Transcription
Finally, we can move objects with our minds. No, not with the force or mental telepathy, but with brain implants, or more precisely, brain computer interfaces. Companies like Elon Musk's Neurolink are implanting products that allow people to operate computers with their thoughts. Visionaries see these products as the first step toward a future in which we'll upload our memories and minds into the cloud or download skills and knowledge into our brains. Others, of course, worry about the invasion of the last bastion of privacy, our minds. But what's the reality of this technology today and where are we headed?
Our guest today, Michael Mer, is the founder and CEO of one of the leading brain computer interface companies, Precision Neuroscience. Michael explains how the technology works and what it can do and how US companies can stay ahead as China makes this technology a national priority. Michael, welcome. It's so great to have you. And I should say upfront, I have known you outside of a business context for a long time, which has also been very enjoyable. But you're now doing this fascinating thing. So very excited to talk to you about it. And in a couple of words, it is brain implants. You are the CEO of a company that is in the same general space as the company that Elon Musk talks a lot about. Tell us about your company.
>> Thanks Henry so much for inviting me. Uh it's nice to see you outside the context of you're beating me on the tennis court. Um yeah, so I am uh the CEO and the co-founder of Precision Neuroscience. We are developing a next generation brain computer interface. I'll talk a little bit about what that means and and what that is. um you know effectively a brain computer interface creates a direct communication pathway between the brain and external compute and the first application of that communication pathway is to enable thought-based control of computers and other digital devices. Um the company was started uh by myself and Ben Rapaort um in 2021. Ben was one of the co-founders of Neuralink, which is another company in the space that uh Elon Musk was was also one of the co-founders of. Um he's a practicing neurosurgeon still a day a week at Mount Si here in New York. Um we've raised $180 million over the course of the past sort of five some odd years. Um we're working with 15 of the best hospitals across the country from John's Hopkins to Mount Sinai here in New York to Penn Medicine in Philadelphia. Um we've implanted 70 people at this point with our system. Um all so far temporarily uh we have breakthrough designation from the FDA and you know most importantly we we're now in the process of proving the the systems functionality which is uh to enable thought-based control of computers which for paralyzed people um we think is going to be life-changing. I think right now we're really focused on changing what it means to be disabled. I think over the longer term I think we have the potential to u make an impact on neurological health more generally.
>> So tell us about the device. What is it? How big is it? What does it do? How do you put it in there? And how if it's temporary, how do you take it out?
>> So the brain is electrical. Uh this is something that that may not be intuitive for for for people but you know when you have a thought when you recall a memory when you have a new idea that feels abstract but there is actually a physical manifestation of those thoughts and the physical manifestation is electrical. So what a brain computer interface does is it records that electrical activity out at the source um and then transmits it to a computer to decode what the neural activity means. and uses that to drive an intention. Um so again in the first instance for us it's about uh control of of compute. This sounds like science fiction. Um but it is something that has existed in academic settings um for for actually more than 20 years now. So the first person was implanted with a modern brain computer interface in 2004 uh so 22 years ago. And um over the course of the past two decades, around 75 people have been implanted with systems that have enabled them to send emails and text messages, create digital art, play video games, all only using their thoughts, not using their arms and hands in the way that able-bodied people, you know, control computers. The issue has been that this has existed really um in academic labs and the systems that have been implanted in in people um are not robust enough to go through the FDA regulatory process to be manufactured at scale. They involve physical wires coming out of people's skulls and connecting to the computer. um almost all of them have been implanted with devices that penetrate into the brain and create a connection between the electrodes and the brain through penetrating into neural tissue and killing neurons. Um there's a historical reason for why the industry developed in that way. Um but I think the drawbacks are pretty kind of intuitive and obvious. You know, every implantation involves killing brain cells. Um and so
>> and so your device is different than that.
>> That's right. Our device is different from that. And and yet I I I I should say that that has been um the conventional wisdom has been you had to do those drawbacks were just inevitable. And so Neuralink uh is actually based on this same basic premise. Uh it's a more sophisticated diversion of a system that was deployed in academia, but still based on the idea of penetrating into the brain and killing neurons. I think one of the fundamental insights from my partner Ben and one of the reasons that he left Neuralink after being a co-founder was that he knew that that just wasn't true that the conventional wisdom was wrong and that you could enable high performance brain computer interface functionality without doing damage. Um and the way that we do that is a very very thin film that sits gently and conformally on the surface of the brain. So it's underneath the skull underneath the dura. So you're interacting directly with neural tissue. Um but instead of penetrating into the brain, the system just just sits on the surface of the brain and creates a very high bandwidth link um without doing the damage that other systems entail.
>> And you mentioned that some of the prior systems you were connected in a lab, you had wires coming out of your head, not a very pretty picture. What does this look like? How big is it? How do you get it in there? How does it communicate with the computer?
>> So there are a lot of breakthroughs that are required in order to take this technology to the millions of people who stand to benefit. Um and making it wireless is a key aspect of that. And so our system um is fully implanted in the body. It's invisible. Um and uh you know it's able to transmit the data that is coming off the system entirely wirelessly and and recharges wirelessly. Um but the system itself the the way that it enables the the function is through um a very very thin film that has a24 tiny platinum electrodes deposited on it and we manufacture this system using the same technique as semiconductor chip manufacturing so photoiththography which has never been been done before in uh a biomedical application. Um, and I should say we implant it. The final piece of your question, we implant it. Um, so, so Neuralink and others, you have to remove a decent sized portion of your skull in order, you know, there's in Nurling's case, there's a robot. Um, but how does the robot access the brain? You know, a neurosurgeon has to do a cranottomy. Um, and that's been the traditional way of deploying these systems. Um, one of the advantages of having a neurosurgeon co-founder uh is, you know, he can think really deeply about um the the actual surgical workflow and and how to do it better. And so we have patented an approach that involves a very very thin slit that's drilled in the skull and in the dura and the array then slides through the slit like a letter through a letter box or like a floppy disc through a I mean it depends on your generation but um you know so so effectively it obiates the need for a very invasive cranotomy um and it allows arrays to be deployed to different areas of the brain in a minimally invasive manner.
>> So, Neurolink and and many other approaches to this in the past have been much more invasive as you were saying and my understanding is the advantage of that is you get much more accurate data and so does the fact that you are effectively floating on top hurt or limit what you can do relative to an embedded device.
>> I think it's I I wouldn't say accurate uh or inaccurate data. I would say it's slightly different data. I think the the the rationale from the neuroscience. So taking a step back, what's the history here and why did the the industry develop as it has? Um the initial devices that were implanted um starting sort of in in 2004 were actually developed for nonhuman primate research by neuroscientists and neuroscientists are interested in single unit activity. So the the basically the behavior of individual neurons. That's kind of the the the fundamental building block of neuroscience. it's it's you know each individual brain cell um that system which had been uh you know used at that point for sort of 10 or 15 years was deployed in a human being and it worked and so the conventional wisdom evolved such that oh you had to penetrate in the brain in order to drive powerful BCI you do have to penetrate into the brain in order to see individual neurons that is true but you do not need to see individual neurons uh that that's not how neural activity um you know is represented in a way that's going to be useful for us to drive a system. So we're looking at very small groups of neurons operating in concert with each other and we're able to do it over a larger amount of surface area of the brain than you know these competing systems. Um the system that we've developed does not have the drawbacks of penetrating arrays and has a lot of pretty fundamental strategic advantages that are going to be hard to compete with.
>> And then one last just you know how they work question. What about why do you have to go in there at all? Why can't you just give me a helmet for example?
>> My life would be easier if all you had to do is develop a helmet. Uh actually you know working within the FDA regulatory process for a class 3 medical device is difficult and you know for good reason. Um but the the short answer is that the skull is a major physical barrier. It just attenuates the signals from the brain in a way that um you know people have been trying to enable uh basic brain computer interface technology non-invasively for a very long time. There's a group of people today who hope that AI is going to create breakthroughs. Um I I would say it's it's really hard. you see very very very poor signal quality um just given the barrier of the brain between the activity that you're trying to record um and I I would say AI you know the power of these algorithms is obviously increasing massively um and so what's possible tomorrow may be different from what's possible today but I think that that's even more the case for what we're doing where if you take a crappy signal and apply AI to it maybe who can create something that's vaguely useful. If you take a really good signal and uh apply AI to it, I think you're going to be able to do some pretty magical things.
>> And I talked to Nita Farahani recently who studies this from a legal perspective and and she was saying that the amount of information that you can gather just from things like earpods or a headband or or what have you or a helmet that there is a lot of information there and we should potentially worry about that from a rights point of view and privacy and and so forth. But it sounds like what you're talking about, what you're trying to do is much deeper than that. It's giving me the ability to effectively control things just by thinking about it.
>> Yeah, I I know Nita well. I have a lot of respect for her and I think she's right about one of the complexities of this discussion is that consumer neurochnology and medical neurochnology get lumped together um inevitably during this discussion and they're really they they operate in completely different worlds. Um you know consumer neurochnology uh as you said you know technology that's embedded in earphones and headbands and things like that. um there's very they exist in a uh very weak or maybe non-existent regulatory framework both in terms of how they handle uh the data that they're collecting as well as the claims that they make. Um and I would say that's something that the FTC I I hope the FTC does look at. I think there are some good actors but there are a lot of people who are effectively selling snake oil um and talking about functionality that that simply doesn't exist um for implanted medical technology. We exist within the confines of the FDA regulatory process which has very stringent requirements in terms of data security and data privacy. We also exist within the HIPPA framework. Um and so there's a ton of uh you know really wellthought through regulation around uh critical health data that um I would say you know we're in one of the most highly regulated industries on earth and again rightfully so but um some some of the distinctions between the medical world and the consumer world um get a a little bit lost um during some of these discussions.
>> All right. So, you slide your your device into my head. What happens then? What what are you doing and how is it enabling me to move things and what what can I do with it?
>> So as I mentioned, you know, thought has an electrical representation. Um and so we are recording over a billion data points per patient per minute. um effectively recording this electrical activity from the brain at its source. Uh the signals then pass through the array to a very small package that's um implanted in between the scalp and the skull. So it's outside the skull but underneath the skin and so you can't see it. And we have uh an ASIC that uh digitizes the signals that amplifies them that multipplexes them um and then sends them down a effectively a USBC wire um a a very fancy USBC wire which again has never been used in medical technology because you've never had to transfer data at a high rate um in a medical implant before. Um but the wire is then connected to a chest wall unit where we have the wireless um power. So the the wirelessly rechargeable um as well as the telemetry to send the signals out to a computer um and the computer then makes sense of it's really pattern recognition. So it's matching you know these neurons fire in this pattern when you want to move the computer cursor up and to the right versus down and to the left versus you know whatever. Um we're doing this now. Uh so we actually I mean just even as we speak we have uh our our our system implanted um in two patients um in University of Chicago and at Buffalo. Um and we are in the process of creating some demonstration videos showing the system in action. Um one of the differentiation points of us versus others is this work is happening today um in temporary implants. So, I mentioned that we have a FDA clearance um to market and sell the device for implantation up to 30 days. Um, and that's really um a function of the fact that our systems reversible. It's safe. It's non-damaging and you can remove it. Um, this allows us to to get into market. Um, and we've actually signed, we we announced last month a partnership with Metronic, uh, one of the best medtec companies in the world, hundred billion dollar market cap company to co-develop and commercialize a temporary version of the system that I'm describing right now. So, there's a commercial benefit to having a system that you can actually market and sell. Um, and we're working with Metronic on that, but it also enables us to prove the system function. Um, you know, again, when we started precision, we got a lot of push back. No, you have to penetrate the brain. You have to do damage to the brain in order to enable powerful BCI. And so, what we're able to do in the clinic today before the permanent implant is being implanted is first of all cross this sort of threshold question of we we can enable at the highest degree of performance, you know, thought-based computer control. um but it also enables us to start collecting the neural data to feed the system. I think it's a major sort of strategic um benefit of the approach that we've taken and um and enables us really to by the time we go into the permanent implants um you know we will have worked through all of the inevitable um growing pains associated with developing a new technology and deploying it.
>> And so who are you implanting them in and what can they do that they were not able to do?
>> So right now we are enabling people to control computers with their thoughts who actually are are otherw they're not healthy because they're in the hospital for some reason but they're they're not paralyzed. They're able-bodied. So as an example um you know we we have our first demo video and it shows someone who went into the hospital for a benign brain tumor. Um gentleman is is fine. he's going to be fine. He had a procedure to remove the tumor and he had to stay in the hospital for monitoring um post procedure. And so in cases like that um the surgeon asks, you know, you have to be in the hospital anyway for the next 3, four, 5 days, a week, 2 weeks, whatever it is. Um would you like to have the precision system implanted during that period and you know control a computer with your thoughts or not? And 50% of people say, "Yeah, that sounds really exciting." And and and of course there's also an aspect here of, you know, people trying to help um the advance of medical technology that could help lots of people. Um and so there's a a really um sort of benevolent aspect of of this work. Uh so this gentleman was able to um you know control a computer cursor on a grid. Um at first what we do is we we use a joystick and um the there's a sort of a series of boxes or targets I should say and you move the computer cursor towards the targets um using the joystick and we're looking at the neural activity associated with different movements of the joystick. We then unplug the joystick at that point. In this case, the patient is still moving the joystick, but it's not connected to anything. And the computer cursor continues to move at the same rate um towards the targets, but it's powered only by his brain activity. The final piece of this, and this is something that we have not shown publicly yet, but is actually the first time it's ever happened in human history, is we then take away the joystick entirely. And he again an otherwise healthy able-bodied person has controlled the computer cursor not through imagined movement or intended movement but just through his imagination through just moving the computer cursor with his thoughts on the screen. And I think this gives you a sense of where this technology may be headed. um where you had someone who is you know a normal person um he went into the hospital for a procedure and for a few days he had this superhuman ability um and then at the bedside the system was removed and he went back to being a normal person. Um and I think that that gives you a sense of you know a system that is safe and reversible may have um you know applicability in in in healthy populations over time.
>> So basically, you're training the system to say, "So you're having me move a joystick, and it's watching what's happening in my brain, and then I don't move the joystick, but I think about it, and you recognize the same thing, and I and it moves." What if I can't move? What if I'm paralyzed? How do you train it then? Because I gather every brain is different. You're not looking for a very consistent signal. It's just exactly what happens when I move my hand.
>> Yeah. the the uh people's we're talking right now about the motor cortex and specifically uh we're targeting and and others are too the the part of the motor cortex that controls the hands and the fingers. Um those parts of the brain are pretty similar across people. You need to calibrate it a little bit but it takes us 10 or 15 minutes to enable people to to operate these systems. um for someone who is paralyzed in you know you just say imagine moving your arm to the right to the left up down they can't but again the signals are uh originating in the brain in the same way that they would for for you and me and that actually happens you know even if you're a decade or two post injury for someone who's had a spinal cord injury um the the neural activity um remains effectively the
>> All right. So, so that's where we are today and it's So, what's the maximum that I can do with that? You we talked about moving a cursor on a screen. Are are there other things that are similar to that?
>> Yeah, I mean I think right now um I I'll answer that in kind of three parts. Right now we control computers with primarily a keyboard and a mouse. We are today at precision and this is same thing at at neurolink and others. We're basically replicating a keyboard and a mouse. Um is that the right way to do it? Well, no. I think almost certainly it's not. I think this, you know, being able to operate a keyboard and a mouse means that you can regain control of of computers and and the whole digital ecosystem. And our goal is to enable people um to live higher quality lives and and rejoin the workforce if they choose. If you think about paralyzed people who are homebound, physically isolated, often, you know, let's say you've had a car accident, you're in your 20s, your 30s, your 40s, you're totally sound of mind. Um, but you've been um injured such that you're not just physically isolated, but if you can't operate a computer or a smartphone or a tablet, you know, you can't really have a job. Um, there are very few jobs available. And so our goal is to enable people to rejoin the workforce and become financially independent if they choose. But is that really the best way for people to control computers if you're unencumbered by our own biology? If you can if you can directly through thought um control um digital devices, is there a more intuitive, efficient, productive way of controlling computers? Almost certainly the answer is yes. I think we're starting at this place because we know we can do something important. But I think very quickly this is going to evolve such that not only are we developing a new medical technology, a new area within sort of medte um but actually I think a new way for human beings to control computers more generally. And I think that that may be profound. I think it would have been very hard to predict, you know, what the keyboard and the mouse would unleash in terms of productivity and creativity. Um, and I think that same thing with the advent of the mobile internet, you know, the the control of computers really moved to sort of smartphones. It's now moving again. Do do we want to control AI in the same way that we have um, you know, sort of more traditional software? Probably not. I think you know Sam Alman and um Johnny IV are working on a new product that is gonna involve some degree of contextual learning and um and you know we'll we'll I think they imagine it to be a better way of controlling like an AI first software universe but I think as this evolves direct neural control is very likely the end state um and • I think we're we're starting to explore what that might look like today.
>> All right. So, our high visibility advocate of this technology, Elon Musk, talks about the short term and the long term. In the long term, he talks about things like, "No, this is going to be a super high bandwidth direct connection, and AI is going to make humans irrelevant." And so, our only way forward is to effectively merge with AI. We're going to stick AI right into our brains. We'll be human AI creatures. and anybody that I want to talk to this about immediately says, "Well, when can I download languages and also when can I upload my memories so I don't ever forget anything and so forth." So, talk about that. Like, where are we headed and how far out is that?
>> Um, I I think that relies on a series of assumptions that may or may not be true. um, you know, can we accelerate the rate at which human beings are able to learn and ingest new information, new skills? Can we download, you know, kung fu like they do in the Matrix? Um maybe and maybe not. Uh I think that that that whole concept I think is pretty conjectural. Um that said, that is Neurolink's stated mission and goal and that's the reason that Elon Musk founded • Neuralink. I think for precision um we have a very different founding credo and mission. Um ours is to heal and empower. Um and I think that there are going to be a number of breakthroughs that this technology enables in healthcare. So we've talked a lot about sort of computer control for paralyzed people and that's where it starts because we know it works. We know that there's a group of you know millions of people globally who have nothing available to them today. But um looking out a little bit farther, you know, I think that there are some directions that this could go in in medicine um that are for me much more exciting than the mission that that you just described for Neuralink. Um, as an example, I think if you think about some of the advances in human health over the course of the past 20, 30 years, um many have been enabled by being able to digitize parts of our biology and then apply compute to them. Uh the genomics revolution is a great example. I mean, the co vaccines, uh, you know, you know, sort of developed in in a matter of minutes, um, are are another example. the ability to digitize the brain. The brain has really been sort of impervious • to to this digitization. Um it has it's encased in the skull • which is from an evolutionary standpoint helpful. • It's a protective barrier, but it's meant it's just very diff difficult to access. And then even once you can get into it, it's it's mushy and it's delicate and it's hard to interact with • in a way that is safe and scalable. I think you know one of the ways that we think about what we're doing at precision is • really to to digitize neural activity for the first time so that we can apply cutting edge compute to it. Um, and I think that, you know, we've had very modest advances in neurology as a field for the past 50 or 60 years. I was reading • the Wall Street Journal yesterday and there was an article about Alzheimer's and two expert bodies disagreeing about how you even a diagnose Alzheimer's. • That's the state of, you know, the the neurological field in 2026. And I think part of the reason is that the brain has just remained completely analog. Um, and so, you know, I I I think what we're doing is really creating an opportunity to apply cutting edge compute to the brain in a way that's never before been possible and that has the potential to lead to a number of pretty pretty foundational insights and breakthroughs.
>> Take us down 5 10 years down the road for your road map. Like what what what breakthroughs? What are we going to be able to do?
>> Well, I mean I think our roadmap involves initially moving to um severely paralyzed people. So enabling • you know thought-based computer control. • But beyond that • I think that there are • additional applications that involve really really unmet needs. One is as an example refractory depression. • So first of all refractory depression is still treated • with electrical therapy with electrocomvulsive therapy and that's something that • you know some people find surprising but but over 100,000 people every every year in the United States get electrocomvulsive therapy. There there are significant side effects but it's effective. you know, applying electricity to the brain to disrupt certain pathways and and neural circuits is effective, but you're talking about something that's extremely macroscopic and coarse. • And so I think both on the diagnosis side, so being able to • sense brain states and modulate therapy appropriately, I'll describe what that means. and then also actually to apply the therapy which involves you know in injecting current into the brain we can do a much better much more precise job. • One one of the things that I think about sometimes is • again just going back to this concept of like neurology being sort of analog. • So much of • neurological health is still diagnosed through people's subjective descriptions and a physician trying to interpret that and make sense of it. So you go into your your your doctor and you say, you know, I have a headache or I feel sad or I feel anxious or I'm having trouble focusing. You know, your physician then sort of ingests this this subjective description and tries to make sense of it and and really, you know, prescribes medication generally on a trial and error basis. • There's no ability to track over long periods of time, you know, people's objective biomarkers associated with • you know, depression or pain or some of these just completely fundamental things that make us who we are. We're tracking our health in all sorts of ways. I wear a Whoop and you know, people wear a rings. We're tracking more and more of our data to to try to make sense of it. Again, like the brain has been this sort of black box. • And I think you know I look forward to a future in which • that's that's not the case in which case we can really track efficacy of certain therapies over time modulate the therapies according to like how the brain is actually behaving • and and hopefully you know really alleviate a lot of human suffering that today just kind of feels inevitable.
>> And so where are we now? What's the timeline? like how far away are we from an actual product that I can buy that has you know it is implanted all the time • and what do we need to get there?
>> This is a question that I think even folks within the medtec community still feel like brain computer interfaces are a long way away and I think part of that is just because • you know people have been talking about brain computer interfaces for for a couple decades and it still hasn't reached the clinic and so people you know have become a little bit jaded but it is h it is happening now. • So we expect to have • our PMA which is the approval that's required to implant people to to market and sell a device that's implanted permanently in 2030. • We expect to implant our first patient permanently next year. So in 2027 and then you go through the process of an early feasibility study and then a pivotal study • and eventually • clearance. There's a lot of testing, both bench testing, animal testing, and then a small cohort of initial patients who get the the system. • And that's just part of the FDA regulatory process. We meet So, so we're I mentioned we're in the breakthrough device • program at FDA. We're also in the TAP program which is a subset of • breakthrough devices that you know the FDA deems particularly • high potential. And the purpose of the program is really to • to to help technology that has the potential to to reach a lot of people and do a lot of good make it to to to market. We meet with the FDA every month and so all of our plans, all of our timelines, all of the testing protocols • have not just been vetted by the FDA at this point. We've actually, you know, together • really constructed a lot of our plans. Again, that doesn't mean that we're going to be we're guaranteed success. • you know we have to execute on the plans but what we're talking about now is just taking a system that is working in the clinic • and basically packaging it hermetically and biocompatible packages that can be implanted in the body you know for for decades.
>> So you and Neurolink regulated by the FDA I think relatively stringent. You've talked about some of the hurdles. My understanding is there are companies working on this in China and elsewhere. Are do you feel like you're at a disadvantage because of the regulatory environment?
>> Um yes and no. I yes but probably not what you would think. Um so you're absolutely right. Brain computer interface technology is on China's 5-year plan. • It's an area of • really significant strategic focus and that is growing. Over the summer they the Chinese government did • a lot in terms of coordination efforts among some of the leading academic centers in the country with • some of the leading companies. So they are very actively supporting the development of an implanted brain computer interface industry. You know the US is still in the lead. • I think • there is a precision neuroscience equivalent in China. There's a neurolink equivalent in China. • But so far the the the systems that are being developed in this country are • are are are ahead of where they are in China. • I think the biggest risk in the United States is actually it's not all of the testing and and the FDA regulatory process that I just mentioned. Even if there were no FDA, we would do things largely • similarly to to what is being prescribed by the FDA. The biggest issue for the United States is • actually it's it's reimbursement. So • in the United States the the the way medical technology gets commercialized • is initially through the FDA which measures safety and efficacy. But then in order to actually get you know commercialize a device and get paid for it you need to then go through CMS center of Medicare and Medicaid and they have a whole different framework of judging the sort of value of medical technology as well as a different evidentiary standard and so on average there is a 3 to fouryear gap between FDA approval and CMS reimbursement. which is crazy. Not only so, so if you think about this from a funding perspective, you know, if you start a medtech company, you need to convince investors to give you capital for to 100, you know, to provide 100% of the funds for the company until it's approved. So that's six, seven, eight, nine years • with no revenue until you have approval. And then once you have approval, it's another 3 or four years between approval and eventual reimbursement. So this just means that you know companies don't that that should get funded. • don't and • I think that that is you know holding ourselves back unnecessarily. I think if you talk to people at Medicare and Medicaid or CMS they agree. I think no one would design a system from scratch in this way. CMS, you know, when CMS was created, • medical devices were like a cane or a wheelchair. So, the whole system is not set up • for cutting edge medical technology. What the United States can and should do is very simple. It should just be very clear that you know when BCIS are through the FDA regulatory process we are going to reimburse them immediately at a high rate that justifies the enormous amount of capital that's required to develop these systems and whether it's precision or neuralink or any other company you know we don't need any preferences and we don't need any favors we just need clarity and I think that that will unlock an enormous amount of capital into this industry • that will really enable us to maintain the leadership position that the United States has.
>> All right. Let's close a little bit with ethics. One of the things that I talked about with Professor Farhani was the just the what is described, I guess, generally as neuroites. This idea that we have this new class of data. You talk about recording a billion pieces of data per minute. Presumably, there's a lot of valuable information there. And again talking to Professor Farahhani from a legal perspective, the ability for your earpods or a headband or whatever to get some sort of emotional state that could then be used in court. Were were you feeling guilty at the time? Does that indicate that you're guilty or what have you? What happens with that? And how much are you worried about that?
>> Um I think in order to approach answers to that question, it's helpful to • um separate out • different different different concepts of neural data and and what they what they mean and what we should be scared about and what we shouldn't be. I think in the first instance • we're looking as I mentioned at the hand motor cortex. So which neurons fire in your motor cortex associated with different intended movements of a computer cursor taps on a keyboard. If you talk to • um the the people who stand to benefit from this technology, we have a patient advisory board we have from the very beginning of the company. We've tried to really • um use patient feedback • as pretty fundamental to our product design development from the beginning. Anyway, but we asked them about these questions also and in general the answer is like I I don't care whether like it that's not who I am. You know which neurons fire in which pattern my motor cortex is is pretty superficial. • I care a lot more by the way about like what those outputs are used to type. So like you know my emails, my my letters, my diary, you the output of those motor movements is much more personal to me than the the neurons firing. • I think so that's maybe the the answer for brain computer interfaces for the next five six seven years. • I think the deeper question though gets posed when and as these systems become more and more performant. • And I think that • you know academic work suggests and I think it's very likely that these systems will be able to for example • um decode silent speech. So • um you know speech that's not vocalized • but but instead is imagined and you know what do you what do you do with that information and how do you handle it? • I think these are like really deep and important questions. • Um, you know, I I will say as the CEO of a company, I am one voice that needs to be • um active in this discussion, but I think that this is something that needs to be decided • with really a multistakeholder • group. you know, Nita and I both sit on • the global she's actually the chair or the the co-chair of the global future global futures council through the WF • that is trying to answer some of these questions and that involves people like me who are in industry but also academics and ethicists and patient advocates • and • a similar sort of parallel effort is happening here in the United States • through something called the collaborative community. • I think you know these are really important questions as we move forward. • And I think that • you know trying to predict where these systems are going and trying to be somewhat proactive • in a way that maybe we haven't been with other areas of technology and and we're the worst for it I think is the right approach. That said, when you when you really ask me like what are the ethics of this and what you're doing like you know we're trying to develop medical technology for people who right now have no options and you know beyond that there there are according to the WHO a billion people globally who suffer from a neurological illness • at one point in their lives like I think if we can enable • you know a decrease in human suffering I think the ethics of that are are honestly pretty straightforward.
>> And so just as a last question, like where from where you sit, there's always this question and tension in the United States between Silicon Valley, which talks exactly the way you just talked, which is there's so much amazing stuff we can do and we got to get to the future before China gets to it and others get to it. Like just let us figure it out. Like don't try to restrict us and and limit us. Then you have much more different view which is like whoa like let's look at the damage that's happening in some of these companies and you know move fast and break things like enough of that we got to clamp down we got to have tighter regulation given that we are now truly on a global stage where whether people have really realized it or not China is blowing past the United States in a lot of future technologies and they're doing it as you've said because they have great government coordination They make it a national priority. We have had a very hands-off attitude about that and I think a lot of the dialogue is we're not stringent enough on the regulation. We should clamp down. What's your sense? You operate in a global environment you see around the world. How is where is the United States relative to where it should be in terms of regulation? This this balance between let us do it and no, you must do it this way and it must be much more careful.
>> I mean I think you know to answer the first part of your question first we're developing a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or for ill. • I think for what we're doing which is a medical implant I think the good is you know massively outweighed by the potential • ill but but I think it can be used for ill and I think that that's just worth worth recognizing. • I think in terms of the second part of the question and and the US versus China piece, you know, I I mean, if you notice what I said, like I I didn't say that the government needs to support us or any BCI company, and I don't think it does. • I think what the government can do in our case is just create certainty and clarity. • And I think let us and others compete to develop the best product • that that's going to end up, you know, doing a lot of good. And ultimately, you know, we're developing something that requires an elective neurosurgical procedure. That's a high bar. So, we got to deliver something that people really, really view as • um as valuable and as helpful in their lives. I think as long as • the United States has a lead and it doesn't just have a lead in the tech side, but actually the FDA itself is much more sophisticated and much more advanced than any other regulatory body in the world, including Europe • and and any parts of Asia. The people who regulate us at the FDA are PhDs who have worked with brain computer interfaces. That's by the way one of the reasons they're generally supportive because they've seen this industry get stuck in the academic setting for two decades and not reach the people who stand to benefit. • And they want to see it out there obviously safely and and • um and reliably but but still they want to see it out there. So I think we have a technological advantage and I think we have a regulatory advantage and I think that as long as we enable companies like ours • to move you know with with pace by creating a system that has you know clear incentives • for • developing the technology and and and getting it out into the world. I think the United States can do really well.
>> Michael, thank you. Good luck to you and your colleagues at Precision Neuroscience. It's incredibly exciting to talk about and and wish you all the best and thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Thanks, Henry.