by Antoine Jérusalem
November 07,
2018
from
WorldEconomicForum Website
recovered through
WayBackMachine Website
Italian
version
Oxford University's Antoine Jerusalem
explains the art of ultrasound neuromodulation.
Image: Craig Whitehead/Unsplash
At the moment, non-invasive neuromodulation - changing brain
activity without the use of surgery - looks poised to usher in a new
era of healthcare.
Breakthroughs could
include the better management of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's
disease, reducing the pain of migraines or even reversing cognitive
disorders caused by brain injury.
But what happens if
this technique for altering our brain waves escapes regulation
and falls into the wrong hands?
Imagine
a dictatorial regime with access to
the tricks and tools to change the way its citizens think or behave.
That's the ethical battleground that
Antoine Jerusalem, a professor
of engineering science at Oxford University, finds himself in as he
researches the potential of ultrasound technology to tackle
neurological diseases and disorders.
In this interview, conducted as part of the
World Economic Forum's
annual gathering in the Middle East of
scientists, government and business, he tells us more
about this growing field of research.
Controlling
the brain with sound waves: how does it work?
Well, to get straight to the science, the principle of non-invasive
neuromodulation is to focus ultrasound waves into a
region in the brain so that they all gather in a small spot.
Then hopefully, given the
right set of parameters, this can change the activity of the
neurons.
If you want to get rid of neurons that have gone wild, for example
in epilepsy, then you might want to crank up the energy to
essentially kill them. But if you want to selectively promote or
block the neuronal activity, you need to fine-tune your ultrasound
waves carefully.
In other words,
there's a difference
between ultrasound stimulation used for removing tissue, and
ultrasound neuromodulation, which is aimed at controlling
neuronal activity without damaging the tissue.
Ultrasound
neuromodulation is something that definitely works, but that we
still don't understand.
Antoine Jérusalem
is a
professor of engineering science
at
Oxford University
What social
good can come of it?
The current buzzwords are Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, as
well as traumatic brain injuries.
But scientists are also
looking at the spinal cord and peripheral nervous systems. As far as
I am concerned, since the brain is the de facto centre of decision
for so many processes, any of them could be targeted.
Is it safe?
When attempting to 'control' neuronal activity by providing minute
mechanical vibrations to a region of the brain, it's important that
the focus of the ultrasound, frequency and amplitude are properly
tuned, or the brain can potentially be damaged.
The point is that we
still don't know how to tune all of this; and if I were to
exaggerate a bit, I could say that our current approach is not that
far off from fiddling around with the settings on a radio until we
hear the right station.
One of the many difficulties is to know for sure that we are indeed
controlling neurons with these sound waves, as opposed to damaging
them.
The truth is that we
still don't know how the process works.
And if you don't know how
it works, you don't know how much is "too much".
What are the
biggest ethical challenges?
The potential of this technique is huge - by that I mean the sheer
number of applications, as well as the ethical use...
From a biological perspective, it's similar to drugs.
It can cure you, it
can get you addicted, and it can kill you...
It's all about staying
within a given set of rules.
From an ethical
perspective, the world is changing so fast that it's difficult to
assess what will be acceptable tomorrow that is not today.
I am also convinced that human nature is such that if something can
be done, it will be done. The question is by whom. I would
rather have a fair society leading the dance than some rogue state
without any respect for human or animal life.
If we want to lead that
dance 10 years from now, we need to start researching today.
How dystopian
could it get?
I can see the day coming where a scientist will be able to control
what a person sees in their mind's eye, by sending the right waves
to the right place in their brain.
My guess is that most
objections will be similar to those we hear today about subliminal
messages in advertisements, only much more vehement.
This technology is not without its risks of misuse. It could be a
revolutionary healthcare technology for the sick, or a perfect
controlling tool with which the ruthless control the weak.
This time though, the
control would be literal.
What can we do
to safeguard its potential?
I am not going to argue that scientists are all wise and
knowledgeable when it comes to what should and should not be done.
Some of us will go as far
as we can get away with. But that's human nature, and not unique to
scientists.
Either way, our job is to find something that is beneficial to
humanity. And if you find a way to make somebody better, then you
most likely also know how to do the contrary.
The goal is to make sure
that regulation prevents the latter, without impeding the former. I
believe that this is the role of regulators. And I think that the
European Union, where I work, is quite good at this.
Another role of politicians should be to provide a communication
platform to explain the long vision of any given area of research.
And it can be too early, or not a good idea, and the final decision
might very well be to stop it.
But in the long term, the
public should have the potential benefits of a new technology
explained to them in plain words, which is something that scientists
are not necessarily good at.
Politicians should remember that if we don't do it, then somebody
somewhere will do it anyway... potentially unregulated.
|