DW-TV: Mr. Walter, big question right at the start: Should we be messing with something that could literally alter what makes us individuals?

Henrik Walter: I think if we want to help people, we have to.

All right, simple answer. Now moving a dot around on the screen is one thing, but do you think we will we ever really be able to do something like implant a thought in someone's head using a neurochip?

Probably not. There are also philosophical arguments why single thoughts cannot be implanted, but what really is possible and what people are doing is, they changes movements, they change motions, and they change motivations.

Surely if this technology can help patients say, with Parkinson's disease, we should pursue it in spite of the ethical dilemmas?

Well, we have to take them into account, at least. So, when this technique started, people were just doing that, and it had big effects, because if you can't move, than you get an implant, and then you can move, that's really incredible. However, now that more than 10,000 people have been treated like this, it's become obvious that there are also side effects to this technique. For example, that people can become suicidal.

How long do you think that it will take before we are able to treat people with neurochips in the way that presciptions are handed out, for example?

Well, I think that will never be the case, because it is very expensive, and it is also invasive. And the neurochips are not yet used, but they will be used first, I think, in movement disorders. The electrodes, the deep-brain stimulation, has begun to be used already in psychiatric disorders, like for example, treatment-resistant depression, with some good success.

There's always the question of limits with this kind of technology. Where would you personally say is the point where, "this far, and no further?"

I think the limit is clearly there, where people try to manipulate other people or patients in ways they don't want. So it's very important then people are able to give informed consent and understand what's going to happen with them when they're getting deep-brain stimulation.

Should ethics play a more important role in the field now that it's still the early days, or would you say that the controls that already exist are strict enough?

I think it's becoming more and more important, and it should be. For example, it should be obligatory if you're starting a treatment program with new diseases that this should be always control-tried, so that you should be registered, and that you have a scientific evaluation of that and that you don't just do it.

Interview: Heather DeLisle