←back to thread

Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

(fortune.com)
360 points danielmorozoff | 1 comments | 24 Aug 25 09:12 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
NitpickLawyer ◴[24 Aug 25 09:18 UTC] No.45002721[source]▶
There is a great podcast with the entire team + Noland on yt. It is ~ 8h long, but IMO it's worth the time. You get to hear things from the perspective of the chief brain surgeon, hardware team, software team, and of course Noland himself. I really recommend it, to get a better understanding of what's possible, what they had to do to get there, and how impactful this kind of research is for people with terrible conditions.
replies(3): >>45031352 #>>45032352 #>>45035688 #
Veserv ◴[26 Aug 25 21:07 UTC] No.45032352[source]▶
Still the same depraved head of neurosurgery, Dr. Matthew MacDougall, who said: "If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people that would step up." [1]

That is basically the textbook definition of unethical medical practice, so unquestionably far over the line of acceptable practice that you would have to be willfully ignorant to defend it, and they think it would be exciting if it were not banned.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGItIAUQmI&t=5239s

replies(6): >>45032566 #>>45032662 #>>45032718 #>>45033183 #>>45035240 #>>45037056 #
Noumenon72 ◴[26 Aug 25 21:41 UTC] No.45032662[source]▶
These kind of takes often place a higher value on people's life than they would place on their own. We should let people choose MAID if that's the best outcome for their lives, and we should let them risk their health for science. It's up to them whether they feel they have anything left to lose.

This is aside from the harm it does to the rest of us to prevent experimentation by willing participants, such as barring human challenge trials to quickly test Covid vaccines.

replies(1): >>45032730 #
1. GuinansEyebrows ◴[26 Aug 25 21:47 UTC] No.45032730[source]▶
well, it may be one thing when we're talking about functional adults deciding for themselves to opt-in to experimental treatment.

i would guess that these protections exist to cover a broader group including children or those who are in the care of others and aren't necessarily capable of making their own decisions about experimental treatment... to say nothing of other forms of coercion otherwise-capable adults may face when it comes to stuff like this.

it's tricky! and it doesn't seem like there's a one-size-fits-all approach that offers protection for those who need it.