The Next Generation of ‘Internet of Bodies’ Could Connect Technology and Human Bodies – NBC Connecticut

• Scientist and author Andrea M. Matwyshyn coined the term “Internet of Bodies” or IOB in 2016.
• She described it as “a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the Internet and related technologies.”
• While IOB supporters are excited about the advances it could bring, especially in health care, many, including Matwyshyn in her original article, have concerns about privacy and ethics.

The next generation of the “Internet of Bodies”, or IOB for short, could bring technological devices closer to the human body than ever before.

Scientist and author Andrea M. Matwyshyn, who coined the term in 2016, describes it as “a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the Internet and related technologies such as artificial intelligence.”

According to research firm Mordor Intelligence, the global connected medical devices market alone will be worth approximately $66 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach more than $132 billion by 2029.

Matwyshyn identified three categories of BEIs depending on the level of device integration.

The first category is external. First-generation technologies such as smartwatches and rings have become the main ways to track our steps or heart rate. Smart glasses that can function as cameras, headphones, or monitors are another example of early IOB devices.

The second generation is internal. These are devices that you have swallowed or implanted. Think pacemakers with digital implants, smart prostheses permanently embedded in patients’ nerves and muscles, and even digital pills that transmit medical data after they are swallowed.

Finally, the third generation is here. These devices connect completely to the body while maintaining a real-time connection to an external machine and the Internet.

One of the most notable companies in this field is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which is developing a brain-computer interface, or BCI, called “Link.” The coin-sized chip is implanted under the skull, where it can read a person’s brain signals and allow them to control an external machine.

While IOB supporters are excited about the advances it could bring, especially in health care, many, including Matwyshyn in her original article, have concerns about privacy and ethics.

“As pieces and bodies come together and the human body becomes permanently intertwined with hardware, software and algorithms, IOB will test our norms and values ​​as a society,” she wrote.

“In particular, it will challenge concepts of human autonomy and self-governance.”