Sir

Your News Feature “Remote control” (Nature 423, 796–798; 2003) misrepresented some aspects of the brain–machine interface programme funded by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The DARPA programme is basic research, defined by the Department of Defense as “systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products”.

DARPA recognizes that the development of new brain–machine interfaces will have restorative applications in the biomedical community. We embrace those advances as important technological goals for the future, and have funded projects like those you describe in your feature because of these key medical missions. We appreciate the tremendous benefit this technology will have to both defence personnel and civilians, especially the millions of military veterans who could profit from this work.

Your feature is inaccurate in describing how proposals were selected for the programme. Proposals were solicited from the research community in an open competition, and those funded were selected based on a review by a panel of experts. DARPA also does not as a practice threaten insecurity. Our programmes are milestone-driven, as that is a way to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars, but we are sensitive to working with academic institutions, and do our best to ensure stability in graduate education.

I also believe you have inaccurately advocated an ethical position in your Editorial “Silence of the Neuroengineers” (Nature 423, 787; 200310.1038/423787b). Although it is important to discuss the ethics of neuroscience research, the premise of your editorial and ethical argument is based on an inaccurate portrayal of DARPA funding. The reluctance of DARPA investigators to speak about the narrow vision of brain– machine interfaces that you portrayed relates to the basic-research nature of the DARPA funding rather than their ethics. The editorial states “Simply taking DARPA's money, and citing possible medical benefits, is not enough”. Indeed, if these investigators succeed in their outstanding research, this should be more than enough. A sound ethical argument should also consider the opportunity lost for the millions of people who might benefit from important restorative benefits if the DARPA programme did not fund the work and the possibility of a new generation of brain–machine interfaces did not emerge.