The following is a transcript of the video.
You’ve heard the term “Internet of Things” – where inanimate objects can be connected to the internet and each other.
But in 2016, academic and author Dr. Andrea M. Matwyshyn took it one step further, coining the term, “Internet of Bodies,” or IoB.
She describes it as “a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the Internet and related technologies, such as artificial intelligence.”
That might sound far-fetched, but if you have one of these, then you’re already part of the IoB world.
There are three categories of IoB, based on the device’s level of integration.
The first generation is external. Things like smartwatches or rings, which use sensors to track our steps and heart rate. Or smart glasses, which function as cameras, headphones and monitors.
The second generation is internal. These are devices you ingest or have implanted. Think of pacemakers with digital implants, smart prosthetics hardwired into patients’ nerves and muscles… or even digital pills that transmit medical data after being ingested.
Finally, there’s the third generation. These devices completely merge with the body while maintaining a real-time connection to an external machine and the internet.
One of the most notable companies in this space is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface, or BCI called “the Link.”
The coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull, where it can read a person’s brain signals and allow them to control an external machine.
Neuralink’s first test subject, who was paralyzed from the shoulders down, used the device to play chess on his laptop. Although a few weeks after the procedure, Neuralink reported some malfunctioning.
Proponents of IoB devices say the benefits are clear: they’ll improve body cognition and function, improve healthcare, and allow for significant cost savings for people and corporations. But where some see benefits, others see risks. Even the original article coining the term warned against 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 got their hands on this data, they could use it to spy on citizens or turn them into revenue streams. There are also concerns around dependency, addiction and personal safety. Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, admitted that he had his heart implant’s wireless function disabled in 2007 over fears that assassins could use it to cause a fatal heart attack.
There are also ethical questions to consider. Could we see a world in which the rich are augmented, and the poor aren’t? And philosophically, will IoB challenge our notions of human autonomy and self-governance? Who is responsible for monitoring the risks?
Most IoB implantable and ingestible devices are regulated by agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or its counterparts internationally.
They have a set of rules for things like cochlear implants or body-part replacements, but IoB consumer devices are not under their purview. The recent emergence of these devices, their fast boom in sales and their varying capabilities somewhat explains the current patchwork of legislation at regional, state and international levels. However, there are some existing laws that could be extended to safeguard IoB data.
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation – or GDPR – is designed to protect EU residents from the dangers of data breaches and cyber-attacks.
And in the U.S., the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act – commonly known as HIPAA – is meant to prevent a patient’s information from being disclosed without consent.
As an industry, there’s a lot to play for. According to Mordor Intelligence, the global connected medical device market alone will be worth around 66 billion dollars in 2024 and is expected to reach more than 132 billion by 2029. That’s an annual growth rate of nearly 15%.
