Exploring the Impact of BCIs with Ian Burkhart Beyond the Headlines

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have captured public imagination with stories of restoring movement to paralyzed individuals and enabling direct communication between the brain and machines. Yet, the real impact of BCIs goes deeper than headlines suggest. Ian Burkhart, a pioneer in this field, offers a unique perspective on how BCIs affect the people behind the technology and the future possibilities they unlock.

Ian Burkhart Podcast Center of Neurotech and law

Ian Burkhart’s Journey with BCIs

Ian Burkhart’s story is a powerful example of how BCIs can transform lives. After a spinal cord injury left him paralyzed from the neck down, Ian became one of the first people to use a BCI to regain control over his own hand movements. His experience shows that BCIs are not just futuristic gadgets but tools that can restore independence and improve quality of life.

Ian’s journey began with an implant that reads signals directly from his motor cortex. These signals are decoded by a computer and translated into commands that move a robotic hand. This breakthrough allowed Ian to perform everyday tasks like picking up a bottle or playing video games, activities that many take for granted.

How BCIs Work in Practice

BCIs connect the brain to external devices by interpreting neural activity. The process involves several key steps:

• Signal acquisition: Electrodes implanted in or placed on the brain capture electrical signals generated by neurons.

• Signal processing: These raw signals are filtered and decoded to understand the user’s intentions.

• Device control: The decoded commands operate a device such as a robotic limb, computer cursor, or communication aid.

  
  

Ian’s case uses an implanted array of electrodes that provide high-resolution signals. This setup offers more precise control compared to non-invasive methods like EEG caps, which are less accurate but easier to use.

The Human Side of BCIs

The technology itself is impressive, but Ian emphasizes the importance of focusing on the people who use BCIs. The emotional and psychological impact can be profound. Regaining some control over his hand gave Ian a renewed sense of agency and hope. It also required patience and training to learn how to operate the interface effectively.

Ian points out that BCIs are not a quick fix. Users often face challenges such as:

• Learning curve: Training the brain and device to communicate smoothly takes time.

• Device limitations: Current BCIs have limited speed and precision compared to natural movement.

• Emotional adjustment: Users must adapt to new ways of interacting with the world.

  
  

Despite these challenges, the potential benefits motivate ongoing research and development.

Expanding Applications of BCIs

While Ian’s story focuses on motor control, BCIs have broader applications that could impact many areas:

• Communication: Helping people with speech impairments express themselves through thought-controlled typing or speech synthesis.

• Neurorehabilitation: Assisting stroke survivors or patients with brain injuries to recover lost functions.

• Mental health: Monitoring brain activity to detect and manage conditions like depression or anxiety.

• Augmentation: Enhancing cognitive abilities or sensory perception for healthy individuals.

  
  

Ian encourages looking beyond the headlines to understand how BCIs can support diverse needs and improve lives in many ways.

Ethical and Social Considerations

The rise of BCIs raises important ethical questions. Ian highlights concerns about privacy, consent, and accessibility. Brain data is deeply personal, and protecting it from misuse is critical. Ensuring that BCI technology is available to all who need it, not just a privileged few, is another challenge.

There is also the question of how society will adapt to new forms of human-machine interaction. Ian stresses the need for ongoing dialogue among scientists, users, policymakers, and the public to navigate these issues responsibly.

Looking Ahead: The Future of BCIs

Ian Burkhart’s experience shows that BCIs are moving from experimental to practical tools. Advances in materials, computing power, and machine learning promise to make interfaces more reliable, user-friendly, and affordable.

Future developments may include:

• Wireless implants that reduce infection risk and improve comfort.

• Improved decoding algorithms that allow more natural and faster control.

• Integration with virtual and augmented reality for immersive experiences.

• Expanded use in education, entertainment, and workplace productivity.

  
  

Ian’s story inspires hope that BCIs will continue to evolve and help more people regain independence and connect with the world.

Podcast link Click here!

Transcript of Ian Burkhart Podcast with Rhiannon Proctor Centre of Neurotech law

I felt very strongly about sharing that story and trying to get it out to others because I got a little bit of a taste of the future and wanted to see how more and more people would be able to benefit from this type of technology if it can

translate from the bench all the way to the bedside and into individuals' home lives.

Hello, I'm Rhiannon Proctor and welcome back to Neurotech Now, the podcast from the Centre for Neurotechnology and Law. And today's guest is someone whom I am very, very excited for you all to hear speak. This is Ian Burkhart. Ian sustained a spinal cord injury following a diving accident in 2010 and has

since become one of the leading advocates in the spinal cord injury and BCI space. He has participated in multiple clinical trials, including the use of a brain-computer interface to control muscle stimulation, and those experiences very much inform the work he does today. Through the Ian Burkhart Foundation,

he raises funds for accessible equipment for others living with spinal cord injuries, and he consults full-time with medical device companies. He is also one of the founding members of the BCI Pioneers Coalition. In this conversation, we get into what it actually means to centre the voices of those with lived experience in research, not just in principle,

but in practice, integrating their perspectives at every single stage of the process. We look a little bit about where the BCI field is getting it very right, perhaps where some of the gaps are, and about some of the harder questions surrounding regulation, data privacy, and ultimately who this technology is actually being built for.

But before that, I asked him a little bit about his journey.

I myself had a spinal cord injury when I was 19 years old that left me with no movement from my elbows down. And that really triggered a lot of challenges within my day to day life, but then a lot of motivation to figure out ways to improve my independence and the

quality of life for other individuals living with. similar types of disabilities. And it was something that I really focused on as much as possible to see what could be done. And within that, I found that there was ways to be able to Use neurotechnology to allow for improved quality of life.

And I found myself into a clinical trial that was using a implanted brain computer interface to control a muscle stimulation device that was placed on the surface of my forearm to restore hand function. And that led me down a whole path of interesting things that I didn't know was

possible into a way that I was able to restore some function when I was in the lab using the technology. And I felt very strongly about sharing that story and trying to get it out to others because I got a little bit of a taste of the future and wanted to see how

more and more people would be able to benefit from this type of technology. If it can translate from the bench all the way to the bedside and into individuals' home lives.

I'm curious, was science and technology something that you were interested in before or that you had knowledge of before? Or was your exposure to neurotechnology exclusively through your experiences?

Yeah, it was all because of... my, you know, disability that led me down this path of finding and understanding about neurotechnology and even, you know, the clinical trial that I was, that I participated in for quite a few years. Um, there were a lot of things that I didn't know when I started, um, and, you know,

had to learn why I was going and learn, you know, quite a bit more, um, on my own, but it was something that was deeply exciting because it personally fit into exactly what I was trying to do with my life, as well as the possibility for others and how impactful this type of technology can be.

And I wonder, was there a specific moment or event during that experience that inspired you to begin your advocacy work? Almost something that was, okay, this could scale to something bigger than me, or was it more of a gradual opening of eyes throughout the entire journey?

I'd say it was a little bit gradual, but I think there were three kind of big milestones that really amplified the drive inside myself to continue on. And one was the first time that we connected the system and I thought about moving my hand and I saw my hand actually move again.

That was something that was extremely exciting. At that point, it had been about four years since I had done that. And I had many doctors and therapists tell me I'm never going to be able to do this, that and the other again. And here I was doing something that they said I would never do again.

And that was extremely exciting. And so that's when I saw like, oh, okay, this technology works. We need to push it as far as possible. The next time was when I was working with, I took the fact that I had this really unique experience and wanted to share it as

broadly as possible to get more and more people to work on this kind of hard, complex problem. and get this technology out of the lab and into the lives of those who need it. And, you know, I was talking with different researchers at different conferences and they would

talk about how I've only worked in animal studies or I've only been able to do things kind of in a more theoretical manner. And that really opened up the need to be more vocal and do more advocacy about how this technology works. can work for people.

And then the third kind of catalyst was when I had the device removed, our clinical trial ended and I had the brain implant removed and then no longer had access to the muscle stimulation device. And that was where, you know, I had this restored sense of improvement and quality of life then pulled away from me once again.

And that was another point where it's like, okay, this is really something that needs to happen in a way that people can really appreciate and understand the challenges that individuals are going through, individuals with disabilities and neurological deficits, and being able to get this technology out to the people who need it before they

can't benefit from the technology any longer.

And I think you can really see the journey there and how those experience must have formed so much of what you do. I wonder from your vantage point, you've spoken a little bit about scientists and that perhaps being a motivating factor. I'm curious as to what academia gets right about BCI research,

and then perhaps we'll look conversely at what they get wrong and where that room for improvement is.

Yeah, so I think a lot of the academic research and research in general is really pointed in the right direction as far as wanting to create technologies that can improve the lives of individuals with neurological deficits or disabilities. I think some of the challenges there sometimes are not having that full lived experience of what's

people living with the disease or condition, you know, really want to benefit most. And, you know, some of that is, you know, once again, not living with it, but also it's very personalized. I mean, people, I always like to say the phrase of people are people, everyone's different.

And so what some people want to have as their top priority of using this type of technology is going to be much lower down the list on someone else. And, You know, being able to make something that is, you know, works for everyone, but also works for what each person wants as their main priority. You know,

within brain computer interfaces in particular, I mean, there's all sorts of, you know, types of modalities and end effectors that can be controlled, whether that's just, you know, allowing someone to regain the use of a computer and, you know, be able to be independent that way. allowing someone to restore the ability to speak and communicate,

allow someone to control a robotic arm or, you know, move some of their own limbs or drive a wheelchair, drive a car, do whatever it is that you're doing with the brain computer interface. Those are different for each person. And so I think that that's something that really needs to be

Understood at the heart of each decision making step is, you know, why are we doing this and what is this going to, you know, how this is going to impact the individual that's, you know, using the device and then their quality of life.

and you know for some people that's hey i want to play video games so i can connect with my kids or or my friends or i want to use this device so i can get back to work and you know regain a sense of myself and and you know earn earn an income and

continue on with my life it's very different to just okay let's get in a lab and

see what we can do yeah i i think it is different but they also go hand in hand you know there's some of this like very pure neuroscience, like, Hey, let's figure out and learn more about the brain and the body and how it functions. And that's really important because without that, we want to be,

have anything on the more translatable side of improving quality of life and improving independence for individuals. But yeah, they can really go hand in hand. And if you're using a device that is allowing someone to control a computer and regain independence in their kind of digital life, you're still learning.

You can still learn quite a bit about how the body is working and figure out, you know, the best way to actually have someone interface with their computer. Um, And so there's definitely a way that it needs to kind of be aligned, but also then once again, people are people and people have different interests.

So making sure that, you know, if someone is really interested in learning about like the, the neurological function in the body and how things are processed in the brain, they're able to pick up on that and learn and maybe make it a little bit easier for them, the next person who just wants to play a video game,

be able to use that device and have it be natural to them.

So what I'm really picking up on, because you're using the word a lot, is that idea of independence. So I wonder how you view the relationship between BCI development and independence as? I'm aware it's a very, very broad question.

No, I really see it as unlocking the challenges that individuals with disabilities or disease have and being able to improve that autonomy and independence to Let people do any activity that they want to do. Let them, you know, live their life in the way that they want to. And, you know,

really that it's that independence that I feel like is the biggest driver because whether you're born with a disability or a condition or it's acquired later on in life. you then lose a lot of that autonomy and independence and you have to rely on other individuals to help you with so many different things in your life.

So any little bit that you can restore back, allowing someone to do what they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it, is something that I think really improves the quality of life.

And I wonder if you had a few thoughts on how that translates into practice, you know, into the studies themselves. And how do you view the role of advocates like yourself within that process? So is it about being there more point of formation? Is it before the end? Is it how do we deploy these?

Is it all the way through? And almost how do we now translate that from advocacy into the material of these studies themselves?

Yeah, I really think you have to have that lived experience be involved every step of the way, whether that's, you know, coming up with the research design and how these studies are being conducted all the way through the translation of getting a device out to market and then allowing more and more people to use it. I mean,

you're going to run into problems every step of the way that are going to be different from a clinical or engineering mindset to those who are living with the disease or condition. And I think it's so important to be able to then quickly be able to iterate and

make sure you're not spending a lot of resources going down one path that then you present it to the end user population. And they say, well, no, there's no way people would like that because it's way too challenging to use or it doesn't work for what they want to use it. You know,

there's all sorts of different assistive technologies that are out there that run the gamut of how complicated they are and how, you know, functional they are. And sometimes it really is kind of as simple as possible that allows the end user to do what they want it to do. Yeah.

And so creating something that fits into someone's life is really important if you want this to be a device that's actually used for, you know, kind of the clinical care and beyond. If you're creating a device that's really just for research and learning more about the human brain, that can be done a little bit differently.

But you still want to make sure that you're incorporating the users in that because if you're doing this research on users, you don't want it to be too arduous on their behalf or else you're not going to get people to participate in the clinical trials that you need to

conduct your experiments so it's it's all it's very complex and intertwined but it's something that needs to happen in a way that you know those who are living with the condition that are experts in their in their lives can share that information with the research team you know from the get-go and all the way through the process

What are perhaps some of the biggest misconceptions or different perspectives that you encounter when discussing BCIs, whether that's in studies or with the public or with media or policymakers? What are some of those? And I suppose more importantly, how do you think we can begin to shift them?

Yeah, I think that's a great question because, you know, there's been a lot of change, you know, that I've seen personally from when I first you know, had a device implanted back in 2014. So the last, you know, 11 or so years to now and how BCIs are really moving from that science fiction into reality.

And I think a lot of individuals still really latch on to the science fiction aspect of it, of where like, oh, that's not even possible from on one side of the spectrum to the other side of, they think that these devices can do a lot more than they actually can right now.

And you need kind of both sides, right? You need people who are under, you know, really future looking and dreaming. And then you also need people who are a little bit more skeptical to make sure that, you know, these devices are being developed in a way that are, you know, increasing that autonomy and independence,

but not taking advantage of the individuals who are using them and not, you know, making people give up a lot of freedom to be able to use the device. So there's, there's a lot there and it definitely gets pretty nuanced, but I think the biggest kind of misconception is, you know, what the technology can actually do today.

And then Also making sure that you're understanding what the technology will be able to do in the future.

That's really interesting. And it's got a little bit of a personal connection for me as well, because my first exposure to neurotechnology came at the second year of my university. And I came across a scientific paper that I'm sure you're familiar with. where they were talking about the use of BCIs and to put it very, very colloquially,

they were talking about using BCIs to decode thoughts. But I'd seen it on LinkedIn and I thought, OK, well, that's incredible. How on earth are we able to do that? And I went away and I read it and I sent it to a friend of mine who studies

neuroscience and we had a bit of a conversation about it. And what she was really saying while we were talking about it was how caveated they were when they were saying what it could actually do. And the reporting was exceptionally different to the words used in the study itself. And it was this, well,

I've been so careful about how I read scientific papers from then on, because it's a completely different language. And it's different. And it's really, really difficult when you don't speak that language to necessarily understand the full implications. So it's really interesting to me what you're saying.

Yeah, I would totally agree. I think it, you know, there's a couple different ways that, you know, the stories get shared out, right? You have the purely scientific journals that take a lot to digest and understand. And, you know, but keeping in mind that still even within that,

it's the demonstration of kind of their best results that they're publicizing. And then you have a scientific journal that comes out and it gets picked up by a different media. And it's like, okay, then they're putting their own kind of spin and perspective on it. as well.

And, you know, in the, my life was someone with a spinal cord injury. I see all the time of like, Oh man is able to walk again, or this person is able to restore the sensation of, you know, their body again. And it's like, okay, those are really those like sensational headline stories,

but what is the actual underlying like day to day? And how does, how is that affecting the individual? And I think that that's, once again, like what needs to be at the center of every decision in this process is how are these actually affecting the individual? And like, if you can take it and we're like, yes,

we can, we can, you know, decode someone's thoughts. It's like, okay, well, what thoughts are we decoding? You know, what kind of setting, how accurate is this? Is this actually something that is, you know, a hundred percent reliable or is this like, oh,

we were able to do it in this one very confined space and like proof of concept, which is great because then we can work and do more of that in the future. But also like, what exactly are we decoding? And, you know, in particular, I think, you know, going back to our earlier discussion,

as far as what is kind of some of the misconceptions as people think like, oh, they're putting a chip in your brain, they're going to be able to read your thoughts. And it's like, yes, that is the whole goal. But what kind of thoughts are they, you know, recording? My study in particular, it was, you know,

the device was right in the M1 area of the brain, which is responsible for your motor control. And in particular, right over the hand area. So it was only really able to detect when I was thinking about moving my hand. It wasn't, you know, able to detect, you know,

any dreams that I have or conversations that I was having with other people or anything like that. And so that's a great way to, you know, segment it out and have a little bit more privacy. But also then if you're looking at, you know, being able to allow someone to restore speech,

you're going to want to get a little bit of maybe not that inner monologue, but the expressive speech control that you're giving out to folks. And so that changes that discussion a little bit as far as what some of that privacy looks like. And, you know, that way, you know, the people who are saying like,

oh no, I don't want to chip in my brain and they're reading my thoughts. Well, there is some truth to that, but there's also truth behind, well, we're not even there yet. And the data that we are collecting is not the, like, you know, inner sanctum of your body, but it's still, you know,

allowing people to use these devices in a way that allows them to, once again, have more independence and autonomy in their day-to-day lives.

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right what you're saying in terms of this. It's a challenge to me as well, is when we're talking about neurotechnology, and I think whether you're talking about it in an academic setting or purely out of interest, even in those conversations, it's very much centering the experience of the individual.

It's centering what those technologies can do for those who need them. And we do tend to miss that in day to day conversations. So thank you. I feel challenged by that in a good way. It's very much a call to change the way that we talk about these things, especially in academic circles.

And I think that relates quite a bit to your work with the BCI Pioneers Coalition. And I'm quite excited to hear about some of the stuff that you've been working on there. I wonder if you could just start by telling the listeners a little bit about what that is and what the goal of the coalition is.

Yeah, so the whole goal of the coalition is to really make sure that we're able to center the voices of those who have been able to be some of the early experts and early participants in these clinical trials. Right now, where we are is the fact that devices...

Implantable devices have only been used in clinical trials and they've been used in pretty narrow circumstances as far as how the devices have been able to be used. And so we want to really amplify those experience that individuals have had to be able to then have these devices get out to more and more people. And so

our main focus is working on, you know, establishing kind of the ethics and guidelines and best practices for some of these future clinical trials or for, you know, commercial entities who are developing devices that are actually going to be used in the day-to-day lives of individuals.

And so anything that we can do to, to share some of the good, bad and ugly, between how these devices work how they don't work and what we as individuals who can benefit from them want them to do is the most important things and just really

making sure that at the end of the day individuals who are going who either have used or are going to use this technology have a seat at the table and can be there while these decisions are being made so it's not a oh, we thought this is what you want and that's what we did and say,

we heard you, this is what you want and that's what we did.

So it's really there to both spark and to foster dialogue in those spaces. I'm interested, are there any upcoming initiatives, projects or things that you've already done that you're particularly excited about?

Yeah, certainly. We've been working on some work right now as, you know, helping design some best practices of how to support individuals who are involved in clinical trials, as well as how to make sure that, you know, what individuals want these devices to you be used for are actually being

accomplished so we want to make sure that you know the if someone wants to use it for playing video games with their friends and family you know that's something that can be done and you know that gets really nuanced because you're we're still working within the kind of

healthcare system and having these devices and how you can reimburse for these devices and, and approve these devices. Someone playing video games may not really fall into that standard of care when we come to look at someone from a healthcare perspective, but it does allow someone to restore that sense of human connection and not be

alone and really allow for them to have a better quality of life. Um, but then if you're looking at, okay, if you're able to restore someone's movement, that's something that, or communication, that is something that falls more in line with the direct, you know, day to day kind of systems that are already set up within healthcare.

And so how can we blend some of those together? Um, and, Trying to figure out the best ways to do that so that way these devices that can really be helpful for all types, all kind of impact in your day-to-day life are something that people can get access to and really benefit from.

And it's interesting in terms of the practical side of it, because the idea of, okay, healthcare, that's a very, very different perspective on what is needed and what is necessary. And therefore, I'd imagine perhaps what has the funding behind it. And I'm assuming that's something that you come up a lot with in people that reach

out to you or with the work that you do.

Certainly. I mean, it really depends on how these devices are being, you know, and what the end goal of these devices are and how that then translates into kind of the current ecosystem that we have to work with. And, you know, how can we broaden that, but also how can we make sure that that's something that's,

we are able to continue to do. So being able to, you know, create a device that allows someone to improve for their independence and autonomy, um, you know, and what are some of the outcome measures that need to be tested to validate that?

And what are some of the ways that we can, you know, improve the day to day, um, um, While at the same point, what are some of the things that we can do to allow people to do the more fun side of life and allow them to really reconnect and re-engage in the social setting?

Absolutely, because that's just as important for us as social beings and things like that as well. I wonder then almost what if we could switch to being a little future looking and a bit about what you're most excited about right now in the BCI space.

Yeah, I think one of the really interesting things right now is we're seeing a shift from purely academic clinical trials to now clinical trials that are being sponsored by industry. And it's more of we're changing from this perspective, okay, what can be done? We're trying to develop all these different proof of concepts that

as far as how we can use this technology to now, like, how well does this technology work and how can we get these out as a approved device that individuals can use? And I think that that's really interesting. And, you know, from a perspective of the users who are, you know, still, once again,

it's still in that clinical trial setting where you're signing up for clinical trial, but you're maybe able to use the device outside of the clinical trial on like a little bit of more personal level of letting you operate your computer or your phone or restoring speech and communication. And then you kind of have,

and you're sharing some of that data with the researchers as well, but then you also have these like more strict, like, research sessions where you're doing like the experiments and you're helping push the science a little bit forward. And I think that's really exciting versus, you know, historically it was like, okay,

you're coming in for a research session. We're learning a lot about the brain and we're learning about how these systems work, but you as an individual aren't gaining as much benefit from it and it's not really changing your life. And I think what's most exciting about that is you're going to see the

The where people really want to use these technologies and if it works for that or not. And so that's going to then change a lot of how. we in the field look at what problems are already solved, what still need to be solved, and really figure out where these devices and this technology can go.

So I'm really excited to see that shift. And it's really only possible because of the great people that are working in the field and then working all the funding that has been dumped into the field to be able to really be pushing these past just that proof of concept phase into something where we're seeing how

these devices can work in the day-to-day lives.

And I think as well, what you mentioned about kind of funding, but also I would imagine public perception of neurotechnology almost as something that is both commercial and something that we can have in our lives. So we obviously have Meta's Neuralband, you have the Sam Altmans of the world starting to look at neurotechnology startups.

Do you find that people just sort of everyday people are now more aware of neurotechnology? I wonder, have you noticed that shift or do you perhaps think there's one coming?

Yeah, I mean, There's a lot more public awareness around some of the technology and some of them are starting to kind of blend into what used to be just kind of neurotechnology kind of academic research into now more of the mainstream technology side. And I think that's really exciting because we're going to need these devices to be

able to be used by everyone. And I think there is a little bit of a pause that may need to be happening to make sure that these devices are still focused on improving the lives of individuals with disabilities. I think it really changes when you're looking at the discussion between implanted devices versus wearables.

Wearables, it's really easy for anyone to try versus an implanted device. It's a much larger decision-making process that you have to undergo and being able to then pick what you're doing and when you're doing it and making sure that you know this device does work for you um but it only broadens the interest broadens the

knowledge that's been that can be you know shared with the community um and also gives options for those who need this type of technology. And it's something where options are fantastic because there's, you know, some people who, you know, while they might qualify or, you know, potentially need a device that's implanted,

may not want to have surgery or may maybe they have other medical issues and they can't have a surgery for it so can we have devices that are then more wearable and just giving options for people um to allow them to you know do what they want to do

and be as independent as possible with while still respecting their autonomy and having the decisions that they want to be made completed

Yeah, well, you actually just preempted my follow up question about is there that danger if we take our eye off the ball with keeping individuals with disabilities and their experiences at the centre. And with that in mind, I wonder just for people interested in BCIs, whether they are researchers, clinicians, or just curious members of the public,

how can they begin to contribute to or get involved with these kind of conversations?

I would say educating yourself on what technology is out there and, you know, making sure that you're You're looking at it from wherever you are as a person because there's so many different perspectives that are needed to really make sure these technologies are being developed in the right way.

And once again, making sure we're not taking our eye off the ball and really focusing on developing these technologies for individuals with disabilities or neurological deficits. And, you know, that requires all sorts of expertise from anywhere from, you know, creating the actual hardware devices, creating the software, the user interface,

and then the whole social kind of platform behind that of how people are going to access these devices, what data is going to be, you know, recorded or monitored because of these devices and how that is perceived through a different and then how these devices are going to be funded.

And there's a really broad spectrum of individuals that we need to allow for these devices to really gain traction. And so, you know, maybe if the technology interests you at all, I think it's really important then to, once again, look at your own kind of personal experience

strengths and what you can bring to the field because it's such a challenging problem and we need so many people to help make sure that we're designing these devices and translating them into the day-to-day lives for those who need it, as well as still doing that academic research to learn more and more about the body and

and the brain and the nervous system and how, you know, these devices might be, you know, impacted and changed in the future. And so it takes all of us. And, you know, I would say, you know, come on in, the water's warm. It's a great time to be in this space and see some of the fantastic improvements

that have been able to go on while still understanding that There is a sense of urgency. There's a lot of people out there right now that could benefit from this technology that don't have access to it. And so we need to make sure that we're pushing forward so that people who can

benefit from this technology have the ability to before they are no longer here and able to use the technology.

I wonder when we look at, say, regulation, we mentioned at the beginning the importance of it being a safe process. You mentioned that we need all of these people looking at the social side, looking at the data protection side, because ultimately one of the things that gets raised a lot is that there is a risk

of the people who need this technology most also being those who are most vulnerable to exploitation. I wonder... How do we look at regulation? And do you have any thoughts on how to rebalance this urgently to get this technology out there alongside those concerns about regulation?

Certainly. I mean, I think there is a lot of nuance within the individuals who really do need to benefit from this technology are generally a vulnerable population, like you said. And, you know, making sure that we're not, you know, leaning on them too much and taking advantage of them. And, you know,

that's some of the work that the Pioneers Coalition is doing within how do you support individuals who are participating in these clinical trials and making sure that researchers aren't taking advantage of them, as well as, you know, when you're then shifting it a little bit forward and changing, you know,

the way that these devices are being implemented and what data is being collected, how is that being shared, making sure that the privacy aspect of these devices, because you are recording brain data, and that is, you know, very private information as well as all the other information that is being recorded. But, you know,

doing that in a way that you're explicitly, you know, sharing with the end users what they're what data they are sharing, what data they're not sharing, and what has to be shared, like what's the necessary and what's the nice to have for either extra function or for the researchers and companies to push the kind of next steps.

And once again, giving that autonomy back to the end user, I think there's a lot of conversation that pops up around how these devices are going to be capturing a lot of data and how there's a lot of privacy issues. And yes, totally agree. But-

we already give up a lot of privacy in other aspects of our day-to-day life. And so it's just another decision that each individual has to make. And for some individuals, computer access, I feel like, is a big way that BCIs are going to be able to have an impact soon. If you're talking about someone who either...

can speak and uses voice dictation to control their computer all the time. Well, they don't have privacy from anyone, you know, with an earshot. And maybe that's really nice to have that privacy. And you're kind of shifting where that privacy is. Or if you're talking about, you know, someone who is, you know,

more into the locked in phase and uses, you know, very simple commands to communicate with, with a handful of caregivers or family members, that can be really challenging because then sometimes there's just things that aren't said because it takes too much effort.

And, you know, if you only have a few people that can understand you, well, you know, you may not want to jeopardize any of those relationships by saying what you need to say. And so there's the privacy aspect of that as well. So it's really just to some degree shifting that level of privacy,

but also making sure that we're not just giving it all up because that's the easier way or that's what always has been done. But if it's absolutely required, then just clearly lay that out. If it's a nice to have, lay that out and let the individual make that decision.

Thank you so much. Unfortunately, we're coming to the end of our time. So I'm going to ask you the final question, which is that if you could ask the audience to take away one thing from this conversation, what would that be?

I would say the most important aspect is to make sure that you're centering the individuals with the disabilities, with the neurological deficits, that the field has been trying to help in every decision that's being done and making sure that you're making the choice of everything that you're doing as is this going to benefit the end user?

Is this something that the end user wants to have happen or is this something that is maybe making our job as developers a little bit easier. And to do that, you really need to engage with the community and pull them in from every step of the process to make sure that you're still centering those voices and centering

those challenges of what needs to happen, what should happen, And then being able to balance that with like creating the perfect device with creating a device that you can really learn from and implement on. And that is a way that you can then allow for these devices to get to the people who need them right away and,

you know, learn what works, what doesn't work and understanding that there's going to be, you know, people who adopt technologies and all different facets from, you know, those who are early adopters or those who like, well, I'd rather wait till this is just a daily thing. It's, you know, cut and dry.

There's no, you know, excitement about it. It's just, I'm going in, I'm having this, I'm getting this device and I can use it. And so making sure that you're really understanding all the different perspectives while still being able to balance that with getting the technology out there as quickly as possible.

Well, Ian, thank you ever so much. I've certainly learned a lot and I'm sure our audience will have done as well. So just thank you so much for your time and also for all of the really important work that you're doing.

Of course, I'm thrilled to share this all with you all. And, you know, it takes so many of us. So I'm glad that there's more and more people that are getting excited about this technology.

If you want to keep exploring these questions, head over to neurotechlaw.com. You can sign up for a free membership just to stay in the loop or subscribe for full access. That gets you to recordings of events, our blog,