Why patient involvement in neurotechnologies is essential

Trust thought for today - how "innovation should be tailored to human needs, not dictated merely by technological possibility”

Can robots heal an injured brain?

The realisation of the scientists in this long, but worthwhile article The Atlantic. About two scientists, the father in assistive robotics and the mother in biological regenerative medicine who’s young daughter was terribly injured. They tried absolutely everything to help her. And they had everything at their disposal; they worked for a large academic centre specialising in just this area and knew everything about leading edge tech.

But they gradually realised that much of what they and their colleagues had designed built in good faith was just not fit for purpose. Perhaps it didn’t do the job which was really needed, or the hypothesis of benefit wasn't realised in reality, or it was too complex and simpler therapies would do the job better, or they hadn’t taken into consideration its interaction with other therapies, or simply it was great science, but wasn’t really any good in the environment of stressed and busy carers in impossible situations in hospital and homes. And was conceivably a waste of their time and public money.

What was particularly poignant was that this large centre for regenerative medicine they were part of had patients and clinicians two floors down. And no-one had ever thought to visit, to ask them what they needed observe the reality of their lives.

Tomorrow's/Today's conference at the Human Brain Summit, I have been asked to reflect on the meaning of 'patient centricity'. This is the issue in a nutshell, but how can the scientific community be inspired and enabled to focus their brilliance on that sweet spot between innovation that patients could only have dreamed of, with the things that they really, practically need, but may not be fun enough or lucrative enough scientifically and commercially.

No answers on postcard for this one.