Optimism for transformative treatments arrives with a disconcerting warning

On January 28, 2024, Noland Arbaugh became the inaugural individual to gain a brain implant chip from Neuralink, the neurotechnology firm founded by Elon Musk. The device appeared effective: Arbaugh, who suffers from paralysis, managed to manipulate a computer mouse using his thoughts and even play chess online.

This technology is part of a category of treatments known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), which hold potential for assisting individuals with disabilities to operate prosthetic limbs, use computers, or directly convert their thoughts into spoken words. Although their current application is constrained, with millions living with spinal cord injuries, strokes, and various conditions, market projections for BCIs are estimated at approximately $400 billion in the United States alone.

A recent discussion paper from the Carr Center for Human Rights acknowledges the potential advantages while cautioning against historical lessons, highlighting unsettling similarities between an era of emerging therapies and one of America’s most troubling historical periods: experiments on psychological manipulation and mind control.

“In prior times, there have been individuals keen on dominating others’ thoughts,” Lukas Meier, the paper’s author and now a fellow at the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, stated in an interview. “It’s reasonable to believe that in the future, there will be similar entities, whether from state or private interests, attempting the same with advanced technology.”

Meier, who previously served as a technology and human rights fellow at the Carr Center, referred to the Cold War, during which scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain engaged in a perilous contest for controlling the human psyche. In 1953, in response to claims that North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet governments had effectively brainwashed American POWs, then-CIA Director Allen Dulles sanctioned MKUltra, the CIA’s notorious effort to extract confessions and regulate individuals’ behaviors.

“That was indeed their goal; they just did not make significant progress, as far as we are aware,” Meier remarked.

According to Meier’s research, in one initiative, participants were subjected to repeated recordings, including during drug-induced sleep, in an effort to modify their personalities. In another study, individuals were administered powerful electric shocks multiple times per day over several weeks, sometimes alongside psychoactive substances. Some participants experienced significant memory loss or even the inability to speak a second language; others lost the capacity to walk or eat independently. Many suffered lasting physical or psychological repercussions.

The CIA’s techniques were rudimentary, Meier explained, but if the more sophisticated methods of the 21st century manage to avoid the negative consequences of MK Ultra, they still present serious concerns regarding self-determination, consent, and mental privacy. For instance, parents in China raised concerns in 2019 about schoolchildren utilizing devices that monitored their brain activity to enhance concentration. In more theoretical scenarios, researchers have investigated reconstructing images from the brain signals of individuals equipped with BCIs.

“With these technological advancements, we dangerously approach inadvertently facilitating one of the primary objectives of Cold War intelligence operations: extracting information from individuals who are not willingly participating,” Meier articulates.

Meier theorizes that beyond interpreting our thoughts, BCIs could be employed to modify our behaviors. He cites research indicating that some patients receiving deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease exhibit manic symptoms, including a 2006 incident where a patient with no prior criminal background broke into an unattended vehicle when the stimulator was activated, returning to normalcy when the stimulation ceased.

“Causing someone with an unblemished record to break into a vehicle appears to be a significant intrusion,” he noted, adding: “We have yet to reach a stage where this effect can be induced at will. It may emerge as a byproduct, but I don’t believe anyone could accurately predict which neuromodulation techniques applied to specific brain regions would result in this effect.”

Despite his concerns, Meier advocates for the ongoing progression of BCI technology in the U.S., partly to maintain a competitive edge over global rivals.

“It is particularly during such times that technological advancements available to opposing parties are highly susceptible to misuse for gaining leverage,” he states in the paper. “The grave outcomes of numerous attempts to create techniques for mind control during the Cold War should serve as a caution. The two perilous elements recur: a revival of bloc tensions and the existence of innovations that can interfere with the human brain. We cannot rely on technological limitations to thwart efforts at mind control a second time.”