Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The human cost of neurotechnology failure

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#11

Post by ckemere »

telesilla wrote: post #8
ryukafalz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete > Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.

I can't see a requirement to be FOSS working due to those who fund such companies expect to have dividends, even universities. But at least if it's published, and with stronger right to repair laws, there is some chance rather than none.

You could imagine filing firmware updates with the FDA to be released if the company ever stops providing support?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#12

Post by menzoic »

drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

> who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest

I'm sure they would if it helped relieve severe chronic pain. A limited period of relief is still better than zero relief.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#13

Post by alerighi »

ryukafalz wrote: post #6
telesilla wrote: post #3

>People using the stimulator and their physicians could no longer access the proprietary software needed to recalibrate the device and maintain its effectiveness Devastating that there is not a higher awareness of this at the outset. Perhaps, along with other suggestions in this thread, it should be obligatory to pair any program with a university to ensure sharing & continuation of knowledge.

Related: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete > Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported It's for this reason that I believe all medical implant firmware and required associated software should be FOSS. Nobody should ever lose the use of something embedded in their body because a company goes out of business.

Yes, the code of these devices should be 100% FOSS.

Also the argument about defending intellectual property doesn't make sense: the software will probably do trivial things and be very simple, that is what you are selling is the hardware itself, and that is already covered by patents.

So making the code public will allow people to find a replacement in the eventuality that the manufacturer stops supporting the product.

This should be imposed by the governments, in my opinion, also for another reason: when the company that makes the hardware device stops supporting it, in countries with a public healthcare system it's the state itself that has to support the patient. How can the healthcare system provide assistance to something that doesn't know internally how it works? How can it go to another company to ask to fix the device?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#14

Post by plastiquebeech »

menzoic wrote: post #12
drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

> who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest I'm sure they would if it helped relieve severe chronic pain. A limited period of relief is still better than zero relief.

We need to be very careful with brain implants designed to relieve pain, lest we repeat the mistakes which brought us the opioid crisis.

I've seen videos at BCI conferences of deep brain stimulation implants which provide the patient with a "happy button" to relieve chronic pain/anxiety/depression/etc. They seem to work very well in a clinical setting, but the patient reactions make it clear that there will be an enormous potential for recreational use (and abuse).

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#15

Post by slibhb »

drodgers wrote: post #5

I really like the proposal from John Scalzi's 'Lock In' series where companies that produce neural implants have to establish a trust or insurance contract with enough assets to pay for the maintenance of any implants for the lifetime of the recipients, regardless of what happens to the company. Governments could provide generous subsidies, tax breaks etc. to such funds to reduce the barrier for entry for companies.…

Two kinds of people will buy them: enthusiasts and people suffering from chronic conditions with nowhere else to turn. Similarly, you can buy unapproved, unresearched medication on the internet. You take on the risk.

Personally I like the idea that people can take their lives in their own hands. As long as it's clear that they're opting out of the guiderails put into place for those of us who are more cautious.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#16

Post by skissane »

plastiquebeech wrote: post #14
menzoic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who would ever buy a neural lace from a startup — or even an established company like Google who might just lose interest I'm sure they would if it helped relieve severe chronic pain. A limited period of relief is still better than zero relief.

We need to be very careful with brain implants designed to relieve pain, lest we repeat the mistakes which brought us the opioid crisis. I've seen videos at BCI conferences of deep brain stimulation implants which provide the patient with a "happy button" to relieve chronic pain/anxiety/depression/etc. They seem to work very well in a clinical setting, but the patient reactions make it clear that there will be an eno…

The “opioid crisis” is a crisis because (1) it is easy to accidentally kill yourself with opioids; (2) drug criminalisation makes recreational drug use a lot less safe than it could be were it legal and regulated

I doubt overuse of a “happy button” brain implant is going to kill you; and I doubt it is going to end up in a similar legal situation to recreational drugs. So, whatever the negative impacts of overuse of such a button might be, I expect they’ll be a lot less severe than the opioid crisis

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#17

Post by jamiek88 »

footlose_3815 wrote: post #9
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

I'd expect a comment like this on Facebook, not here. Yours is a "Natural human" take that assumes every piece of medical tech was made in bad faith. How sad and cynical and absolutely untrue. >Pain is information. It can be NULL information, too. or WRONG information. Dude was having cluster headaches for 8 hours a day. Do you have a cure for cluster headaches? Are you able to interpret this "Information"? How arrog…

Yes pain can indeed be an incorrect signal. Phantom limb pain is one example that comes to mind.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#18

Post by ShroudedNight »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

How does this reconcile with scenarios where there is no discernible physiological explanation for the pain experienced by a patient?

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#19

Post by DoreenMichele »

jamiek88 wrote: post #17
footlose_3815 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd expect a comment like this on Facebook, not here. Yours is a "Natural human" take that assumes every piece of medical tech was made in bad faith. How sad and cynical and absolutely untrue. >Pain is information. It can be NULL information, too. or WRONG information. Dude was having cluster headaches for 8 hours a day. Do you have a cure for cluster headaches? Are you able to interpret this "Information"? How arrog…

Yes pain can indeed be an incorrect signal. Phantom limb pain is one example that comes to mind.

I've had phantom pain. I no longer do.

It's still telling you something is wrong, though perhaps a different something.

Re: The human cost of neurotechnology failure

#20

Post by DoreenMichele »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #18
DoreenMichele wrote: post #7

Pain is information. Instead of trying to manipulate the brain into not feeling it, we need to be figuring out the cause and fixing that. These ooh, shiny med tech solutions are likely on such shakey ground in part because the mindset that says "Hey, what can we build and sell to make the pain go away?" (instead of wondering what causes the pain and fixing that) is exactly the kind of thought process that turns a bli…

How does this reconcile with scenarios where there is no discernible physiological explanation for the pain experienced by a patient?

There's a lot we still don't know about the human body. Our current inability to establish cause may be a defect in our knowledge base, not evidence that "there's nothing actually wrong."
Post reply on HN