This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

Earlier this week, the US surgeon general, also known as the “nation’s doctor,” authored an article making the case that health warnings should accompany social media. The goal: to protect teenagers from its harmful effects. “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms,” Vivek Murthy wrote in a piece published in the New York Times. “Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”

His concern instinctively resonates with me. I’m in my late 30s, and even I can end up feeling a lot worse about myself after a brief stint on Instagram. I have two young daughters, and I worry about how I’ll respond when they reach adolescence and start asking for access to whatever social media site their peers are using. My children already have a fascination with cell phones; the eldest, who is almost six, will often come into my bedroom at the crack of dawn, find my husband’s phone, and somehow figure out how to blast “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” at full volume.

But I also know that the relationship between this technology and health isn’t black and white. Social media can affect users in different ways—often positively. So let’s take a closer look at the concerns, the evidence behind them, and how best to tackle them.

Murthy’s concerns aren’t new, of course. In fact, almost any time we are introduced to a new technology, some will warn of its potential dangers. Innovations like the printing press, radio, and television all had their critics back in the day. In 2009, the Daily Mail linked Facebook use to cancer.

More recently, concerns about social media have centered on young people. There’s a lot going on in our teenage years as our brains undergo maturation, our hormones shift, and we explore new ways to form relationships with others. We’re thought to be more vulnerable to mental-health disorders during this period too. Around half of such disorders are thought to develop by the age of 14, and suicide is the fourth-leading cause of death in people aged between 15 and 19, according to the World Health Organization. Many have claimed that social media only makes things worse.

Reports have variously cited cyberbullying, exposure to violent or harmful content, and the promotion of unrealistic body standards, for example, as potential key triggers of low mood and disorders like anxiety and depression. There have also been several high-profile cases of self-harm and suicide with links to social media use, often involving online bullying and abuse. Just this week, the suicide of an 18-year-old in Kerala, India, was linked to cyberbullying. And children have died after taking part in dangerous online challenges made viral on social media, whether from inhaling toxic substances, consuming ultra-spicy tortilla chips, or choking themselves.

Murthy’s new article follows an advisory on social media and youth mental health published by his office in 2023. The 25-page document, which lays out some of known benefits and harms of social media use as well as the “unknowns,” was intended to raise awareness of social media as a health issue. The problem is that things are not entirely clear cut.

“The evidence is currently quite limited,” says Ruth Plackett, a researcher at University College London who studies the impact of social media on mental health in young people. A lot of the research on social media and mental health is correlational. It doesn’t show that social media use causes mental health disorders, Plackett says.

The surgeon general’s advisory cites some of these correlational studies. It also points to survey-based studies, including one looking at mental well-being among college students after the rollout of Facebook in the mid-2000s. But even if you accept the authors’ conclusion that Facebook had a negative impact on the students’ mental health, it doesn’t mean that other social media platforms will have the same effect on other young people. Even Facebook, and the way we use it, has changed a lot in the last 20 years.

Other studies have found that social media has no effect on mental health. In a study published last year, Plackett and her colleagues surveyed 3,228 children in the UK to see how their social media use and mental well-being changed over time. The children were first surveyed when they were aged between 12 and 13, and again when they were 14 to 15 years old.

Plackett expected to find that social media use would harm the young participants. But when she conducted the second round of questionnaires, she found that was not the case. “Time spent on social media was not related to mental-health outcomes two years later,” she tells me.

Other research has found that social media use can be beneficial to young people, especially those from minority groups. It can help some avoid loneliness, strengthen relationships with their peers, and find a safe space to express their identities, says Plackett. Social media isn’t only for socializing, either. Today, young people use these platforms for news, entertainment, school, and even (in the case of influencers) business.

“It’s such a mixed bag of evidence,” says Plackett. “I’d say it’s hard to draw much of a conclusion at the minute.”

In his article, Murthy calls for a warning label to be applied to social media platforms, stating that “social media is associated with significant mental-health harms for adolescents.”

But while Murthy draws comparisons to the effectiveness of warning labels on tobacco products, bingeing on social media doesn’t have the same health risks as chain-smoking cigarettes. We have plenty of strong evidence linking smoking to a range of diseases, including gum disease, emphysema, and lung cancer, among others. We know that smoking can shorten a person’s life expectancy. We can’t make any such claims about social media, no matter what was written in that Daily Mail article.

Health warnings aren’t the only way to prevent any potential harms associated with social media use, as Murthy himself acknowledges. Tech companies could go further in reducing or eliminating violent and harmful content, for a start. And digital literacy education could help inform children and their caregivers how to alter the settings on various social media platforms to better control the content children see, and teach them how to assess the content that does make it to their screens.

I like the sound of these measures. They might even help me put an end to the early-morning Christmas songs. 

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive:

Bills designed to make the internet safer for children have been popping up across the US. But individual states take different approaches, leaving the resulting picture a mess, as Tate Ryan-Mosley explored.

Dozens of US states sued Meta, the parent company of Facebook, last October. As Tate wrote at the time, the states claimed that the company knowingly harmed young users, misled them about safety features and harmful content, and violated laws on children’s privacy.  

China has been implementing increasingly tight controls over how children use the internet. In August last year, the country’s cyberspace administrator issued detailed guidelines that include, for example, a rule to limit use of smart devices to 40 minutes a day for children under the age of eight. And even that use should be limited to content about “elementary education, hobbies and interests, and liberal arts education.” My colleague Zeyi Yang had the story in a previous edition of his weekly newsletter, China Report.

Last year, TikTok set a 60-minute-per-day limit for users under the age of 18. But the Chinese domestic version of the app, Douyin, has even tighter controls, as Zeyi wrote last March.

One way that social media can benefit young people is by allowing them to express their identities in a safe space. Filters that superficially alter a person’s appearance to make it more feminine or masculine can help trans people play with gender expression, as Elizabeth Anne Brown wrote in 2022. She quoted Josie, a trans woman in her early 30s. “The Snapchat girl filter was the final straw in dropping a decade’s worth of repression,” Josie said. “[I] saw something that looked more ‘me’ than anything in a mirror, and I couldn’t go back.”

From around the web

Could gentle shock waves help regenerate heart tissue? A trial of what’s being dubbed a “space hairdryer” suggests the treatment could help people recover from bypass surgery. (BBC)

“We don’t know what’s going on with this virus coming out of China right now.” Anthony Fauci gives his insider account of the first three months of the covid-19 pandemic. (The Atlantic)

Microplastics are everywhere. It was only a matter of time before scientists found them in men’s penises. (The Guardian)

Is the singularity nearer? Ray Kurzweil believes so. He also thinks medical nanobots will allow us to live beyond 120. (Wired)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

The outbreak of avian influenza on US dairy farms has started to make milk seem a lot less wholesome. Milk that’s raw, or unpasteurized, can actually infect mice that drink it, and a few dairy workers have already caught the bug. 

The FDA says that commercial milk is safe because it is pasteurized, killing the germs. Even so, it’s enough to make a person ponder a life beyond milk—say, taking your coffee black or maybe drinking oat milk.

But for those of us who can’t do without the real thing, it turns out some genetic engineers are working on ways to keep the milk and get rid of the cows instead. They’re doing it by engineering yeasts and plants with bovine genes so they make the key proteins responsible for milk’s color, satisfying taste, and nutritional punch.

The proteins they’re copying are casein, a floppy polymer that’s the most abundant protein in milk and is what makes pizza cheese stretch, and whey, a nutritious combo of essential amino acids that’s often used in energy powders.

It’s part of a larger trend of replacing animals with ingredients grown in labs, steel vessels, or plant crops. Think of the Impossible burger, the veggie patty made mouthwatering with the addition of heme, a component of blood that’s produced in the roots of genetically modified soybeans.

One of the milk innovators is Remilk, an Israeli startup founded in 2019, which has engineered yeast so it will produce beta-lactoglobulin (the main component of whey). Company cofounder Ori Cohavi says a single biotech factory of bubbling yeast vats feeding on sugar could in theory “replace 50,000 to 100,000 cows.” 

Remilk has been making trial batches and is testing ways to formulate the protein with plant oils and sugar to make spreadable cheese, ice cream, and milk drinks. So yes, we’re talking “processed” food—one partner is a local Coca-Cola bottler, and advising the company are former executives of Nestlé, Danone, and PepsiCo.

But regular milk isn’t exactly so natural either. At milking time, animals stand inside elaborate robots, and it looks for all the world as if they’re being abducted by aliens. “The notion of a cow standing in some nice green scenery is very far from how we get our milk,” says Cohavi. And there are environmental effects: cattle burp methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and a lactating cow needs to drink around 40 gallons of water a day. 

“There are hundreds of millions of dairy cows on the planet producing greenhouse waste, using a lot of water and land,” says Cohavi. “It can’t be the best way to produce food.”  

For biotech ventures trying to displace milk, the big challenge will be keeping their own costs of production low enough to compete with cows. Dairies get government protections and subsidies, and they don’t only make milk. Dairy cows are eventually turned into gelatin, McDonald’s burgers, and the leather seats of your Range Rover. Not much goes to waste.

At Alpine Bio, a biotech company in San Francisco (also known as Nobell Foods), researchers have engineered soybeans to produce casein. While not yet cleared for sale, the beans are already being grown on USDA-sanctioned test plots in the Midwest, says Alpine’s CEO, Magi Richani. 

Richani chose soybeans because they’re already a major commodity and the cheapest source of protein around. “We are working with farmers who are already growing soybeans for animal feed,” she says. “And we are saying, ‘Hey, you can grow this to feed humans.’ If you want to compete with a commodity system, you have to have a commodity crop.”

Alpine intends to crush the beans, extract the protein, and—much like Remilk—sell the ingredient to larger food companies.

Everyone agrees that cow’s milk will be difficult to displace. It holds a special place in the human psyche, and we owe civilization itself, in part, to domesticated animals. In fact, they’ve  left their mark in our genes, with many of us carrying DNA mutations that make cow’s milk easier to digest.  

But that’s why it might be time for the next technological step, says Richani. “We raise 60 billion animals for food every year, and that is insane. We took it too far, and we need options,” she says. “We need options that are better for the environment, that overcome the use of antibiotics, and that overcome the disease risk.”

It’s not clear yet whether the bird flu outbreak on dairy farms is a big danger to humans. But making milk without cows would definitely cut the risk that an animal virus will cause a new pandemic. As Richani says: “Soybeans don’t transmit diseases to humans.”

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

Hungry for more from the frontiers of fromage? In the Build issue of our print magazine, Andrew Rosenblum tasted a yummy brie made only from plants. Harder to swallow was the claim by developer Climax Foods that its cheese was designed using artificial intelligence.

The idea of using yeast to create food ingredients, chemicals, and even fuel via fermentation is one of the dreams of synthetic biology. But it’s not easy. In 2021, we raised questions about high-flying startup Ginkgo Bioworks. This week its stock hit an all-time low of $0.49 per share as the company struggles to make … well, anything.

This spring, I traveled to Florida to watch attempts to create life in a totally new way: using a synthetic embryo made in a lab. The action involved cattle at the animal science department of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

---

From around the web

How many human bird flu cases are there? No one knows, because there’s barely any testing. Scientists warn we’re flying blind as US dairy farms struggle with an outbreak. (NBC)  

Moderna, one of the companies behind the covid-19 shots, is seeing early success with a cancer vaccine. It uses the same basic technology: gene messages packed into nanoparticles. (Nature)

It’s the covid-19 theory that won’t go away. This week the New York Times published an op-ed arguing that the virus was the result of a lab accident. We previously profiled the author, Alina Chan, who is a scientist with the Broad Institute. (NYTimes)

Sales of potent weight loss drugs, like Ozempic, are booming. But it’s not just humans who are overweight. Now the pet care industry is dreaming of treating chubby cats and dogs, too. (Bloomberg)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

Here in the US, bird flu has now infected cows in nine states, millions of chickens, and—as of last week—a second dairy worker. There’s no indication that the virus has acquired the mutations it would need to jump between humans, but the possibility of another pandemic has health officials on high alert. Last week, they said they are working to get 4.8 million doses of H5N1 bird flu vaccine packaged into vials as a precautionary measure. 

The good news is that we’re far more prepared for a bird flu outbreak than we were for covid. We know so much more about influenza than we did about coronaviruses. And we already have hundreds of thousands of doses of a bird flu vaccine sitting in the nation’s stockpile.

The bad news is we would need more than 600 million doses to cover everyone in the US, at two shots per person. And the process we typically use to produce flu vaccines takes months and relies on massive quantities of chicken eggs. Yes, chickens. One of the birds that’s susceptible to avian flu. (Talk about putting all our eggs in one basket. #sorrynotsorry)

This week in The Checkup, let’s look at why we still use a cumbersome, 80-year-old vaccine production process to make flu vaccines—and how we can speed it up.

The idea to grow flu virus in fertilized chicken eggs originated with Frank Macfarlane Burnet, an Australian virologist. In 1936, he discovered that if he bored a tiny hole in the shell of a chicken egg and injected flu virus between the shell and the inner membrane, he could get the virus to replicate.  

Even now, we still grow flu virus in much the same way. “I think a lot of it has to do with the infrastructure that’s already there,” says Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. It’s difficult for companies to pivot. 

The process works like this: Health officials provide vaccine manufacturers with a candidate vaccine virus that matches circulating flu strains. That virus is injected into fertilized chicken eggs, where it replicates for several days. The virus is then harvested, killed (for most use cases), purified, and packaged. 

Making flu vaccine in eggs has a couple of major drawbacks. For a start, the virus doesn’t always grow well in eggs. So the first step in vaccine development is creating a virus that does. That happens through an adaptation process that can take weeks or even months. This process is particularly tricky for bird flu: Viruses like H5N1 are deadly to birds, so the virus might end up killing the embryo before the egg can produce much virus. To avoid this, scientists have to develop a weakened version of the virus by combining genes from the bird flu virus with genes typically used to produce seasonal flu virus vaccines. 

And then there’s the problem of securing enough chickens and eggs. Right now, many egg-based production lines are focused on producing vaccines for seasonal flu. They could switch over to bird flu, but “we don’t have the capacity to do both,” Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University, told KFF Health News. The US government is so worried about its egg supply that it keeps secret, heavily guarded flocks of chickens peppered throughout the country. 

Most of the flu virus used in vaccines is grown in eggs, but there are alternatives. The seasonal flu vaccine Flucelvax, produced by CSL Seqirus, is grown in a cell line derived in the 1950s from the kidney of a cocker spaniel. The virus used in the seasonal flu vaccine FluBlok, made by Protein Sciences, isn’t grown; it’s synthesized. Scientists engineer an insect virus to carry the gene for hemagglutinin, a key component of the flu virus that triggers the human immune system to create antibodies against it. That engineered virus turns insect cells into tiny hemagglutinin production plants.   

And then we have mRNA vaccines, which wouldn’t require vaccine manufacturers to grow any virus at all. There aren’t yet any approved mRNA vaccines for influenza, but many companies are fervently working on them, including Pfizer, Moderna, Sanofi, and GSK. “With the covid vaccines and the infrastructure that’s been built for covid, we now have the capacity to ramp up production of mRNA vaccines very quickly,” says Hensley. This week, the Financial Times reported that the US government will soon close a deal with Moderna to provide tens of millions of dollars to fund a large clinical trial of a bird flu vaccine the company is developing.

There are hints that egg-free vaccines might work better than egg-based vaccines. A CDC study published in January showed that people who received Flucelvax or FluBlok had more robust antibody responses than those who received egg-based flu vaccines. That may be because viruses grown in eggs sometimes acquire mutations that help them grow better in eggs. Those mutations can change the virus so much that the immune response generated by the vaccine doesn’t work as well against the actual flu virus that’s circulating in the population. 

Hensley and his colleagues are developing an mRNA vaccine against bird flu. So far they’ve only tested it in animals, but the shot performed well, he claims. “All of our preclinical studies in animals show that these vaccines elicit a much stronger antibody response compared with conventional flu vaccines.”

No one can predict when we might need a pandemic flu vaccine. But just because bird flu hasn’t made the jump to a pandemic doesn’t mean it won’t. “The cattle situation makes me worried,” Hensley says. Humans are in constant contact with cows, he explains. While there have only been a couple of human cases so far, “the fear is that some of those exposures will spark a fire.” Let’s make sure we can extinguish it quickly. 

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

In a previous issue of The Checkup, Jessica Hamzelou explained what it would take for bird flu to jump to humans. And last month, after bird flu began circulating in cows, I posted an update that looked at strategies to protect people and animals.

I don’t have to tell you that mRNA vaccines are a big deal. In 2021, MIT Technology Review highlighted them as one of the year’s 10 breakthrough technologies. Antonio Regalado explored their massive potential to transform medicine. Jessica Hamzelou wrote about the other diseases researchers are hoping to tackle. I followed up with a story after two mRNA researchers won a Nobel Prize. And earlier this year I wrote about a new kind of mRNA vaccine that’s self-amplifying, meaning it not only works at lower doses, but also sticks around for longer in the body. 

From around the web

Researchers installed a literal window into the brain, allowing for ultrasound imaging that they hope will be a step toward less invasive brain-computer interfaces. (Stat) 

People who carry antibodies against the common viruses used to deliver gene therapies can mount a dangerous immune response if they’re re-exposed. That means many people are ineligible for these therapies and others can’t get a second dose. Now researchers are hunting for a solution. (Nature)

More good news about Ozempic. A new study shows that the drug can cut the risk of kidney complications, including death in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. (NYT)

Microplastics are everywhere. Including testicles. (Scientific American)

Must read: This story, the second in series on the denial of reproductive autonomy for people with sickle-cell disease, examines how the US medical system undermines a woman’s right to choose. (Stat)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

This week, I wrote about an external stimulator that delivers electrical pulses to the spine to help improve hand and arm function in people who are paralyzed. This isn’t a cure. In many cases the gains were relatively modest. One participant said it increased his typing speed from 23 words a minute to 35. Another participant was newly able to use scissors with his right hand. A third used her left hand to release a seatbelt.

The study didn’t garner as much media attention as previous, much smaller studies that focused on helping people with paralysis walk. Tech that allows people to type slightly faster or put their hair in a ponytail unaided just doesn’t have the same allure. “The image of a paralyzed person getting up and walking is almost biblical,” Charles Liu, director of the Neurorestoration Center at the University of Southern California, once told a reporter. 

For the people who have spinal cord injuries, however, incremental gains can have a huge impact on quality of life. 

So today in The Checkup, let’s talk about this tech and who it serves.

In 2004, Kim Anderson-Erisman, a researcher at Case Western Reserve University, who also happens to be paralyzed, surveyed more than 600 people with spinal cord injuries. Wanting to better understand their priorities, she asked them to consider seven different functions—everything from hand and arm mobility to bowel and bladder function to sexual function. She asked respondents to rank these functions according to how big an impact recovery would have on their quality of life. 

Walking was one of the functions, but it wasn’t the top priority for most people. Most quadriplegics put hand and arm function at the top of the list. For paraplegics, meanwhile, the top priority was sexual function. I interviewed Anderson-Erisman for a story I wrote in 2019 about research on implantable stimulators as a way to help people with spinal cord injuries walk. For many people, “not being able to walk is the easy part of spinal cord injury,” she told me. “[If] you don’t have enough upper-extremity strength or ability to take care of yourself independently, that’s a bigger problem than not being able to walk.” 

One of the research groups I focused on was at the University of Louisville. When I visited in 2019, the team had recently made the news because two people with spinal cord injuries in one of their studies had regained the ability to walk, thanks to an implanted stimulator. “Experimental device helps paralyzed man walk the length of four football fields,” one headline had trumpeted.

But when I visited one of those participants, Jeff Marquis, in his condo in Louisville, I learned that walking was something he could only do in the lab. To walk he needed to hold onto parallel bars supported by other people and wear a harness to catch him if he fell. Even if he had extra help at home, there wasn’t enough room for the apparatus. Instead, he gets around his condo the same way he gets around outside his condo: in a wheelchair. Marquis does stand at home, but even that requires a bulky frame. And the standing he does is only for therapy. “I mostly just watch TV while I’m doing that,” he said.  

That’s not to say the tech has been useless. The implant helped Marquis gain some balance, stamina, and trunk stability. “Trunk stability is kind of underrated in how much easier that makes every other activity I do,” he told me. “That’s the biggest thing that stays with me when I have [the stimulator] turned off.”  

What’s exciting to me about this latest study is that the tech gave the participants skills they could use beyond the lab. And because the stimulator is external, it is likely to be more accessible and vastly cheaper. Yes, the newly enabled movements are small, but if you listen to the palpable excitement of one study participant as he demonstrates how he can move a small ball into a cup, you’ll appreciate that incremental gains are far from insignificant. That’s according to Melanie Reid, one of the participants in the latest trial, who spoke at a press conference last week. “There [are] no miracles in spinal injury, but tiny gains can be life-changing.”

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

In 2017, we hailed as a breakthrough technology electronic interfaces designed to reverse paralysis by reconnecting the brain and body. Antonio Regalado has the story. 

An implanted stimulator changed John Mumford’s life, allowing him to once again grasp objects after a spinal cord injury left him paralyzed. But when the company that made the device folded, Mumford was left with few options for keeping the device running. “Limp limbs can be reanimated by technology, but they can be quieted again by basic market economics,” wrote Brian Bergstein in 2015. 

In 2014, Courtney Humphries covered some of the rat research that laid the foundation for the technological developments that have allowed paralyzed people to walk. 

From around the web

Lots of bird flu news this week. A second person in the US has tested positive for the illness after working with infected livestock. (NBC)

The livestock industry, which depends on shipping tens of millions of live animals, provides some ideal conditions for the spread of pathogens, including bird flu. (NYT)

Long read: How the death of a nine-year-old boy in Cambodia triggered a global H5N1 alert. (NYT)

You’ve heard about tracking viruses via wastewater. H5N1 is the first one we’re tracking via store-bought milk. (STAT) 

The first organ transplants from pigs to humans have not ended well, but scientists are learning valuable lessons about what they need to do better. (Nature) 

Another long read that’s worth your time: an inside look at just how long 3M knew about the pervasiveness of “forever chemicals.” (New Yorker) 

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

Last week, I scoured the internet in search of a robotic dog. I wanted a belated birthday present for my aunt, who was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Studies suggest that having a companion animal can stave off some of the loneliness, anxiety, and agitation that come with Alzheimer’s. My aunt would love a real dog, but she can’t have one.

That’s how I discovered the Golden Pup from Joy for All. It cocks its head. It sports a jaunty red bandana. It barks when you talk. It wags when you touch it. It has a realistic heartbeat. And it’s just one of the many, many robots designed for people with Alzheimer’s and dementia.

This week on The Checkup, join me as I go down a rabbit hole. Let’s look at the prospect of  using robots to change dementia care.

As robots go, Golden Pup is decidedly low tech. It retails for $140. For around $6,000 you can opt for Paro, a fluffy robotic baby seal developed in Japan, which can sense touch, light, sound, temperature, and posture. Its manufacturer says it develops its own character, remembering behaviors that led its owner to give it attention.  

Golden Pup and Paro are available now. But researchers are working on much more  sophisticated robots for people with cognitive disorders—devices that leverage AI to converse and play games. Researchers from Indiana University Bloomington are tweaking a commercially available robot system called QT to serve people with dementia and Alzheimer’s. The researchers’ two-foot-tall robot looks a little like a toddler in an astronaut suit. Its round white head holds a screen that displays two eyebrows, two eyes, and a mouth that together form a variety of expressions. The robot engages people in  conversation, asking AI-generated questions to keep them talking. 

The AI model they’re using isn’t perfect, and neither are the robot’s responses. In one awkward conversation, a study participant told the robot that she has a sister. “I’m sorry to hear that,” the robot responded. “How are you doing?”

But as large language models improve—which is happening already—so will the quality of the conversations. When the QT robot made that awkward comment, it was running Open AI’s GPT-3, which was released in 2020. The latest version of that model, GPT-4o, which was released this week, is faster and provides for more seamless conversations. You can interrupt the conversation, and the model will adjust.  

The idea of using robots to keep dementia patients engaged and connected isn’t always an easy sell. Some people see it as an abdication of our social responsibilities. And then there are privacy concerns. The best robotic companions are personalized. They collect information about people’s lives, learn their likes and dislikes, and figure out when to approach them. That kind of data collection can be unnerving, not just for patients but also for medical staff. Lillian Hung, creator of the Innovation in Dementia care and Aging (IDEA) lab at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, told one reporter about an incident that happened during a focus group at a care facility.  She and her colleagues popped out for lunch. When they returned, they found that staff had unplugged the robot and placed a bag over its head. “They were worried it was secretly recording them,” she said.

On the other hand, robots have some advantages over humans in talking to people with dementia. Their attention doesn’t flag. They don’t get annoyed or angry when they have to repeat themselves. They can’t get stressed. 

What’s more, there are increasing numbers of people with dementia, and too few people to care for them. According to the latest report from the Alzheimer’s Association, we’re going to need more than a million additional care workers to meet the needs of people living with dementia between 2021 and 2031. That is the largest gap between labor supply and demand for any single occupation in the United States.

Have you been in an understaffed or poorly staffed memory care facility? I have. Patients are often sedated to make them easier to deal with. They get strapped into wheelchairs and parked in hallways. We barely have enough care workers to take care of the physical needs of people with dementia, let alone provide them with social connection and an enriching environment.

“Caregiving is not just about tending to someone’s bodily concerns; it also means caring for the spirit,” writes Kat McGowan in this beautiful Wired story about her parents’ dementia and the promise of social robots. “The needs of adults with and without dementia are not so different: We all search for a sense of belonging, for meaning, for self-actualization.”

If robots can enrich the lives of people with dementia even in the smallest way, and if they can provide companionship where none exists, that’s a win.

“We are currently at an inflection point, where it is becoming relatively easy and inexpensive to develop and deploy [cognitively assistive robots] to deliver personalized interventions to people with dementia, and many companies are vying to capitalize on this trend,” write a team of researchers from the University of California, San Diego, in a 2021 article in Proceedings of We Robot. “However, it is important to carefully consider the ramifications.”

Many of the more advanced social robots may not be ready for prime time, but the low-tech Golden Pup is readily available. My aunt’s illness has been progressing rapidly, and she occasionally gets frustrated and agitated. I’m hoping that Golden Pup might provide a welcome (and calming) distraction. Maybe  it will spark joy during a time that has been incredibly confusing and painful for my aunt and uncle. Or maybe not. Certainly a robotic pup isn’t for everyone. Golden Pup may not be a dog. But I’m hoping it can be a friendly companion.

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

Robots are cool, and with new advances in AI they might also finally be useful around the house, writes Melissa Heikkilä. 

Social robots could help make personalized therapy more affordable and accessible to kids with autism. Karen Hao has the story. 

Japan is already using robots to help with elder care, but in many cases they require as much work as they save. And reactions among the older people they’re meant to serve are mixed. James Wright wonders whether the robots are “a shiny, expensive distraction from tough choices about how we value people and allocate resources in our societies.” 

From around the web

A tiny probe can work its way through arteries in the brain to help doctors spot clots and other problems. The new tool could help surgeons make diagnoses, decide on treatment strategies, and provide assurance that clots have been removed. (Stat) 

Richard Slayman, the first recipient of a pig kidney transplant, has died, although the hospital that performed the transplant says the death doesn’t seem to be linked to the kidney. (Washington Post)

EcoHealth, the virus-hunting nonprofit at the center of covid lab-eak theories, has been banned from receiving federal funding. (NYT)

In a first, scientists report that they can translate brain signals into speech without any vocalization or mouth movements, at least for a handful of words. (Nature)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

The human brain is an engineering marvel: 86 billion neurons form some 100 trillion connections to create a network so complex that it is, ironically, mind boggling.

This week scientists published the highest-resolution map yet of one small piece of the brain, a tissue sample one cubic millimeter in size. The resulting data set comprised 1,400 terabytes. (If they were to reconstruct the entire human brain, the data set would be a full zettabyte. That’s a billion terabytes. That’s roughly a year’s worth of all the digital content in the world.)

This map is just one of many that have been in the news in recent years. (I wrote about another brain map last year.) So this week I thought we could walk through some of the ways researchers make these maps and how they hope to use them.  

Scientists have been trying to map the brain for as long as they’ve been studying it. One of the most well-known brain maps came from German anatomist Korbinian Brodmann. In the early 1900s, he took sections of the brain that had been stained to highlight their structure and drew maps by hand, with 52 different areas divided according to how the neurons were organized. “He conjectured that they must do different things because the structure of their staining patterns are different,” says Michael Hawrylycz, a computational neuroscientist at the Allen Institute for Brain Science. Updated versions of his maps are still used today.

“With modern technology, we’ve been able to bring a lot more power to the construction,” he says. And over the past couple of decades we’ve seen an explosion of large, richly funded mapping efforts.

BigBrain, which was released in 2013, is a 3D rendering of the brain of a single donor, a 65-year-old woman. To create the atlas, researchers sliced the brain into more than 7,000 sections, took detailed images of each one, and stitched the sections into a three-dimensional reconstruction.

In the Human Connectome Project, researchers scanned 1,200 volunteers in MRI machines to map structural and functional connections in the brain. “They were able to map out what regions were activated in the brain at different times under different activities,” Hawrylycz says.

This kind of noninvasive imaging can provide valuable data, but “Its resolution is extremely coarse,” he adds. “Voxels [think: a 3D pixel] are of the size of a millimeter to three millimeters.”

And there are other projects too. The Synchrotron for Neuroscience—an Asia Pacific Strategic Enterprise,  a.k.a. “SYNAPSE,” aims to map the connections of an entire human brain at a very fine-grain resolution using synchrotron x-ray microscopy. The EBRAINS human brain atlas contains information on anatomy, connectivity, and function.

The work I wrote about last year is part of the $3 billion federally funded Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, which launched in 2013. In this project, led by the Allen Institute for Brain Science, which has developed a number of brain atlases, researchers are working to develop a parts list detailing the vast array of cells in the human brain by sequencing single cells to look at gene expression. So far they’ve identified more than 3,000 types of brain cells, and they expect to find many more as they map more of the brain.

The draft map was based on brain tissue from just two donors. In the coming years, the team will add samples from hundreds more.

Mapping the cell types present in the brain seems like a straightforward task, but it’s not. The first stumbling block is deciding how to define a cell type. Seth Ament, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland, likes to give his neuroscience graduate students a rundown of all the different ways brain cells can be defined: by their morphology, or by the way the cells fire, or by their activity during certain behaviors. But gene expression may be the Rosetta stone brain researchers have been looking for, he says: “If you look at cells from the perspective of just what genes are turned on in them, it corresponds almost one to one to all of those other kinds of properties of cells.” That’s the most remarkable discovery from all the cell atlases, he adds.

I have always assumed the point of all these atlases is to gain a better understanding of the brain. But Jeff Lichtman, a neuroscientist at Harvard University, doesn’t think “understanding” is the right word. He likens trying to understand the human brain to trying to understand New York City. It’s impossible. “There’s millions of things going on simultaneously, and everything is working, interacting, in different ways,” he says. “It’s too complicated.”

But as this latest paper shows, it is possible to describe the human brain in excruciating detail. “Having a satisfactory description means simply that if I look at a brain, I’m no longer surprised,” Lichtman says. That day is a long way off, though. The data Lichtman and his colleagues published this week was full of surprises—and many more are waiting to be uncovered.

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Another thing

The revolutionary AI tool AlphaFold, which predicts proteins’ structures on the basis of their genetic sequence, just got an upgrade, James O’Donnell reports. Now the tool can predict interactions between molecules. 

Read more from Tech Review’s archive

In 2013, Courtney Humphries reported on the development of BigBrain, a human brain atlas based on MRI images of more than 7,000 brain slices. 

And in 2017, we flagged the Human Cell Atlas project, which aims to categorize all the cells of the human body, as a breakthrough technology. That project is still underway. 

All these big, costly efforts to map the brain haven’t exactly led to a breakthrough in our understanding of its function, writes Emily Mullin in this story from 2021.  

From around the web

The Apple Watch’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) feature received FDA approval to track heart arrhythmias in clinical trials, making it the first digital health product to be qualified under the agency’s Medical Device Development Tools program. (Stat)

A CRISPR gene therapy improved vision in several people with an inherited form of blindness, according to an interim analysis of a small clinical trial to test the therapy. (CNN)

Long read: The covid vaccine, like all vaccines, can cause side effects. But many people who say they have been harmed by the vaccine feel that their injuries are being ignored.  (NYT)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

Last week, Moderna and Merck launched a large clinical trial in the UK of a promising new cancer therapy: a personalized vaccine that targets a specific set of mutations found in each individual’s tumor. This study is enrolling patients with melanoma. But the companies have also launched a phase III trial for lung cancer. And earlier this month BioNTech and Genentech announced that a personalized vaccine they developed in collaboration shows promise in pancreatic cancer, which has a notoriously poor survival rate.

Drug developers have been working for decades on vaccines to help the body’s immune system fight cancer, without much success. But promising results in the past year suggest that the strategy may be reaching a turning point. Will these therapies finally live up to their promise?

This week in The Checkup, let’s talk cancer vaccines. (And, you guessed it, mRNA.)

Long before companies leveraged mRNA to fight covid, they were developing mRNA vaccines to combat cancer. BioNTech delivered its first mRNA vaccines to people with treatment-resistant melanoma nearly a decade ago. But when the pandemic hit, development of mRNA vaccines jumped into warp drive. Now dozens of trials are underway to test whether these shots can transform cancer the way they did covid. 

Recent news has some experts cautiously optimistic. In December, Merck and Moderna announced results from an earlier trial that included 150 people with melanoma who had undergone surgery to have their cancer removed. Doctors administered nine doses of the vaccine over about six months, as well as  what’s known as an immune checkpoint inhibitor. After three years of follow-up, the combination had cut the risk of recurrence or death by almost half compared with the checkpoint inhibitor alone.

The new results reported by BioNTech and Genentech, from a small trial of 16 patients with pancreatic cancer, are equally exciting. After surgery to remove the cancer, the participants received immunotherapy, followed by the cancer vaccine and a standard chemotherapy regimen. Half of them responded to the vaccine, and three years after treatment, six of those people still had not had a recurrence of their cancer. The other two had relapsed. Of the eight participants who did not respond to the vaccine, seven had relapsed. Some of these patients might not have responded  because they lacked a spleen, which plays an important role in the immune system. The organ was removed as part of their cancer treatment. 

The hope is that the strategy will work in many different kinds of cancer. In addition to pancreatic cancer, BioNTech’s personalized vaccine is being tested in colorectal cancer, melanoma, and metastatic cancers.

The purpose of a cancer vaccine is to train the immune system to better recognize malignant cells, so it can destroy them. The immune system has the capacity to clear cancer cells if it can find them. But tumors are slippery. They can hide in plain sight and employ all sorts of tricks to evade our immune defenses. And cancer cells often look like the body’s own cells because, well, they are the body’s own cells.

There are differences between cancer cells and healthy cells, however. Cancer cells acquire mutations that help them grow and survive, and some of those mutations give rise to proteins that stud the surface of the cell—so-called neoantigens.

Personalized cancer vaccines like the ones Moderna and BioNTech are developing are tailored to each patient’s particular cancer. The researchers collect a piece of the patient’s tumor and a sample of healthy cells. They sequence these two samples and compare them in order to identify mutations that are specific to the tumor. Those mutations are then fed into an AI algorithm that selects those most likely to elicit an immune response. Together these neoantigens form a kind of police sketch of the tumor, a rough picture that helps the immune system recognize cancerous cells. 

“A lot of immunotherapies stimulate the immune response in a nonspecific way—that is, not directly against the cancer,” said Patrick Ott, director of the Center for Personal Cancer Vaccines at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in a 2022 interview.  “Personalized cancer vaccines can direct the immune response to exactly where it needs to be.”

How many neoantigens do you need to create that sketch?  “We don’t really know what the magical number is,” says Michelle Brown, vice president of individualized neoantigen therapy at Moderna. Moderna’s vaccine has 34. “It comes down to what we could fit on the mRNA strand, and it gives us multiple shots to ensure that the immune system is stimulated in the right way,” she says. BioNTech is using 20.

The neoantigens are put on an mRNA strand and injected into the patient. From there, they are taken up by cells and translated into proteins, and those proteins are expressed on the cell’s surface, raising an immune response

mRNA isn’t the only way to teach the immune system to recognize neoantigens. Researchers are also delivering neoantigens as DNA, as peptides, or via immune cells or viral vectors. And many companies are working on “off the shelf” cancer vaccines that aren’t personalized, which would save time and expense. Out of about 400 ongoing clinical trials assessing cancer vaccines last fall, roughly 50 included personalized vaccines.

There’s no guarantee any of these strategies will pan out. Even if they do, success in one type of cancer doesn’t automatically mean success against all. Plenty of cancer therapies have shown enormous promise initially, only to fail when they’re moved into large clinical trials.

But the burst of renewed interest and activity around cancer vaccines is encouraging. And personalized vaccines might have a shot at succeeding where others have failed. The strategy makes sense for “a lot of different tumor types and a lot of different settings,” Brown says. “With this technology, we really have a lot of aspirations.”

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

mRNA vaccines transformed the pandemic. But they can do so much more. In this feature from 2023, Jessica Hamzelou covered the myriad other uses of these shots, including fighting cancer. 

This article from 2020 covers some of the background on BioNTech’s efforts to develop personalized cancer vaccines. Adam Piore had the story. 

Years before the pandemic, Emily Mullin wrote about early efforts to develop personalized cancer vaccines—the promise and the pitfalls. 

From around the web

Yes, there’s bird flu in the nation’s milk supply. About one in five samples had evidence of the H5N1 virus. But new testing by the FDA suggests that the virus is unable to replicate. Pasteurization works! (NYT)

Studies in which volunteers are deliberately infected with covid—so-called challenge trials—have been floated as a way to test drugs and vaccines, and even to learn more about the virus. But it turns out it’s tougher to infect people than you might think. (Nature)

When should women get their first mammogram to screen for breast cancer? It’s a matter of hot debate. In 2009, an expert panel raised the age from 40 to 50. This week they lowered it to 40 again in response to rising cancer rates among younger women. Women with an average risk of breast cancer should get screened every two years, the panel says. (NYT)

Wastewater surveillance helped us track covid. Why not H5N1? A team of researchers from New York argues it might be our best tool for monitoring the spread of this virus. (Stat)

Long read: This story looks at how AI could help us better understand how babies learn language, and focuses on the lab I covered in this story about an AI model trained on the sights and sounds experienced by a single baby. (NYT)

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

Six weeks ago, I pre-ordered the “Firefly Petunia,” a houseplant engineered with genes from bioluminescent fungi so that it glows in the dark. 

After years of writing about anti-GMO sentiment in the US and elsewhere, I felt it was time to have some fun with biotech. These plants are among the first direct-to-consumer GM organisms you can buy, and they certainly seem like the coolest.

But when I unboxed my two petunias this week, they were in bad shape, with rotted leaves. And in a day, they were dead crisps. My first attempt to do biotech at home is a total bust, and it cost me $84, shipping included.

My plants did arrive in a handsome black box with neon lettering that alerted me to the living creature within. The petunias, about five inches tall, were each encased in a see-through plastic pod to keep them upright. Government warnings on the back of the box assured me they were free of Japanese beetles, sweet potato weevils, the snail Helix aspera, and gypsy moths.

The problem was when I opened the box. As it turns out, I left for a week’s vacation in Florida the same day that Light Bio, the startup selling the petunia, sent me an email saying “Glowing plants headed your way,” with a UPS tracking number. I didn’t see the email, and even if I had, I wasn’t there to receive them. 

That meant my petunias sat in darkness for seven days. The box became their final sarcophagus.

My fault? Perhaps. But I had no idea when Light Bio would ship my order. And others have had similar experiences. Mat Honan, the editor in chief of MIT Technology Review, told me his petunia arrived the day his family flew to Japan. Luckily, a house sitter feeding his lizard eventually opened the box, and Mat reports the plant is still clinging to life in his yard.

But what about the glow? How strong is it? 

Mat says so far, he doesn’t notice any light coming from the plant, even after carrying it into a pitch-dark bathroom. But buyers may have to wait a bit to see anything. It’s the flowers that glow most brightly, and you may need to tend your petunia for a couple of weeks before you get blooms and see the mysterious effect.  

“I had two flowers when I opened mine, but sadly they dropped and I haven’t got to see the brightness yet. Hoping they will bloom again soon,” says Kelsey Wood, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis. 

She would like to use the plants in classes she teaches at the university. “It’s been a dream of synthetic biologists for so many years to make a bioluminescent plant,” she says. “But they couldn’t get it bright enough to see with the naked eye.”

Others are having success right out of the box. That’s the case with Tharin White, publisher of EYNTK.info, a website about theme parks. “It had a lot of protection around it and a booklet to explain what you needed to do to help it,” says White. “The glow is strong, if you are [in] total darkness. Just being in a dark room, you can’t really see it. That being said, I didn’t expect a crazy glow, so [it] meets my expectations.”

That’s no small recommendation coming from White, who has been a “cast member” at Disney parks and an operator of the park’s Avatar ride, named after the movie whose action takes place on a planet where the flora glows. “I feel we are leaps closer to Pandora—The World of Avatar being reality,” White posted to his X account.

Chronobiologist Brian Hodge also found success by resettling his petunia immediately into a larger eight-inch pot, giving it flower food and a good soaking, and putting it in the sunlight. “After a week or so it really started growing fast, and the buds started to show up around day 10. Their glow is about what I expected. It is nothing like a neon light but more of a soft gentle glow,” says Hodge, a staff scientist at the University of California, San Francisco.

In his daily work, Hodge has handled bioluminescent beings before—bacteria mostly—and says he always needed photomultiplier tubes to see anything. “My experience with bioluminescent cells is that the light they would produce was pretty hard to see with the naked eye,” he says. “So I was happy with the amount of light I was seeing from the plants. You really need to turn off all the lights for them to really pop out at you.”

Hodge posted a nifty snapshot of his petunia, but only after setting his iPhone for a two-second exposure.

Light Bio’s CEO Keith Wood didn’t respond to an email about how my plants died, but in an interview last month he told me sales of the biotech plant had been “viral” and that the company would probably run out of its initial supply. To generate new ones, it hires commercial greenhouses to place clippings in water, where they’ll sprout new roots after a couple of weeks. According to Wood, the plant is “a rare example where the benefits of GM technology are easily recognized and experienced by the public.”

Hodge says he got interested in the plants after reading an article about combating light pollution by using bioluminescent flora instead of streetlamps. As a biologist who studies how day and night affect life, he’s worried that city lights and computer screens are messing with natural cycles.

“I just couldn’t pass up being one of the first to own one,” says Hodge. “Once you flip the lights off, the glow is really beautiful … and it sorta feels like you are witnessing something out of a futuristic sci-fi movie!” 

It makes me tempted to try again. 

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

From the archives 

We’re not sure if rows of glowing plants can ever replace streetlights, but there’s no doubt light pollution is growing. Artificial light emissions on Earth grew by about 50% between 1992 and 2017—and as much as 400% in some regions. That’s according to Shel Evergreen,in his story on the switch to bright LED streetlights.

It’s taken a while for scientists to figure out how to make plants glow brightly enough to interest consumers. In 2016, I looked at a failed Kickstarter that promised glow-in-the-dark roses but couldn’t deliver.  

Another thing 

Cassandra Willyard is updating us on the case of Lisa Pisano, a 54-year-old woman who is feeling “fantastic” two weeks after surgeons gave her a kidney from a genetically modified pig. It’s the latest in a series of extraordinary animal-to-human organ transplants—a technology, known as xenotransplantation, that may end the organ shortage.

From around the web

Taiwan’s government is considering steps to ease restrictions on the use of IVF. The country has an ultra-low birth rate, but it bans surrogacy, limiting options for male couples. One Taiwanese pair spent $160,000 to have a child in the United States.  (CNN)

Communities in Appalachia are starting to get settlement payments from synthetic-opioid makers like Johnson & Johnson, which along with other drug vendors will pay out $50 billion over several years. But the money, spread over thousands of jurisdictions, is “a feeble match for the scale of the problem.” (Wall Street Journal)

A startup called Climax Foods claims it has used artificial intelligence to formulate vegan cheese that tastes “smooth, rich, and velvety,” according to writer Andrew Rosenblum. He relates the results of his taste test in the new “Build” issue of MIT Technology Review. But one expert Rosenblum spoke to warns that computer-generated cheese is “significantly” overhyped.

AI hype continued this week in medicine when a startup claimed it has used “generative AI” to quickly discover new versions of CRISPR, the powerful gene-editing tool. But new gene-editing tricks won’t conquer the main obstacle, which is how to deliver these molecules where they’re needed in the bodies of patients. (New York Times).

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

In the world of brain-computer interfaces, it can seem as if one company sucks up all the oxygen in the room. Last month, Neuralink posted a video to X showing the first human subject to receive its brain implant, which will be named Telepathy. The recipient, a 29-year-old man who is paralyzed from the shoulders down, played computer chess, moving the cursor around with his mind. Learning to control it was “like using the force,” he says in the video.

Neuralink’s announcement of a first-in-human trial made a big splash not because of what the man was able to accomplish—scientists demonstrated using a brain implant to move a cursor in 2006—but because the technology is so advanced. The device is unobtrusive and wireless, and it contains electrodes so thin and fragile they must be stitched into the brain by a specialized robot. It also commanded attention because of the wild promises Neuralink founder Elon Musk has made. It’s no secret that Musk is interested in using his chip to enhance the mind, not just restore function lost to injury or illness.  

But Neuralink isn’t the only company developing brain-computer interfaces to help people who have lost the ability to move or speak. In fact, Synchron, a New York–based company backed by funding from Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, has already implanted its device in 10 people. Last week, it launched a patient registry to gear up for a larger clinical trial.

Today in The Checkup, let’s take a look at some of the companies developing brain chips, their progress, and their different approaches to the technology.

Most of the companies working in this space have the same goal: capturing enough information from the brain to decipher the user’s intention. The idea is to aid communication for people who can’t easily move or speak, either by helping them navigate a computer cursor or by actually translating their brain activity into speech or text.

There are a variety of ways to classify these devices, but Jacob Robinson, a bioengineer at Rice University, likes to group them by their invasiveness. There’s an inherent trade-off. The deeper the electrodes go, the more invasive the surgery required to implant them, and the greater the risks. But going deeper also puts the electrodes closer to the brain activity these companies hope to record, which means the device can capture higher-resolution information that might, say, allow the device to decode speech. That’s the goal of companies like Neuralink and Paradromics. 

Robinson is CEO and cofounder of a company called Motif Neurotech, which is developing a brain-computer interface that only penetrates the skull (more on this later).  In contrast, Neuralink’s device has electrodes that go into the cortex, “right in the first couple of millimeters,” Robinson says. Two other companies—the Austin-based startup Paradromics and Blackrock Neurotech—have also developed chips designed to penetrate the cortex.

“That allows you to get really close to the neurons and get information about what each brain cell is doing,” Robinson says. Proximity to the neurons and a greater number of electrodes that can “listen” to their activity increases the speed of data transfer, or the “bandwidth.” And the greater the bandwidth, the more likely it is that the device will be able to translate brain activity into speech or text. 

When it comes to the sheer amount of human experience, Blackrock Neurotech is far ahead of the pack. Its Utah array has been implanted in dozens of people since 2004. It’s the array used by academic labs all over the country. And it’s the array that forms the basis of Blackrock’s MoveAgain device, which received an FDA Breakthrough Designation in 2021. But its bandwidth is likely lower than that of Neuralink’s device, says Robinson. 

“Paradromics actually has the highest-bandwidth interface, but they haven’t demonstrated it in humans yet,” Robinson says. The electrodes sit on a chip about the size of a watch battery, but the device requires a separate wireless transmitter that is implanted in the chest and connected to the brain implant by a wire.

There’s a drawback to all these high-bandwidth devices, though. They all require open brain surgery, and “the brain doesn’t really like having needles put into it,” said Synchron founder Tom Oxley in a 2022 TED talk. Synchron has developed an electrode array mounted on a stent, the very same device doctors use to prop open clogged arteries. The “Stentrode” is delivered via an incision in the neck to a blood vessel just above the motor cortex. This unique delivery method avoids brain surgery. But having the device placed above the brain rather than in it  limits the amount of data it can capture, Robinson says. He is skeptical the device will be able to capture enough data to move a mouse. But it is sufficient to generate mouse clicks. “They can click yes or no; they can click up and down,” he says.

Newcomer Precision Neuroscience, founded by a former Neuralink executive, has developed a flexible electrode array thinner than a human hair that resembles a piece of Scotch tape. It slides on top of the cortex through a small incision. The company launched its first human trials last year. In these initial studies, the array was implanted temporarily in people who were having brain surgery for other reasons. 

Last week, Robinson and his colleagues reported in Science Advances the first human test of Motif Neurotech’s device, which only penetrates the skull. They temporarily placed the small, battery-free device, known as the Digitally Programmable Over-brain Therapeutic (DOT), above the motor cortex of an individual who was already scheduled to undergo brain surgery. When they switched the device on, they saw movement in the patient’s hand. 

The ultimate goal of Motif’s device isn’t to produce movement. They’ve set their sights on a completely different application: alleviating mood disorders. “For every person with a spinal cord injury, there are 10 people suffering major depressive disorder and not responding to drugs,” Robinson says. “They’re just as desperate. It’s just not visible.”But the study shows that the device is powerful enough to stimulate the brain, a first step toward the company’s goals. 

The device sits above the brain, so it won’t be able to capture high-bandwidth data. But because Motif isn’t actually trying to decode speech or help people move things with their mind, they don’t need it to. “Your emotions don’t change nearly as quickly as the sounds coming out of your mouth,” Robinson says. 

Which of these companies will succeed remains to be seen, but with the momentum the field has already gained, controlling technology with your mind no longer seems like the stuff of science fiction. Still, these devices are primarily intended for people who have serious physical impairments. Don’t expect brain implants to achieve Neuralink’s goals of “redefining the boundaries of human capability” or “expanding how we experience the world” anytime soon. 

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from Tech Review’s archive

Elon Musk claimed he wants to use brain implants to increase “bandwidth” between people. But the idea of extra-fast communication is “largely hogwash,” said Antonio Regalado in a previous issue of The Checkup. In some instances, however, bandwidth really does matter. 

Last year I wrote about two women who, thanks to brain implants, regained the ability to communicate. One device translated the intended muscle movements of the mouth into text and speech. The other decoded speech directly. 

Phil Kennedy, one of the inventors of brain-computer interfaces, ended up getting one himself in pursuit of data. This fascinating and bizarre story from Adam Piore really delivers. 

Long read: This 2021 profile of one brain implant user, by Antonio Regalado, covers almost everything you might want to know about brain implants and dives deeper into some of the technologies I mention above. 

From around the web

People with HIV have to remember to take a once-daily pill, but in the coming years new, long-acting therapies may be available that would require a weekly pill or a monthly shot. These treatments could prove especially useful for reaching the more than 9 million people who are not receiving treatment. (NYT)

Tests that search for signs of cancer in the blood—sometimes called liquid biopsies—could represent a breakthrough in cancer detection. As many as 20 tests are in various stages of development, and some are already in use. But the evidence that these tests improve survival or reduce the number of deaths is lacking. (Washington Post)

As neurotech expands, there’s a lingering question of who owns your neural data. A new report finds that in many cases, privacy policies don’t protect this information. Some people are trying to change that, including legislators in Colorado, where a bill expanding neurorights protections was just signed into law on Wednesday. (Stat)