logo
Could we learn to read the minds of people trapped in vegetative states?

Could we learn to read the minds of people trapped in vegetative states?

The National04-07-2025
Twenty years ago groundbreaking research showed that a woman in a vegetative state was actually conscious – and since then these findings have been repeated in many more patients.
Yet in the past two decades progress in treating individuals occupying this twilight zone of wakefulness without obvious awareness has remained slow.
'I think this is one of the most difficult areas of clinical medicine that exists today, for lots of reasons,' says Prof Nicholas Schiff, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, the medical school of Cornell University in New York.
'Personally I think one of the reasons is that it makes people very uncomfortable, because we haven't yet shown very clearly how to help people who are in this condition.'
But could brain-computer interfaces, which translate a person's thoughts into an output in a computer, change all this?
In the coming years patients could, says Prof Schiff, be 'put into a situation where they're able to have their intentions of mind and thought read directly from neuronal activity'.
Work by Prof Adrian Owen, professor of cognitive neuroscience at Western University in Canada, has been pivotal in helping to improve the understanding of people in a vegetative state.
Breakthrough discovery
In 1997, while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge in the UK, Prof Owen began using scanners to analyse the brains of patients.
When shown pictures of friends and family, Kate Bainbridge, a patient at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge who was in a vegetative state at the time, showed activity in the fusiform gyrus, part of the brain linked to facial recognition.
'I was really excited about this – the fact you had a patient who was completely non-responsive but her brain was activating to familiar faces,' Prof Owen says.
'It really blew my mind. I thought, 'What does it mean?' Is she really there or is her brain on some kind of autopilot where it can recognise faces? It initiated this fascination in this question of whether any of these patients were more than they appeared to be.'
Each time a suitable patient came into Addenbrooke's Hospital, which is the major trauma centre for the east of England, Prof Owen would carry out tests – and many patients showed brain activity in response to speech or faces.
After seeing several dozen individuals, Prof Owen and his colleagues sought to confirm that the patients were actually conscious.
'Rather than being something automatic, it had to be something that came from the will of the person,' he said.
In work carried out two decades ago using functional magnetic resonance imaging scans, the brain of a vegetative state patient lit up in one region when she was asked to imagine playing tennis, and in another region when she was asked to pretend that she was walking around her home.
The results tallied with findings from healthy volunteers, indicating that the patient could understand and act upon the instructions she had been given.
'It's fascinating that 20 years later, imagining playing tennis is still the gold standard,' says Prof Owen, who is the author of the book Into the Grey Zone: A Neuroscientist Explores the Border Between Life and Death.
'We've done it in different ways and so have other people, but no one has improved on it. It still seems to be the most straightforward way of determining if someone is aware or not.'
A 2024 paper, whose authors include Prof Schiff and Prof Owen, analysed findings from 353 patients to confirm earlier results that about a quarter of people regarded as being in a vegetative state are actually aware.
Someone may end up in a vegetative state for a variety of reasons, such as a stroke, a cardiac arrest − which can cause a loss of oxygen to the brain − or asphyxiation, perhaps from a swimming pool accident, from being buried under snow in an avalanche or from a failed hanging attempt.
Being in a vegetative state is not the same as being brain dead, because, as the UK's National Health Service notes, with the vegetative state the brain stem is functioning and the person usually breathes unaided. While awake, people in a vegetative state typically cannot interact with their surroundings.
The brain imaging work, however, opened up the possibility of having interactions with those 25 per cent or so of patients who show awareness: they might be asked to think of playing tennis to answer yes to a question, or to think of walking round their home to answer no.
A lifeline for loved ones
The realisation that some of patients may actually be conscious has been, Prof Owen says, 'amazing' for their relatives.
'It's really changed the way families treat patients. You can see that every day,' he says. 'Because these patients are largely inanimate and don't really do anything, I think there was a time when they were treated more like objects than people.
'But they much more get treated like people now, certainly by the families that we interact with.'
While families may treat vegetative state patients differently, and nurses may, Prof Owen says, talk to them as if they are conscious, medical care has not moved on significantly.
Tests, such as the one about playing tennis versus walking round the house, have yet to be standardised so that they can be used routinely by clinicians to find out which patients are conscious.
Turning to technology
Key to further progress could be brain-computer interfaces, which allow the brain to communicate directly with an external device.
While a decade ago these might have let a person to control a mouse over a keyboard, today they can enable a patient to talk just by thinking in a certain way.
Prof Schiff, the senior author of the 2024 study, describes the field as being 'just pre-tipping point'.
'For the last 10 years it's been obvious to me that we have tools to try, in the form of brain-computer interface technologies, that could work in some people,' he says.
'We're trying to partner with people to do that, trying to get the resources to do that. It's going to be complicated, it's probably going to fail a lot and it's going to be costly.'
He predicts that, five years from now, some vegetative state patients will have been able to express themselves through a brain-computer interface, providing testimony that could spur further progress.
'They will be able to advocate for others who are not yet able to do that,' he says. 'It may take more than one or two people. It may take a while. This takes a long time for people to get their minds around. This is not an easy space to navigate.'
Just as this area of medicine may be poised for a breakthrough in clinical practice, the original work led by Prof Owen continues to captivate observers.
'There's interest in making a movie now, which is quite exciting,' Prof Owen says. 'There is a script being circulated and financing in place, so I think a movie will appear in the next couple of years, which is quite exciting.
'It's such a fascinating story – a fascinating science story, but I think the fact people continue to be interested in it shows it's a really interesting human-interest story as well.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scientists share concern over US vaccine funding cuts
Scientists share concern over US vaccine funding cuts

The National

time12 hours ago

  • The National

Scientists share concern over US vaccine funding cuts

The US Health Secretary's plan to cut half a billion dollars' worth of US government funding from mRNA vaccine programmes have been criticised by the scientific community. The move by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic, has proven highly controversial, especially as mRNA vaccines are seen as having been highly successful in combating Covid-19. Ian Jones, a professor of virology at the UK's University of Reading, said the funding cut was 'regrettable' and could be seen as 'bonkers'. 'He really ought to be advised by experts in the field,' Prof Jones said of Mr Kennedy. 'Rational decision-making should always be based on testable science and not on opinion. It appears the current administration is largely based on opinion, even though that opinion is poorly informed.' Prof Jones said scientific opinion was 'overwhelmingly in favour' of using mRNA vaccines, with large numbers of people having received them without significant problems. Why has vaccine funding been cut? Mr Kennedy said the US Department of Health and Human Services had 'reviewed the science, listened to the experts' when terminating 22 mRNA vaccine-development programmes. This decision had been made 'because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu'. 'We're shifting that funding towards safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate,' Mr Kennedy said. Some axed projects involve the pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna, while the Global Health Investment Corporation, a partner organisation managing US government health investment funds, has been told to stop mRNA-related investments. Together, all the affected projects are worth nearly $500 million. From now on, the focus will be on vaccine 'platforms with stronger safety records and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices'. This will mean a pivot towards 'whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms'. What are the international implications? Prof Jones indicated the US decision could have widespread effects because of 'the sentiment it develops'. Other nations may decide to look at mRNA vaccines 'more strictly than would otherwise be the case'. 'If there's a feeling the market is going to be smaller because of this and because of the suspicion it generates, I guess going forward there will be a reduction in the amount of private funding going into mRNA vaccines,' he said. Paul Hunter, an infectious diseases researcher and professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, called Mr Kennedy's decision 'retrograde' and warned that as a result 'some people would die' who would otherwise have been saved by protection from an mRNA vaccine. He said the cutting of financial support for mRNA vaccine programmes was not based 'on what we know about the science of vaccine development'. Many scientists, he said, 'believe mRNA vaccines are the future for all vaccines'. However, Prof Hunter said mRNA vaccine research would continue outside the US, with 'a lot going on in Europe, Japan, India and other countries'. 'It will certainly slow down the research effort and the time we need to get good, quality vaccines to market, but I don't think it will stop it,' he said. He suggested some vaccine researchers might leave the US and move to, for example, Europe in the wake of Washington's move. What are mRNA vaccines? It was not until the Covid-19 pandemic that the first mRNA, or messenger RNA vaccines, for use in people were approved. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines contain the genetic instructions for a person's own cells to produce a protein found on the surface of the virus. The immune response to these proteins typically offers protection if the vaccinated person is subsequently infected with Covid-19. Work is continuing to develop mRNA vaccines against many other conditions, including flu. In a report published last year in Vaccines, researchers said mRNA vaccines 'represent a revolutionary approach in influenza prevention', with the potential to significantly improve global management of the condition. Scientists say that mRNA vaccines are likely to offer protection against a wider range of flu types than existing flu vaccines can. A study in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2023 said mRNA vaccines could be designed and developed quickly, stimulate a strong immune response and could be manufactured rapidly at relatively low cost. There are numerous other types of vaccine apart of those based around mRNA. These include those that contain the pathogen – a virus or bacterium – in a form that is no longer harmful, either because it has been weakened or inactivated. Among the other types of vaccine are those made of proteins or sugars from the pathogen. 'Whole virus vaccines generally have been effective in the past, but we saw with Covid they were nowhere near as effective as mRNA vaccines,' said Prof Hunter. He also said more severe vaccine side effects have typically been seen not with mRNA vaccines, but with bacterial whole cell vaccines, such as a shot against whooping cough. The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine involved another type of technology, a viral vector, which is a modified virus that enters recipients' cells and contains genetic material that causes them to produce a protein from the Covid-19 virus. This stimulates an immune response that protects against subsequent Covid-19 infection. While more than three billion doses of this vaccine were used and it is credited with saving millions of lives, it has been withdrawn as Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are seen as being more effective. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was also associated with rare and potentially fatal blood clots.

NASA Set to Build Nuclear Reactor on Moon by 2030
NASA Set to Build Nuclear Reactor on Moon by 2030

UAE Moments

time3 days ago

  • UAE Moments

NASA Set to Build Nuclear Reactor on Moon by 2030

NASA's interim administrator, Sean Duffy, has issued a directive to fast-track the development of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor destined for deployment on the Moon by 2030. This marks the first major policy initiative under Duffy's leadership and underscores a strategic shift toward sustainable and secure energy support for long-duration lunar missions. The directive instructs NASA to solicit proposals from private industry within 60 days, appoint a project leader, and design a reactor capable of powering lunar bases, habitats, and potential Mars missions. The move escalates previous plans centered on a 40 kW system to a more robust 100 kW design, reflecting the agency's renewed urgency. One of the driving motivations behind the accelerated timeline is geopolitical: China and Russia are jointly planning a lunar research base powered by nuclear technology in the mid-2030s. Duffy's directive explicitly warns that if those nations deploy a reactor first, they could declare exclusion zones that could limit U.S. access under the Artemis Accords. Nuclear power on the Moon is considered essential due to the limitations of solar energy during lunar night—each lunar night lasts about 14 Earth days—and permanently shadowed regions. A 100 kW reactor would ensure an uninterrupted energy supply for life support, communications, research labs, and robotics, particularly in regions holding potential water ice and Helium‑3 resources. This initiative aligns with NASA's broader restructuring agenda, which also includes replacing the aging International Space Station with commercially built space stations by 2030. Contracts for at least two private orbital platforms are expected within six months to maintain a U.S. human presence in Earth orbit. Despite past efforts in nuclear space power—such as the Kilopower reactor demonstrator and Fission Surface Power research programs—no reactor has yet been deployed. NASA previously awarded contracts to industry partners for designs around 40 kW, but Duffy's directive signals a major scale-up both in capacity and urgency. While ambitious, skeptics caution that technical challenges—including safe transport of enriched uranium, reliable lunar landing systems, and ensuring reactor safety—could complicate reaching the 2030 timeline. In sum, NASA's accelerated lunar reactor initiative represents a pivotal step toward ensuring energy independence and strategic advantage in the burgeoning era of Moon and Mars exploration, while also reshaping its reliance on public–private partnerships for orbital infrastructure. This article was previously published on saudimoments. To see the original article, click here

Nasa set to build nuclear reactor on Moon by 2030
Nasa set to build nuclear reactor on Moon by 2030

The National

time4 days ago

  • The National

Nasa set to build nuclear reactor on Moon by 2030

Nasa is set to announce a new project timeline that fast-tracks the construction of a nuclear reactor on the Moon and replaces the International Space Station with ones built by private industry. The directives are expected to be announced soon by US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who was selected by President Donald Trump as Nasa's interim administrator in July. The space agency is undergoing major restructuring, with mass layoffs and budget cuts that will heavily impact its scientific programmes and place a greater focus on crewed exploration. The push for an accelerated timeline is also a response to China and Russia's plans for a lunar reactor, which was announced last year as part of their joint International Lunar Research Station, to be launched in 2033. 'While solar power systems have limitations on the Moon, a nuclear reactor could be placed in permanently shadowed areas, where there may be water ice, or generate power continuously during lunar nights, which are 14-and-a-half Earth days long,' Nasa said in a statement last year. Powering future missions A nuclear reactor would give Nasa a reliable power source for future missions to the Moon and Mars, where sunlight is limited by long nights and dust storms. It would help keep astronauts alive, run habitats and support scientific work in those harsh environments. The agency plans to return humans to the Moon under its Artemis programme and eventually crews to Mars from there. Nasa has been working on plans for a lunar reactor since 2008 when the Fission Surface Power project was announced. Technical challenges, limited funding and a changing political landscape have brought many delays. The agency still does not have a confirmed leader. Mr Duffy, who has no background in space exploration, was appointed after the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman. What is the timeline? In one of his directives, Mr Duffy is expected to order Nasa to select a contractor within 60 days to lead the design and construction of a 100-kilowatt nuclear fission reactor that could be deployed on the Moon by 2030. The memo, which was seen by Politico, warns that if China or Russia were to deploy a nuclear system first, they could potentially establish territorial restrictions around it, creating geopolitical challenges for US activities on the Moon. A second directive aims to speed up the replacement of the ISS with at least two privately-operated space stations. The goal is to have them ready by the time the station is decommissioned in 2030. Nasa has been working with companies such as Axiom Space, Blue Origin and Starlab to develop low-Earth orbit destinations, but Mr Duffy's directive reshapes how the contracts are managed and paid for. Once the ISS is retired, China's Tiangong will become the only station in low-Earth orbit.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store