Below is the transcript of the video.
You have heard the term “Internet of Things” – where inanimate objects can be connected to the internet and to each other.
But in 2016, academician and author Dr. Andrea M. Matwyshyn took it one step further, coining the term, “Internet of Bodies,” or IoB.
He describes it as “a network of the human body whose integrity and functionality depend not least on the Internet and related technologies, such as artificial intelligence.”
It may sound far-fetched, but if you have one of these, you are already part of the IoB world.
There are three categories of IoB, based on the level of device integration.
First generation outside. Like smart watches or rings, which use sensors to track steps and heart rate. Or smart glasses, which function as cameras, headphones and monitors.
The second generation is internal. These are devices that you ingest or have implanted. Consider a pacemaker with a digital implant, a smart prosthetic attached to a patient’s nerves and muscles … or even a digital pill that transmits medical data after being ingested.
Finally, there is the third generation. The device completely integrates with your body while maintaining a real-time connection to external machines and the internet.
One of the most prominent companies in this space is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface, or BCI called “Link.”
A coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull, where it can read a person’s brain signals and allow them to control external machines.
Neuralink’s first test subject, who was paralyzed from the shoulders down, used the device to play chess on his laptop. Even weeks after the procedure, Neuralink reported some malfunctions.
Proponents of IoB devices say the benefits are clear: they will improve cognition and body function, improve health care, and save people and companies significant costs. But where some see benefits, others see risks. Even the original article that coined the term warned of the technology’s flaws.
For one, data protection will be paramount. Many of these devices will be able to track, record and store personal information. Critics argue that if governments and companies get the data, they can use it to spy on citizens or turn it into a revenue stream. There are also concerns about dependency, addiction and personal safety. Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, admitted that the wireless functionality of his heart implant was disabled in 2007 out of fear that assassins could use it to cause a fatal heart attack.
There are also ethical questions to consider. Could we see a world where the rich get more and more, and the poor don’t? And philosophically, will the IoB challenge notions of human autonomy and governance? Who is responsible for monitoring these risks?
Most IoB implantable and ingestible devices are regulated by agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US or their international partners.
They have some rules for things like cochlear implants or body part replacements, but IoB consumer devices don’t fall under them. The emergence of these devices, their rapid sales and different capabilities explain the current legislation at the regional, national and international levels. However, there are some laws that can be added to protect IoB data.
The EU General Data Protection Regulation – or GDPR – is designed to protect EU citizens from the dangers of data breaches and cyber attacks.
And in the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act – commonly known as HIPAA – is intended to prevent patient information from being disclosed without consent.
As an industry, there is a lot to play with. According to Mordor Intelligence, the global connected medical device market will only be worth about 66 billion dollars in 2024 and is expected to reach more than 132 billion in 2029. This is an annual growth rate of almost 15%.
