STAT+: What patients actually think about ‘minimally invasive’ brain implants

Scroll through the flashy websites of neurotechnology startups and a phrase repeats again and again: “minimally invasive.” “The term is fuzzy, problematic,” said Anna Wexler, a medical ethics and health policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “Is it physical invasiveness? We’re not sure, it’s a fraught term.” The fuzziness hasn’t stopped most brain-computer interface startups from deploying it in a bid to differentiate their devices from others in development. Synchron, Motif Neuroscience, Precision Neuroscience, and Merge Labs all use it liberally. Journalists sometimes repeat the spin. STAT+ Exclusive Story Already have an account? Log in This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+. Already have an account? Log in View All Plans To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+. Subscribe