Neurotechnology: Will we Become Icarus?

Commonly, people talk about the brain as an almost mystical thing – nobody fully understands how it works, yet everybody has an opinion. Some people know what serotonin is, others think that a bigger brain means that you’re smarter (not exactly true), and others still have heard that if you swim in a lake in the summer, you can catch a brain-eating amoeba and die. So when a term like ‘neurotechnology’ pops up, it adds another layer of confusion: are we trying to improve our brains? Are we trying to become human-robot hybrids? What even is neurotechnology? Let’s demystify it.

The IEEE Brain Technical Community, a leading global organization in neurotechnology research, application, and policy, defines it very simply: “neurotechnology refers to any technology that provides greater insight into brain or nervous system activity, or affects brain or nervous system function.” Since your brain is the core organ through which you are able to perceive yourself and others, creating technologies that interact directly with it quickly becomes a sensitive societal topic requiring the expertise of scientists, doctors, engineers, businesspeople, and even government officials. Evidently, the main aim of the field is not to merge us with robots, but to find out more about the brain and help people who need treatment, without infringing on people’s rights and liberties.

So what’s going on currently? While there are a myriad of companies developing new products, only a few have had very promising results. Taking Samphire Neuroscience as the first example, this London-based startup has recently debuted a neurotechnological marvel: a headband that alleviates period pain by 53% after a month’s use, all without major side effects (Radytė et al., 2024). Additionally, the low mood symptoms during the PMS period improved by 34% after a single month’s use (ibid.).

In terms of Brain-Computer Interfaces, commonly abbreviated as BCIs, there are 3 companies, all U.S. based, that have shown promise – Synchron, Neuralink, and BlackRock Neurotech. As per Wolpaw et al. (2020): “BCIs quantify central nervous system (CNS) activity and translate it into new artificial outputs that replace, restore, enhance, supplement, or improve the natural CNS outputs.” Essentially, a BCI acts as a bridge between the brain and the external world. Synchron has designed a BCI for patients with limited hand mobility to control a touchscreen using only their thoughts (Synchron, 2025). Similarly, BlackRock Neurotech BCI users have been able to eat, drink, send emails (Jabr, 2022), and fist bump Obama just by thinking (Nani, 2016). Neuralink’s goal is to “restore the digital autonomy to people living with quadriplegia due to spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,”(Neuralink, 2024). Their N1 implant recently allowed a participant to play video games like Counter Strike—a complex movement and shooting-based game—as well as design 3D objects using computer-aided design, with only their mind (Neuralink, 2024). 

Some could say that the current neurotechnologies are slowly inching towards a future with capabilities that remind us of cyberpunk novels or characters in sci-fi movies that ‘hack into the mainframe’ with only their mind. But what could the future realistically hold for us? 

With steady improvements in both neurotechnologies and our understanding of the brain, a demand for neurotechnology comparable to that of the modern-day smartphone could be witnessed reasonably soon (Gaudry et al., 2021). Technological methods for memory enhancement are slowly becoming more feasible (Filmer et al., 2017; Reinhart & Nguyen, 2019), which could allow people with memory disabilities to return to their age-baseline performance. As we are slowly gaining the ability to modulate memory, we might develop a way to reduce or even delete negative/traumatic memories, something akin to the procedure in the 2004 movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This might be great – forgetting an embarrassing moment could help you fall asleep at night. It might also be horrible – unchecked governments could use this to erase events from their population’s memory, such as wars or mass genocide they’ve started. It might give those governments the power to constantly and reliably rewrite history whenever they want to, something analogous to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984. On a more positive note, future BCIs could possibly allow anyone to connect to the internet and search for information with just their thoughts, leading to even more rapid information access. You might not even have to say ‘Hey Siri’ anymore, you could just think about saying it.

There is also huge potential for helping people with disabilities – as BCIs improve, more effective artificial limbs could appear for people with motor deficits; this could grow into the usage of exoskeletons in construction, warfare, or just by simple consumers. Additionally, neurotechnologies could help us understand the complexities of epilepsy – first by accurately imaging the brain regions where epileptic seizures originate, and then by recalibrating the networks. This could reduce aberrant brain activations that cause seizures, improving the lives of people with epilepsy. Sounds like a wonderful future, doesn’t it? When looking into the future, however, it’s important to see not only the summit we want to reach, but also where we could stumble.

The story of Icarus and Daedalus is a Greek mythological tale of a father and son who were both imprisoned in a tower. The father and master craftsman, Daedalus, built wings from bird feathers, blanket threads, leather straps from sandals, and beeswax. Daedalus told Icarus that if he flew too high, the sun would melt the wax, but if he flew too low, the water would soak the feathers. Icarus, being daring and unwise, flew up to feel the suns’ warmth, which melted his wings, and he proceeded to fall into the sea and drown. Daedalus, following his own advice, managed to escape safely without harm. This story can serve as a powerful allegory for the development of neurotechnology: with effective legislation we could be Daedalus, without it we could become Icarus.

“With great power comes great responsibility,” is a proverb famously ascribed to the superhero Spiderman. The ability to alter brain function carries a heavy burden of responsibility – the responsibility to keep users safe and informed. The domains of data privacy and security pose important questions – as the technologies develop and more brain data is gathered, how will we ensure that information about users’ brain readings is secure? How will we ensure somebody can’t just ‘hack’ into whatever neurotechnology you’re using and cause damage? Adverse physical reactions to invasive neurotechnology usage (burns, irritation, infection, brain tissue damage associated with surgery) also play a role (Bhidayasiri, 2024). Accessibility is an important question to ask as well – if the technology is expensive, could there be a huge gap between who gets to benefit from it? Adding on, differences in employability may arise: “If neurotechnology proves to improve capabilities, this technology may conceivably become an explicit or implicit job requirement,” (Gaudry et al, 2021). These differences tie into the accessibility argument, as people who have access could benefit in the job market, while the people who do not may be put at more of a disadvantage than ever before. This could potentially exacerbate class divide. With advancements in long-range communication, neurotechnologies could also be used for remote warfare requiring only a thought to drop bombs in another country, or even mass control of society through social media (think Elon Musk bombarding you with ads and ‘doom scrolling’ content right into your brain). While some of these examples seem very far fetched, they are possibilities within the realm of future neurotechnologies. Visibly and most importantly, the future of safe and accessible neurotechnology rests on effective legislation that develops at a similar pace as the technologies. Just as Icarus’ father, Daedalus, did not fly too high or too low, prioritizing their escape and safety, we must simultaneously prioritize the development and safety of neurotechnologies.

Jeff Goldblum’s character Ian Malcolm in the original Jurassic Park film said: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” An important lesson from the film is that the sciences are not separate from all other fields – a constructive interplay of research, development and legislation is necessary for a safe future. If we only value the creators of neurotechnology, we could potentially lose sight of what is good and what is evil – this could lead to money and power-hungry individuals taking the reins of development and pointing it in whatever direction they desire. But the human capacity to do good can rise above our capacity to harm. With an approach that strongly values human wellbeing, neurotechnology is not something to fear, it is something to embrace as a tool for the betterment of human health and connection. Maybe it could allow grandparents fighting dementia to remember their loved ones again; maybe it could allow people with movement difficulties to regain strength in their limbs; maybe it could open doors that we simply didn’t even know existed. The future for neurotechnology is bright, but we must beware not to become Icarus and fly too close to the sun in search for this brightness.