Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:18:50.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hybridization of the Human with Brain Implants: The Neuralink Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2020

ÉRIC FOURNERET
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2020 , pp. 668 - 672
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgment: This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreements No. 732032 (BrainCom).

References

Notes

1. Collinger, JL, Wodlinger, B, Downey, JE, Wang, W, Tyler-Kabara, EC, Weber, DJ, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. The Lancet 2013;381(9866):557–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Hocquet T, . Cyborg Philosophie: Penser Contre Les Dualismes. L’ordre Philosophique. Paris, France: Seuil; 2011, at 368.Google Scholar

3. Alderson-Day, B, Fernyhough, C. Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, pheno-menology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin 2015;141(5):931–65.Google Scholar

4. Rainey, S, Maslen, H, Mégevand, P, Arnal, LH, Fourneret, E, Yvert, B. Neuroprosthetic speech: The ethical significance of accuracy, control and pragmatics. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 2019;28(4):657–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Courtine, G, Sofroniew, MV. Spinal cord repair: Advances in biology and technology. Nature Medicine 2019;25(6):898–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Courtine, G, Micera, S, DiGiovanna, J, Millán, JDR. Brain-machine interface: Closer to therapeutic reality? The Lancet 2013;381(9866):515–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Hottois, G. La Science Entre Valeurs Modernes et Post-Modernité. Paris, France: Vrin; 2005.Google Scholar

8. Resnik, DB. Ethics of science. In: Curd, M, Psillos, S, eds. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London, UK: Routledge; 2015.Google Scholar

9. Harris, JP, Tyler, DJ. Biological, mechanical, and technological considerations affecting the longevity of intracortical electrode recordings. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 2013;41(6):435–56.Google ScholarPubMed

10. Ferraris, M. Manifiesto del Nuevo Realismo. Beri, Italy: SEDIT; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Searle, JR. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Latour, B. Ramsès II est-il mort de la tuberculose? Recherche 1998;307 (30):225–248.Google Scholar

13. Latour, B. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 2004;307:84–85.Google Scholar

14. Mayne, AJ, Collingridge, D. The social control of technology. Journal of the Operational Research Society 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Xavier G, . Philosophie des Nanotechnologies. Paris, France: Hermann; 2014, at 342.Google Scholar

16. Larousserie D, . Le blues des chercheurs français. Le Monde.fr [Internet]. available at https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2019/10/14/le-blues-des-chercheurs-francais_6015488_1650684.html (last accessed 18 Oct 2019; published 14 Oct 2019).Google Scholar

17. Nussbaum, MC. Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. The European Legacy 2012;17(1):104–5.Google Scholar