Neurotech’s Ancestors

by James Cavuoto, editor

The ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in clinical trials and scientific experiments has been a source of controversy since the early days of medical research. For the neurotechnology industry, animal research—and primate research in particular—has been at the forefront of public awareness.

The treatment of monkeys used by researchers at Elon Musk’s firm Neuralink generated a considerable amount of negative publicity a few years back. But even before Neuralink, early research teams led by BCI investigators at Brown, Caltech, Duke, and other institutions benefited greatly from the participation of primates in studies of implanted brain devices. The similarity of monkey cerebral cortex with human brains, as well as the capacity for primates to perform manual dexterity tasks, made them attractive research subjects.

The debate over animal research in neurotechnology has a tendency to flatten itself into slogans. On one side: “outdated, unethical, unnecessary.” On the other: “essential, irreplaceable, lifesaving.” What often gets lost is the uncomfortable middle ground where progress actually happens—incrementally, imperfectly, and with real human stakes.

That is why a recent LinkedIn post from Scott Imbrie, a quadriplegic who is a participant in a BCI study at the University of Chicago, deserves closer attention, not dismissal. Imbrie is not a venture capitalist, a university administrator, or a company spokesperson. He is a bionic pioneer—someone whose daily reality has been materially altered by decades of BCI research. “I am living proof that the reward outweighs the risk,” Imbrie wrote, urging regulators and the public to consider the tangible outcomes of BCI work conducted in both humans and non-human primates.

Imbrie’s ability to control a robotic limb and receive sensory feedback is the result of a long translational pipeline—one that did not begin in a human operating room. “Research like this began decades ago in nonhuman primates,” he wrote. “Today, it is safe, refined, and transformative.”

In the LinkedIn thread, some commenters questioned whether continued primate research is ethically defensible given emerging alternatives and documented cases of animal suffering. These arguments closely mirror those presented in a recent Vox investigation, which details ethical objections to primate experimentation and highlights a growing policy push toward animal-free research models such as organoids and organs-on-chips.

What the Vox article tends to underplay is the current gap between alternative models and clinically validated neuroprosthetic systems. Organoids cannot yet model whole-brain motor control. Computational simulations cannot replicate adaptive learning across sensory–motor loops. And crucially, none of these alternatives have produced a functioning, bidirectional BCI that restores touch in a human subject.

Non-human primate research has.

This does not absolve the field of responsibility. High-profile controversies have rightfully intensified scrutiny of animal welfare practices. The industry’s license to operate depends on transparency, rigorous oversight, and continuous reduction of harm. On that point, critics and practitioners should agree.

Over the years, this publication has made a point of recognizing the key role played by “bionic pioneers” who have volunteered their brains and bodies to help advance neurotech research. One such pioneer, Neurotech Network founder Jennifer French, will join us for a fireside chat at the 2026 Bioelectronic Medicine Forum on April 14 in New York City.

But we should also recognize the contribution of the animal ancestors who predated human BCI subjects and enabled this field to evolve as it has.

To quote Scott Imbrie, “I am grateful for every animal that came before me. All life has value, and that is why we must continue advancing research in ways that are safe, ethical, and humane.”