Berlin - A person without a brain chip could have disadvantages in the future, says the Viennese biotechnologist Markus Schmidt. In addition to Schmidt, various scientists in the international research project "Future Body" are working on the effects of neurotechnology on society. In this interview, Schmidt explains why we humans will continue to merge with technology and where the opportunities and risks of neurotechnology lie.

Markus Schmidt:

Berliner Zeitung: Mr. Schmidt, you are concerned with the future of the human body. Will we look back on the year 2021 in 100 years and ask ourselves: How could we live like this?

Markus Schmidt: I think so. We can clearly see that technological progress and social changes have become faster and faster over the years. We were hunter-gatherers for two million years. 10,000 years ago came agriculture. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the industrial revolution took place and in the 1970s, information technology arrived. And since then, a lot has happened again. Our lives, the technological advances will continue to accelerate in the future. This means that in 100 years 2021 will be further away than the year 1921 for us today.

In your research project "Future Body", you and your team focus on neurotechnology. What exactly is it all about?

In the project, we cooperate with two partners in Germany and one in Canada and look at neurotechnology from different sides: philosophical, technical, but also artistic. Neurotechnology comprises various technologies and processes that interact directly with our nervous system, for example via brain-computer interfaces. These include, for example, the "Internet of Living Things", with which the brain is to be connected to the network, or implants in the body, through which new senses are to be obtained.

Elon Musk also presented a brain chip last year that is intended to connect brains to computers.

Exactly, with Musk's brain chips, a thousand electrodes are placed in the brain on a very small area. This density of electrodes in the brain was previously unmatched and gives hope for a higher "neurological resolution".

Are other neurotechnologies already in use today?

Yes, a common non-invasive procedure is, for example, the electroencephalogram (EEG). A kind of cap with sewn-in electrodes is placed on the head, from which signals are led to an amplifier via cables. There is a company in Austria that manufactures these systems specifically for locked-in patients who are conscious but cannot lift their arm or speak. With the help of the EEG, they can give answers such as yes or no by thought. However, there are already cochlear implants for the deaf that are directly connected to the inner ear.

So there is neurotechnology mainly for therapeutic purposes?

First and foremost, yes, but that is changing. Even some technologies already go beyond the therapeutic applications for which they were actually intended, as can be seen, for example, in the cochlear implant for the deaf.

how?

We have an employee in our research project who has such an implant in mind. He heard normally for 30 years, then he lost his hearing, was deaf for many years until he received this implant. He now has 90 percent of the hearing of a healthy person. We met in a restaurant where it was very noisy. I asked him if the many background noises affected him. And he said that he can hear me very well, because his implant also has a setting for noisy environments and bars. The microphone filters out my voice, the other sounds are not forwarded. He can hear much better in a noisy environment than normal people. We can already speak of human enhancement.

That means?

Translated, it means: human improvement. There is a general trend towards optimization in our society – we can clearly see that. At the moment, neurotechnology is still about technologies for the sick or people with disabilities. But the optimization goes on and on and soon these technologies will probably also use healthy people.

Can this development already be observed today?

Yes, the body of healthy people is already perceived by some as deficient. Admittedly, you could also develop implants that make you more empathetic. But the trend today is more in the direction that you want to become better, more powerful. There are already ways to optimize mental performance.

Can you give us some examples?

For several years, it has been known that the intestine is related to our mood. For example, the composition of bacteria in the intestine of a depressed person is different from that of a healthy person. So you could optimize the mood by taking certain bacteria or even performing fecal transplants. Another recent example: In the US and England, many students take certain medications to improve their ability to learn. However, this is at the limit of the legal. And computer gamers put on hoods with electrodes that send a weak current through the brain so they can play longer and concentrate better.

And is that still legal?

The learning drugs are not approved for this purpose, but the hood can be legally bought in online trading. Whether it actually works is another matter. Methods on the border of legality, on the other hand, are performed by neurohackers. For our research project, we also conducted several interviews with them.

Neurohacker?

These are people who put implants that have no therapeutic benefit. For example, a hacker has inserted an implant to sense when seismological measuring stations somewhere in the world register an earthquake.

Biofaction

Could you imagine optimizing your body like the neurohackers?

After the interviews with the neurohackers, there was nothing that interested me. These are also risky interventions, the technology is not mature. In the end, you have an electronics cemetery in your body. Neurohackers are pioneers, as are biohackersexperimenting with synthetic biology. Both groups use products that are not yet approved or mature. Many also conduct self-experiments, especially in the US. Her reasoning: "I can do whatever I want on my body. No one can tell me whether this is ethically okay or problematic."

Which development in neurotechnology do you find problematic?

One method of better understanding the brain and its development uses lab-made mini-brains. When researching such things, you have to ask yourself: When are these sentient beings? When are brains capable of conscious perception? And when not? I don't think it's easy to draw a line there. On the one hand, you don't want to do any more animal experiments. But this mini brain is also a kind of animal – reduced to the brain.

Would you say that in the future we will all merge more with technology?

In a way, certainly. Of course, you don't have to follow this trend, but it's getting more and more difficult. If you think about what it would be like to live without a telephone, computer and bank account, you realize how much we depend on it. And so it will be in the future. At a certain point, it is hardly feasible not to participate.

So, if you're the only person who doesn't have a brain implant, could that be a disadvantage?

Absolutely. Without a brain chip, you become a second-class person, even though you are healthy. On the other hand, there could also be a selection advantage for those who do not have a brain chip. Perhaps because they are then not susceptible to cyber attacks. You can see it now: In the USA there were hacker attacks and in Sweden the supermarket checkouts no longer went. Everything is networked. Technologization has advantages, it makes many things more efficient. But uniformity also makes it more susceptible to attacks and crises, which must also be taken into account.

In many science fiction movies, robots take on a life of their own. Could this also happen with implants?

These films focus on robots that are becoming more and more humane. But we are researching people who become robots, so to speak– the cyborgization of humans. Of course, it may be that implants also develop a life of their own. For example, we organize the BIO· FICTION festival related to our research project. There, artists and film producers process neurotechnology in their films. In one of the films ("The Auxiliary"), the protagonist tears her implant out of her body, which leads to the end of both because they have become so dependent on each other. It is a symbiosis between the implant and the human being. This is still pure fiction, but it shows a possible future reality.

Should a line be drawn in neurotechnology research at some point?

This is a philosophical question. An example: At some point in the past, the music was created. A human being drilled holes in a hollow vulture bone – that's how the first flute was created. Suddenly, we had musical instruments to make music. Let's think this further into the future. What if we suddenly have access to other realities that were previously completely closed to us? What happens next? What qualitatively new phenomena are still waiting for us? You have to be careful not to let go of the technology too early on people and then they get sick or destroy themselves. But why should we simply freeze the status quo? It is a balancing act, a constant renegotiation and discussion.

So we should continue to research neurotechnology?

Absolutely. Especially in the USA but also in Europe, there is a lot of research, by scientists but also by neurohackers who carry out self-experiments. These are real pioneers in their field who show what could be done. It is also interesting that extreme technological advances are more likely to take place in the US, where there is less regulation, more private investment and a lower degree of social solidarity. In Europe, one has to ask oneself whether one is condemned to always adopt the innovations of others and is no longer an actor oneself. If you are too responsible and too regulated, the inventions are made elsewhere and people also go elsewhere to be able to make those inventions. This is a dilemma.

why?

Because in the future we will have to take over the innovations in order not to have any disadvantages. In the coming years, a lot will happen in neurotechnology. And Europe should be careful not to be left behind.

Are you confident that humanity will deal responsibly with neurotechnology in the future?

No, I'm not. While there are efforts towards responsible research and innovation, we are far from the end of the road. We are constantly breaking new ground and I fear that we will have to experience some more disasters.