In the world of brain- computer interface, there are few names gaining notability faster than Max Hodak, the founder of Science Corp, which has already raised $160 million in total funding.
The two started Neuralink back in 2016 He left the company in 2021, leaving only two out of eight original co-conspirators, and launched Science Corp to pursue similar work.
The Science Eye is Science Corp.'s first major project. It combines gene editing to the nerve in the eye with a special implant, which is the first of its kind. The Science Eye is still in animal trials, but its potential is clearly wooing investors, so we caught up with Hodak to find out what the company is working on, how its test subjects are doing, and what comes next.
The interview has been edited to make it clearer.
Tell us about the science eye. What does it do?
There are two parts to the Science Eye, a simple gene therapy and a thin-film microLED display that drives the altered cells in the eye. The flexible microLEDs we implant are unaffected by ordinary daylight. It should be possible to restore vision in patients who have lost their rods and cones.
The science eyes have already been implanted in some bunnies. Are they doing well?
They're doing great. We try to use as few animals as possible to make sure we don't end up using too much tissue.
What are you looking for in a bunny? So far, what has the success rate been?
We're recording from their visual cortex using traditional electrodes and seeing if we can recover the stimulation we give into the retina through the microLED array as a proof of principle that the signals are getting into the brain. It's working but it's R&D.
In the past, other companies failed at this. How do you avoid those mistakes?
Many people are working on visual aids. We think Second Sight and Pixium Vision are better than nothing because they use traditional electrodes, but we think in the long run they won't be able to provide high-resolution vision. There are companies that use optogenetics, but they use projectors mounted on glasses, which doesn't move with the eye, and have many drawbacks compared to our flexible microLED technology.
How long will it take to implant the science eye in a human?
Hopefully eighteen months.
Do you think there would be demand for a commercial version of the tech? What kind of services do you think it could provide?
We think that our visual prosthesis work will eventually evolve into a mass-market technology, but not the microLED film. We don't have much more to say on this until the first version of the Science Eye is in patients, but we think we have a way to create a technology that doesn't require surgery.
What do you want to develop after the Science Eye?
It was so many. Over the next year, we will have more announcements.
It seems like this is more focused than Neuralink. Is Neuralink the reason for this vision?
The approach we're developing is very different from Neuralink's. Our vision is much more than just visual aids. We want ambition to grow with success instead of making big statements about things we may or may not do in the future. We're focusing on getting our first product into patients.
Science Corp is the second best funded brain computer interface venture according to a report. Why do you think people like your work?
If you're serious about engineering the brain, it's this very important goal. I think it's hard to not be drawn to it when you realize it's possible. The potential upside is so enormous if you can figure out how to do it that it's very rational to support financially.
I like to play with new technology but I haven't gotten the appeal of virtual reality yet. I'm not sure what's different with the Science Eye and what the mass-market appeal is. Is there something I don't know about the use of virtual reality and augmented reality in day to day life?
The Science Eye isn't an augmented or virtual reality device for people who are blind. If we can get the technology to work, we might be able to make that happen. There are a lot of differences between augmented reality and virtual reality. It's easy to miss the potential of virtual reality, but if you put a phone to your face and walk through your coffee table, you'll know it's possible. It's easy to immerse someone's vision and hearing, but hard to put the rest of their body there so they can run and jump. It will take a long time to translate this to a true consumer device.
It is obvious to me that augmented reality is the conclusion of the phone. I think Apple's glasses will surpass the iPhone in the long run. For augmented reality to be truly immersive, it has to be semantically aware of the world and what you are looking at. I think Apple understands this and it's a big reason they've been investing so heavily in low power on-chip machine learning, since the real hard part of augmented reality is running scene recognition in real time on a Wearable. There will be fundamental limits to how crazy of a product experience can be enabled by worn glasses, and an approach which moves with the eye and is completely full field, and also works when the eyes are closed, will be superior.
It's important to get the Science Eye to the clinic. Do you think presentations surrounding brain computer interface have hindered its progress or set unrealistic expectations?
Getting useful products to patients is the most important thing. Hype can be useful if we remember that it's not an end in itself. I don't believe anyone at any of the major companies would confuse that with knowing them.
I want to know how your cats are doing. If you think about how cats perceive and process their environment, you might be interested in the Science Eye.
Our cats are doing well. Employees are allowed to bring in their cats from time to time in the conference room. We've tried to be as pet friendly as possible, and early on we invited employees to bring their dogs. The design of the Science Eye was not influenced by thinking about animal perception, but it is fascinating to think about how perception changes as you go down the evolutionary tree.
Try to use as few animals as possible. There are a lot of animals used in Neuralink.
I don't have anything bad to say about Neuralink. The team at Neuralink care about using as few animals as possible. Nobody is thinking about how to use more animals.
Do you believe Science Corp will implant its device in a human?
It's important to avoid racing other people to humans. The risks of go-fever were discovered by the manned space program, and we are doing our own thing on our timelines.
Since you left Neuralink, have you talked to Musk?
There was no response.
The co- founder of Neuralink Locks down $47 million for a neuroscience startup.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
