This is so incredible!!! I wish him al the best and hope this can be afforded and offered to all those with spinal injuries! Amazing and exciting news.
If we want to help, then this makes sense, not a digital game! And this can rebuild your own nerve connections! This is healing.🙏 This is real help, not existence in a virtual world. 🤗
Long time we have not seen science could come up with something amazing.. Usually science is about publications, grant chasing, lobbying, tenureship.. What did we gain from all that hoop jumping? EPFL, please keep up this type of good work..
This is an uninformed take. You do realize Brain Computer interface research has been going on since the 1970s? And machine learning has been around even longer. Applied science would be nowhere without progress in fundamental science. And even with that, theis research project most definitely involved doing multiple publications and looking for a bunch of funding, to be made possible.
@@coin5207 first of all, i would be the last person to say fundamental science is bad.. The truth is, the way science is done today, there's no way in hell anyone can pursue fundamental science.. I agree that this achievement probably came after many funding rounds and publications.. But do you know how many publications are churned out everyday? Obviously they did not lead to achievements as great as this.. So, why is it a metric for survival in academia?
@@lokithor83 "Obviously they did not lead to achievements as great as this" Do you even know what the point of fundamental science is? It is supposed to act as a _fundament_ for applied research like this. Without fundamental research in the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, medicine, machine learning, AI done by hundreds of universities over the span of several decades this applied research project would not have been possible. Not to discredit epfl's progress on this particular invention, but for people who have kept up with brain compiter interface research this was naturally the next step researchers were gonna take. In 2014 a paraplegic person opened the fifa world cup by kicking a ball with a brain computer interface controlled exoskeleton. Functional electrical stimulation has also been around for a long time and there have been a decent amount of studies about brain computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation (i.e. regarding helping people regain arm and leg movement, some walking tests as well) so building a system that would reliably enable someone to walkwas the next step on the agenda. Again not to slight epfl, they surely put a lot of time and resources into this, just saying progress in science most of the time something gradual and involves expanding on the findings of other people. Very rarely do you have research that is completely ground breaking and far beyond the scope of what other research groups were already working towards.
@@coin5207 it's true that science is an incremental process with occasional bursts of brilliance such as this.. My point of contention is "Why is the metric : More publications = good scientist?".. If you agree that this is a problem, then consider its circumstance "Those who write the most of those incremental results are better scientists and should be given more funding".. This probably won't happen in ivy league universities, but around the world, unscrupulous "scientists" have gamed the system for their benefit and there's no chance in hell to come up with results as good as this..
@@lokithor83 You seemingly still don't get it. This is not an occasional burst of brilliance. This is a very strong result going off of other very strong results in the field. The point is that you wouldn't know about these other strong results unless you specifically searched for them, because they can't be as easily condensed to catchy headlines the average person would be interested in. (Even this is only being picked up now for some reason, even though epfl made a video about this project over a year ago) And I don't know from where you've heard "more publications = good scientist" The metric is "more quality publications in high impact journals = good scientist" If someone has made like 20 publications in 5 years, but all of them are in low quality or even scammy journals, people who know what to look for are gonna see that's someone who likes cutting corners and puts quantity over quality. On the flipside, someone with a lot of high quality publications in high impact journals will have a more solid track record because their research in general most likely has a higher impact on their field of work, even if it doesn't directly result in a final 'product' such as here I have personally worked with EPFL researchers before and I can tell you EPFL doesn't do things any differently than any other good university in that respect.
I'm a c6 c7 incomplete. I haven't been able to work for many years, but I believe that for God there's nothing impossible and will walk again soon. God bless everyone 🙏🙏🙏
