*FINANCIAL TIMES* illustration for “Neuro-Technology”

IN MY ROLE OF MONITORING the media I inevitably have to deal with a lot of screaming. Literal screaming – as in so-called discussions on cable television’s so-called news channels. And written screaming, in headlines and text on paper and online. So I’m grateful to have a solid, dependable, and quietly-spoken news outlet like the Financial Times to turn to.

It comes from London but is admirably internationalist in all its perspectives, and in coverage it always embracies far more than just matters of finance, despite its money-minded name.

I and others of my generation still call it ‘The Pink Paper,’ even though so many readers no longer see the dead-tree version, that’s shaded a bit like a dead and smoked salmon. The pink paper this week delivered what it straightforwardly called its periodic “Big Read.” That’s a term that in other places online is usually accompanied with the advice (or warning) that we might be in for a five- or even a seven-minute read. In this case, though, the FT article had an unannounced actual length amounting to more like seventeen, maybe twenty minutes, depending on our individual reading speeds — and taking into account that the article dealt with some pretty complex notions.

The headline – definitely meant for a broadsheet newspaper and not any tabloid – was The Transformative Potential of Computerized Brain Implants. FT writers Clive Cookson and Richard Waters took us on an admirable, confident journey through the promise and the risks that lie at the increasingly important intersection between human neuroscience and machine-learning.

This whole field is given the shorthand of BCI (Brain-Computer Interface), and it includes the already-existing practice of implanting digital devices in brain-damaged patients, to overcome severely impaired motor function, say, or enable them to communicate when they’ve lost that ability. This familiar realm of medicine is fast developing into a much broader, all-encompassing and evidently world-changing range of possibilities. An industry leader cited by the FT said that fundamentally, “we are creating a link between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.”

*Precision Neuroscience co-founder MICHAEL MAGER*

This was not, I hasten to say, Elon Musk speaking. He has for long, perhaps for too long, been singled out and lionized for his supposedly visionary gleam in this area, especially in founding the company Neuralink (alongside, of course, his other, space-related ventures, and his now wobbling electric car empire, Tesla.)

The FT was in fact talking with Michael Mager (right) who runs a company called Precision Neuroscience based here in New York. It’s one of many companies that the FT took into consideration as it conducted its wide-ranging investigation, in the US and in Europe —especially Switzerland, which the paper reports has an outsized influence in this intricate and multi-faceted specialty.

In the laboratory, said the FT, the employment of brain signals to activate computers and other machines — something that until recently was a staple of only science fiction — is becoming almost routine, setting technology on a path with deep, long-term consequences.

“This is a turning point for humanity,” the paper quoted Professor Rafael Yuste as saying (below left), who is the director of Columbia University’s NeuroTechnology Center.

WHILE MORE THAN 160,000 PATIENTS have already received what’s called “deep brain stimulation” to treat or at least alleviate debilitating conditions including Parkinsons Disease … any more adventurous experimentation has to be limited, of course. We’re dealing here with human beings, human brains.

A dramatically smaller number, say just 50 or so patients worldwide, have received an actual prosthetic computer implant in the brain, a process developed only since this clinical research started about 20 years ago.

The Director of the Center for Neurotechnology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Leigh Hochberg (not shown) says that such relatively few experimental subjects could prove disproportionately valuable for research purposes. He told the FT:

“Because we learn a tremendous amount from each participant in these pilot clinical trials, I don’t think we’ll need large numbers … before applying for regulatory approval”. “Maybe dozens of patients … but certainly not the thousands who often take part in trials of new drugs.”

It’s hard not to sense a scientist’s possible over-enthusiasm, or at least some understandable impatience, in Dr Hochberg’s optimistic prediction. Twentieth century history, we do need to remember, is strewn with examples of human experimentation that led to horrific results. We have regulatory restrictions for many a good reason.

But I should say that the FT article does pay full attention to the profound ethical questions that the Brain-Computer Interface is bound to raise, is already raising. The survey points to the worldwide effort being marshaled by UNESCO (the United Nations’ scientific and educational body) toward producing a binding treaty for approval by member-nations, as early as next year.

Gabriela Ramos from Mexico (right), who’s UNESCO’s sentinel on this issue – and she’s a diplomat rather than a scientist – has said “We aim to ensure that these scientific and technological developments are aligned with our human rights.” We must hope that she achieves that aim.

I recommend a close reading of the FT piece – available at the Financial Times site … and it’s a very searchable headline “COMPUTERIZED BRAIN IMPLANTS”.

Computers for the Brain and Body

Media Election Coverage – Turn-Out Levels Are Critical