Text written in Basque and translated automatically by Elia without any subsequent editing. SEE ORIGINAL

By using nanoparticles, we can activate neurons

Researchers at the Donostia International Physics Center are developing a project that will provide the ability to activate or deactivate neurons in the brain. Aitzol García talks about the possibility of acting on the brain, but also about neurorights and the limitations that must be imposed on the new technology.

Bego Zubia Gallastegi

You're a physicist, but you're doing research in neuroscience. What is the NanoNeuro initiative?

I've always researched the light. But a few years ago, the well-known neuroscientist Rafael Yuste started visiting the DIPC and talking to him, when we started sharing our knowledge together, we saw that what I was researching was very useful for them, in neuroscience. And we started working together.

We decided to use nanosciences to develop new tools for neuroscience. This is the objective of NanoNeuro: to develop new tools for excitation of neurons using nanoparticles. And we also want to develop the ability to read neuronal activity using nanoparticles. Therefore, "nano" (nanoparticles) and "neuro" (neurosciences).

How do you do that?

There are some nanoparticles, called plasmonic nanoparticles, in which when they receive light and excite these particles, these particles work as if they were magnifiers: they collect light, which generates heat. But on the nanoscale. The heat is obtained in a very concentrated way, concentrated in a very small space.

“With quantum dots, we are able to determine whether a neuron has sent an electrical signal or not.”

What do you get by concentrating that light?

By using these nanoparticles and heat, we can activate a neuron.

But we use other particles to read the activity of neurons. We call these particles quantum dots, and we're designing and developing them. They have very special properties. Why am I saying this? They can cause florescence. That is, they receive light and then emit light of another color. The light they emit depends on the electric fields they perceive in their environment.

Therefore, we are using these nanoparticles to determine their environment by measuring the light they emit. In the case of the brain, when a neuron sends a signal, it produces an electrical signal. This creates a very powerful electric field in the membrane of the neuron, from which it propagates through the membrane to carry the signal. By including a quantum dot there, we are able to determine whether or not the neuron has sent the electrical signal.

And what do you want to achieve with that?

On the one hand, we want to clarify when neurons are turned on and when they are not. On the other hand, we want to be able to read the signals of neurons. Why? Why? On the one hand, for the sole purpose of generating knowledge and, on the other, for the development of new tools that help in different health problems.

“We want to develop the ability to read neuronal activity using nanoparticles.”

Neuro-engineering is not science fiction. Do they foresee significant progress in this area in the short term?

In the health field it can improve the lives of many people. The key is to help the brain to modulate. If all went well, we’d like to use these new capabilities to develop new health applications in the future.

And all this with non-invasive techniques, without opening the mind, right?

That's what we'd like.

Nanoparticles are tiny. In principle, we have seen that they can pass into the brain. And that's not easy. And we are proving that, using different techniques, we can achieve this. We're trying to get nanoparticles into the brain through the blood.

I'm talking about the future. Don't think we're doing it in humans anymore. No, at the moment, we're working in the lab, with animals, and using techniques we call in vitro. That is, with cells, one by one or in small groups.

But at least you know where you have to go.

That’s right, but in science it’s important to put the whole perspective on the table. That is, the basic science is one thing, what we do, but the long-term projection is very different. You have to look far, yes, but knowing we're here.

Are there bionic men?

No, no. No. There are bionic devices and prostheses that help to improve the mobility and autonomy of people. But from a scientific point of view, we cannot say that the people who use them are bionic humans.

Bionics is the application of biological knowledge to electronic and mechanical systems, and is intended to restore functions lost by the body. Transhumanism goes further. It is a philosophical and cultural movement that aims to improve the human being by betting on the use of technology. Among others, bionics, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology.

Lepht Anonym, the British biohacker, for example, has implanted more than 50 chips and devices into his body. However, at the moment it does not look like the bionic woman we met in ETB in the 80s.

It's about manipulating neurons. But it's a little scary to imagine what can be achieved. Many will think that it can also be used to achieve less good goals.

I would say that we are people who trust the most basic scientists. Our ambitions are very platonic, knowledge and stuff like that. But there are also private companies behind these concepts. Very famous is the company Neuralink, for example the company Elon Musk, who also defend that they develop these projects to help people. Find out! Find out!

This field of research needs ethical limits, right?

Yes, in view of the development of these technologies, Rafael Yuste and other scientists began to develop an initiative on neurorights a few years ago. And this initiative highlights just that point, that certain limits must be set in the face of these risks.

They wanted to add five new rights to basic human rights, with some limitations on the development of these human technologies. A clear ethical limit.

What is faster, the technology itself or the guarantee of the corresponding neurorights?

I think technology goes much faster. And not only around these topics that seem like science fiction, but also in many of the technologies we use today. Technology is faster than protecting our rights. They must be regulated.

You mentioned the potential of these techniques, being able to activate and inactivate neurons at will. Where can these tools take us?

I would like to see that they allow new therapies to be created in the face of brain related diseases. That's my dream.