose of Is this product only for neurologically impaired Social/Economic

Product people? Is it for the general public? Is it
all-purpose? What are its goals?

Natural How much of the earth must be extracted and Environmental

Resource produced to create this product? How much is
Scarcity left before and after making the product?

Scenarios:

Implications:
 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 All

Strengths The The tech isn’t The tech will Neuralink is Universal
inequality invasive probably be equitable, it is strength is
may not be as which leads extremely available for all that we can
pronounced to less effective, as people which examine
as long as controversy upper class lessens the need human and
there are and less people are for examining technology
severe unethical unwilling to this technology interaction
restrictions practice use invasive through a class on a deeper
technology lens level than
that is ever before
ineffective or
unsafe

Weaknesses The The Most people Because of Universal

weakness is weakness is will be extreme weakness
that the that the unable to de-regulation, is that this
technology is technology access this the technology tech almost
not available may end up technology, will most likely always
to all people looking like creating an be extremely creates
just another even deeper invasive and ethical
iPhone or divide used by implication
accessory between corporations to s, except
economic monitor and for when it
classes advertise to is another
people accessory

Opportunities Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity for Each of

to pass more for to truly see a truly equitable these
restrictive companies to what benefits technology to scenarios
legislature to innovate even can be gained exist, as present
make sure the further from everyone can unique
inequality without the implanting access it and opportuniti
isn’t as technology people from use it es that can
rampant becoming technology effectively be taken
invasive and
examined

Threats Rising Corporations Threat that People will be The threats

inequality may be this will harvested for are usually
could result unhappy, as ensure a their data in an related to
in protests or they want to concerte unprecedented class in
other push the divide way, as the this, with
pushback boundaries of between the technology either there
from working human and upper class engages with being
 class people technology and everyone their thoughts rampant
interaction else, as they and inequality
can now have consciousness, or
genetic and is used to corporation
enhancement take this data s using
s in addition and sell it to their power
to being advertisers to
wealthy maximize
profit

References

Dadia, Tal & Greenbaum, Dov, “Neuralink: The Ethical ‘Rithmatic of Reading and Writing to

the Brain” (2019). AJOB Neuroscience, 10:4, 187-189, DOI:

10.1080/21507740.2019.1665129

Miśkiewicz, Julia. “The Merger of Natural Intelligence With Artificial Intelligence, With a Focus

on Neuralink Company”. Virtual Economics, Vol. 2, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 22-29,

doi:10.34021/ve.2019.02.03(2).

Moss, Ankita Uttira & Amadio, Jordan P. (2019). The Ethical Imperative for

Neuro-Entrepreneurs, AJOB Neuroscience, 10:4, 205-207, DOI:

10.1080/21507740.2019.1665127

Pisarchik AN, Maksimenko VA, Hramov AE, “From Novel Technology to Novel Applications:

Comment on “An Integrated Brain-Machine Interface Platform With Thousands of

Channels” by Elon Musk and Neuralink”. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(10):e16356.

https://www.jmir.org/2019/10/e16356