After the shock statement, in 2007, by the Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero on the performance of the first head transplant operation in humans (an operation that was never carried out), a biomedical engineering and neuroscience startup is doing it again. “The BrainBridge video announcement is part of the sensationalist proclamations that concern the latest, possible frontiers of contemporary transhumanism” Father Alberto Carrara, professor of philosophical anthropology and neuroethics at the Regina Apostolorum pontifical university in Rome, explains to Today.it.
The fake video he refers to is the one published by the US startup BrainBridge, which shows an advanced robotic system (guided by artificial intelligence) capable of simultaneously removing the head of a donor and a recipient; therefore, to transfer the recipient's head to the donor's body. A procedure that leverages the use of real-time molecular imaging, a technology that would ensure precise connections of the spinal cord, nerves and blood vessels.
The conditional is a must because the video of the science communicator Hashem Al-Ghaili – already author, in 2022, of the fictional clip EctoLife, on the existence of artificial wombs capable of generating bodies – is (precisely) false. However, the reference to artificial intelligence is authentic, considering that the joke was (partially) financed by Alex Zhavoronkov, founder of Insilico Medicine, a biotechnology company based in Hong Kong that uses AI in the research of anti-aging drugs .
Head transplant, debated and controversial
According to Technology Review, Al-Ghaili's fake video intends to “measure” media sensitivity and evaluate public responses regarding a debated and controversial topic, that of head transplants. “Certainly – continues Father Carrara (he is also coordinator of the research group in neurobioethics and “fellow” of the UNESCO chair in Bioethics and human rights at the Regina Apostolorum pontifical university) -, despite the absence of scientific publications on the matter, this clip could represent a further thought experiment to test, after seven years, the media sensitivity towards a hypothetical, new frontier of transplantology”.
And again, he continues, “the therapeutic excuse for endorsing a procedure which, on several occasions, has been considered scientifically inconclusive and ethically impracticable is surprising. Invoking false hopes towards real patients suffering from incurable conditions such as stage 4 cancer, paralysis and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's seem to me to be not very serious, neuroscientifically incorrect and neuroethically deplorable”. Then Father Carrara recalls: “In 2017, as a research group in Neurobioethics we dedicated an entire year to investigating the bizarre idea of a head transplant in human beings”.
Future prospects and challenges to overcome
To date, however, humanity seems reluctant to the idea, and many criticisms of the project have started via social media. “It's true – admitted Al-Ghaili – there is a lot of negativity. But there are also people who send us emails, saying they are ready to invest or describing their health challenges”. It goes without saying that head transplantation represents a technological, medical, ethical and social provocation. So, is there a line you shouldn't cross? “Certainly – replies Father Carrara – from a neuroethical perspective, the limit between ethics and technology is the human person himself. His integrity and integrality”.
He then concludes: “If a neurotechnological application (scientifically validated with the aim of improving the quality of life of a sick person) works – and presents a risk/benefit balance in favor of benefits -, it will also be ethically encouraged. But when a technological evolution manifests obvious risks that cannot be compensated by equally many advantages, then, for the well-being of the people involved, it must not be pursued”.