Is there a way to study neuromodulation, particularly invasive neuromodulation, outside of institutional confines? Outside of huge capital raises? Something anchored in community, in accessibility and egalitarianism?
As we all know, however, stability in this space is key (given the horror stories of individuals with implants abandoned when companies go bankrupt). So a model in which those individuals are guaranteed to be taken care of indefinitely when things are "invasive" seems essential.
Another factor has to do with the regulatory burden - a foundation would have be ready to take than on as well (IRB, assurances of patient safety, etc). It's a huge thing to take on.
In that light, it is the case that institutions are already set up to do this (and arguably do it well). And so I'm curious to learn more about: what are the drawbacks to that route?
The only thing that comes to mind that such a non-traditional institution could achieve over what we have: the stultifying "invisible hand" of only predominant ideas in the ideas marketplace and their variations being allowed to be experimented/tested, i.e., scientific status quo.
Allowing these other options comes with its own pitfalls. It can evolve to one of, "break fast, and disrupt things" and increasingly capital intensive or capture.The other is just going all James Bond villain level. Writing this, just realized we already have these two scenarios.
Add comment