Neuralink and the Future of Mind Control: Neuroscientific Breakthroughs and Emerging Ethical Concerns

By ​Gayatri Bulsara

When one is asked, “If you could have any superpower, what would it be?”, a common answer is telekinesis. Long portrayed in movies and childhood imaginations as the ultimate ability, telekinesis has symbolized the power to move the world with the mind. Today, recent technological advancements are transforming this fantasy into a scientific reality through brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). Neuralink, the brain-computer interface (BCI) company founded by Elon Musk, straddles the intersection of neuroscience and artificial intelligence, promising to redefine the boundaries between human cognition and machine capability. While its technology offers potential to restore mobility and communication via thought-driven neural decoding and speech generation to patients with paralysis or sensory loss, Neuralink’s rapid progress has also sparked profound ethical debates surrounding consent, autonomy, privacy, and scientific accountability.

BCIs function by decoding neural signals and converting them into digital commands that can control external devices in order to aid individuals with motor and neuropsychiatric impairments (Shih et al., 2012). Developed in clinical research settings to restore lost functions, these BCI technologies are now being explored for their potential in cognitive enhancement (Shih et al., 2012). In early 2024, Neuralink’s Telepathy N1 device was implanted in its first human participant who was paralyzed following a diving accident, allowing thought-driven cursor movement which Musk described as “controlling a computer with your mind” (Neuralink, 2025). The patient later demonstrated his ability to move a computer cursor and play online games using only his thoughts (Neuralink, 2025). The success of this initial trial highlighted the power of neural decoding and the potential for BCIs to restore independence for people living with paralysis.

The company’s subsequent Blindsight implant in September 2024, was granted “breakthrough device” status by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Neuralink, 2025; Lavazza et al., 2025). The device is designed to restore vision by directly stimulating the visual cortex, bypassing damaged optic pathways (Lavazza et al., 2025). If successful, this could mark a new era in neuroprosthetics, offering hope for patients who have lost their sight but still possess functional cortical structures, which are regions of the brain involved in higher-level functioning such as thought and perception (Perez, 2024). These developments demonstrate how far neuroengineering has come, merging biology, computation, and artificial intelligence to achieve outcomes that once existed only in science fiction.

However, Neuralink’s rapid advancement raises deep ethical concerns about research transparency, patient autonomy, and the ownership of neural data. A major criticism concerns the company’s approach to communicating research developments to the public (Lavazza et al., 2025; Perez, 2024; Waisberg et al., 2024). Instead of sharing peer-reviewed publications or presenting results in scientific forums, Neuralink often announces its breakthroughs on social media platforms (Perez, 2024; Waisberg et al., 2024). While this generates public excitement and engagement, it bypasses essential scientific guidelines that function to maintain sufficient levels of accuracy and ethical accountability (Perez, 2024). These actions, particularly the flaw of overlooking peer review, undermine trust in the scientific research process and blur the line between legitimate medical experimentation and invalidated trials.

Another issue lies in the company's failure to preregister its first clinical trial in the official ClinicalTrials.gov database (Waisberg et al., 2024). Preregistration is a vital step of ethical biomedical research because it publicly declares study objectives, methods, and outcome measures before experimentation begins (Nosek et al., 2018). Neuralink’s lack of transparency with its first clinical trial made it difficult for independent experts to evaluate the study’s safety and design, ultimately contradicting the principles outlined in widely accepted international research ethics, which emphasize accountability and the protection of participants (Perez, 2024; Waisberg et al., 2024).

Ethical concerns in the sphere of medicine also extend to informed consent and long-term autonomy. Patients with severe disabilities such as paralysis may experience a heightened sense of vulnerability and a strong desire for hope, which could affect their ability to make fully voluntary decisions (Perez, 2024; Waisberg et al., 2024). Informed consent in this context requires not only an understanding of surgical risks but also the heavy implications of living with an implanted device that transmits neural signals (Waisberg et al., 2024). Once neural data is collected and digitized, complex questions emerge about data ownership and long-term governance; namely, who holds the rights to this personal neural information, and how it might be analyzed or shared (Lavazza et al., 2025). As these technologies are increasingly pursued by private companies eager to market cognitive enhancement, the potential commercialization of brain data opens a new frontier of bioethics, one that raises profound questions about privacy and identity.

Ultimately, Neuralink’s advancements undeniably represent a major step forward in neuroscience. However, the ethical and social implications of these advances demand rigorous oversight and a more rigid clinical trial structure. As BCIs evolve from therapeutic to enhancement tools, they could widen inequalities by giving cognitive or physical advantages to those who can afford them. The combination of thought and computation also challenges our understanding of agency and personal identity. When intentions can be interpreted, recorded, or even predicted by machines, this can cause the line between human and algorithm to begin to blur. Though Neuralink’s breakthroughs are remarkable, only by grounding advancements in strong ethical principles can society ensure that efforts to improve brain function also preserve humanity and autonomy.

References

[1] Shih JJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Mar;87(3):268-79. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008. Epub 2012 Feb 10. PMID: 22325364; PMCID: PMC3497935.


[2] Neuralink. (2025). Updates | Neuralink. Neuralink. https://neuralink.com/updates/

[3] Lavazza, A., Balconi, M., Ienca, M., Minerva, F., Pizzetti, F. G., Reichlin, M., Samorè, F., Sironi, V. A., Navarro, M. S., & Songhorian, S. (2025). Neuralink’s brain-computer interfaces: Medical Innovations and Ethical Challenges. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553905


[4] Perez, C. (2024). The Advancements and Ethical Concerns of Neuralink – The Princeton Medical Review. Princeton.edu. https://medreview.odus.princeton.edu/2025/06/23/the-advancements-and-ethical-concerns-of-neuralink/


[5] Waisberg E, Ong J, Lee AG. Ethical Considerations of Neuralink and Brain-Computer Interfaces. Ann Biomed Eng. 2024 Aug;52(8):1937-1939. doi: 10.1007/s10439-024-03511-2. Epub 2024 Apr 11. Erratum in: Ann Biomed Eng. 2024 Aug;52(8):1940. doi: 10.1007/s10439-024-03524-x. PMID: 38602573.
[6] Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2600-2606. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114. PMID: 29531091; PMCID: PMC5856500.