Neuralink: A Chip of Hope

Written by: Brent Isaac F. Geronimo & Robert Sebastian D. Ornido

With the recent groundbreaking implantation of Neuralink to its first human trial, the scientific

community caught a glimpse of the future that awaits us. In the realm of technological innovation,

Neuralink—also coined as “The Link”—promises to obfuscate the unsaid boundaries between

cutting-edge technology and human intellect—marking an entry into the field of brain-machine interface.

Additionally, its main goal is to establish a smooth connection between our body and outside peripherals,

which could lead to a host of new opportunities for communication, cognitive improvement, and medical

care. Elon Musk—the mastermind behind Neuralink—says that in one form or another, it is a means by

which the brain can interface with a computer system via a lace-like appendage that is placed over the

natural human brain. Not only that, he emphasizes how Neuralink can read signals from a paralyzed

patient's brain and send that data to a computer or iPhone, allowing the user to control it with only their

thoughts rather than tapping, typing, or swiping. Concurrently, Neuralink Corporation—the private

neurotechnological company that manufactures the eponymous chips—expanded to human trials, with

Musk announcing the first paralyzed volunteer on January 28, 2024. However, although “The Link”

proposes scientific advancements to mankind, there is still a gap to fill on procedural safety, long-term

holistic effects, and societal implementation and commercialization.

After reading the article about the first human test subject of Neuralink, we were astonishingly

impressed with the operation's success but grew concerned with its possible safety risks. In the context of

procedural safety, the process of implanting the chip can impose danger and risk to its subject.

Undeniably, the idea of placing a mechanical fragment inside a human brain left us skeptical about its

reliability in a medical context. As we all know, the brain governs various processes throughout the body;

one wrong incision or disruption could lead to grave side effects—evident in Neuralink’s pre-human

trials. When Neuralink Corporation shifted to primate trials, the company received criticism and
controversy for allegedly euthanizing their test subjects in correlation with brain implantation adversities.

For this reason, we fear Neuralink’s current notion of establishing accessible safety standards and

regulatory strategies for surgical precision and biocompatibility. Not only that, we disagree with the

company’s current approaches to procedural safety as the research participants and patients should have

their rights, autonomy, and welfare supported by strong ethical monitoring—a factor that Neuralink needs

to improve further. As “The Link” moves toward a more widespread clinical use, procedural safety needs

to be ensured not just in particular research endeavors but also in the creation of easily transparent safety

protocols and legal frameworks.

Consequently, concerning its effects on procedural safety, we found that Neuralink’s brain

implantation may be detrimental in the long run. Primarily, with the knowledge that as humans get older,

their organs also develop in size, including the brain. With that, we worry that as patients who are

subjected to the brain chip get older, their brain growth may be an alarming factor that has the potential to

disrupt the designated position and proper function of the implanted neurochip. Considering that, we

foresee that complications may arise as time goes by that will affect the brain’s functioning and the

holistic well-being of the patients. The intricacies that we think may result from such feedback are

frequent headaches, migraines, and brain inflammation, while also not ruling out the risks for the

development of cognitive-focused diseases like Alzheimer’s. Significantly, after reading the article about

the brain-computer interface, the long-term health repercussions of Neuralink remain largely unknown,

despite the potential benefits it offers. Even though Neuralink has the capacity to lead technological and

medical revolutionary breakthroughs, we found how important it is to acknowledge the ethical

implications of this innovation in longitudinal aspects to patients where a sophisticated strategy must be

further applied to strike a balance between patient welfare, moral obligations, and scientific advancement.

Moreover, after final trials are conducted, thorough consideration should still be performed before

releasing “The Link’’ to society and its economic market. Considering the aforementioned concern stated
in the last paragraph, it is only veracious that Neuralink cogitates about the risks that the neuro-chip

exhibits all the while aiming for product commercialization. They have to ensure that society’s perception

towards the product is in an upright state and that it will thrive within the medicinal economic market.

Firstly, Neuralink should be able to determine whether “The Link” is ready for societal use. With that, it is

only right that they become more transparent and conduct more research regarding the long-term effects

of the brain chip on the overall health of a person. Through this, Neuralink will be able to establish a safe

ground in our vast community as the perceived view of society towards “The Link” is something that is

proven to be safe by credible research as they promulgate the product internationally. Secondly and

equally significant, the commercialization process of the neuro-chip is vital in certifying the success and

profitability of Neuralink. The chip should then be aligned with the standards and guidelines of the

advancing medicinal market before being released to distributing companies. In relation, if Neuralink

adheres to the considerations that should be done for the betterment of the product, rest assured that it will

thrive within the medicinal economic market since they have reached its target market’s standards.

Markedly, Neuralink's fiscal consequences are multifaceted and could potentially have a significant

impact on several industries if marketed safely and ethically.

All in all, despite the hurdles of Neuralink’s manufacturing, production, and implementation,

“The Link” proves that development is not a one-and-done process and its effectiveness topples

contemporary technology. It is undeniable that Elon Musk has stamped his renowned status in the realm

of technology–further pushing the boundaries of innovation with Neuralink as they continue to traverse

the world of technology. “The Link” is a chip that symbolizes the time sacrificed and efforts exerted by

many in order to bring a successful breakthrough that society will benefit from. With its continuous

progress that already shows what the future holds, we are assured that when the time comes, this

technology will be the foundation of medical technology that will govern our society. Along with that,

identifying the areas of concern that Neuralink should address using our contemporary technology will be

the key to a quicker and safer process in finalizing “The Link”. Now, we say that the saying: “Nothing is
forever” truly defines the development of our technology as we live in a world where contemporary

innovations consistently ascend to a much improved and better system. This chip of hope is the future that

is bound to bring change and revolutionize the technological world.

Cameron, D. (2023, October 4). How neuralink keeps dead monkey photos secret. Wired.

[Link]

Lohrmann, D. (2024, March 3). Human brain chip implants: Helpful? safe? ethical?. GovTech.

[Link]

e-ethical

Magazine, V. (2024, March 8). Neuralink’s First Brain Chip Implantation. Medium.

[Link]

The Pros and cons of Neuralink on humans. Presence Secure. (2023, January 8).

[Link]

Samuel, S. (2023, October 16). Elon Musk wants to merge humans with AI. how many brains will

be damaged along the way?. Vox.

[Link]