Who Put a Chip Under Their Skin First?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the views, policies, or positions of my employer or any organization with which I am affiliated.

----

Who put a chip under their skin first?

Depending on who you ask, you’ll hear Kevin Warwick, the British cybernetics professor behind Project Cyborg. He had a chip implanted in 1998. There’s a problem with that. Eduardo Kac had done a public microchip implantation in 1997. The dates are the easy part. What we mean by first, and whose work we decide counts, gets messier.

----

Chipped in São Paulo

On November 11, 1997, Brazilian artist Eduardo Kac staged Time Capsule at Casa das Rosas in São Paulo. In front of seven family photographs, he inserted a passive identification transponder under the skin of his left ankle. The event was broadcast and participants could activate a scanner remotely to retrieve the number from the implant. Kac then registered himself in a U.S. database built to identify lost animals, listing himself as both the animal and its owner. 

His account and documentation of the work are still online.

The chip did not know whether it was inside a dog or a person. When scanned, it simply returned a number. Kac registered that number in a database meant to identify lost pets. That raised questions: Who decides what the number means? Who controls the record attached to it? What happens when a person can be entered into a system built to track animals?

Kac used his own body to make those questions tangible. The work was art, but the implant and database entry were real. So were the questions it raised about identity, memory, classification, and surveillance.

----

Chipped in Reading

On August 24, 1998, Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading, had a transponder implanted in his arm by his doctor. Scanners around the cybernetics department recognized him as he moved through the building. Doors opened, lights came on, and a computerized voice greeted him. In Warwick’s own account, the implant was in place for nine days.

The coverage was immediate. A Reuters report published by WIRED said Warwick claimed to be the first person to have a computer chip surgically implanted in his body. It reported that Reading called it the first such surgical implantation. You can see how the shorthand formed: professor, university, research experiment, first.

That is a remarkably easy story to retell.

Warwick’s work deserves attention. His 1998 experiment showed what an instrumented building could do with an implanted identifier. In 2002, his team pursued a substantially different experiment, implanting an electrode array on a nerve in his arm. That later work matters in the history of neural interfaces.

It matters that Warwick’s 1998 chip wasn’t connected to his nervous system. His two experiments are folded into one origin story often enough that the distinction is worth spelling out: the first implant let a building identify him; the later one interfaced with a nerve.

----

First at what?

People had been living with implanted technology well before either artist or professor picked up an RFID chip. Implantable pacemakers were used in humans by 1960. The word cyborg had already appeared in Clynes and Kline’s 1960 writing on space travel. If we’re talking about a human body and technology working together, the clock doesn’t start in 1997 or 1998.

Narrow the question to publicly documented, nonmedical identification implants, though, and Kac’s 1997 performance comes before Warwick’s 1998 experiment. A researcher’s history of nonmedical implants makes exactly that chronological distinction.

Warwick’s building integration and later nerve-interface research answer different questions. We don’t have to pretend they performed the same experiment to recognize that the blanket “Warwick was first” claim leaves something out.

The category usually gets adjusted after the headline. First scientist. First research experiment. First chip used to control a building. Those can be useful distinctions when stated plainly. They become a problem when the qualifier quietly disappears and “first in this narrow category” turns into “first human.”

----

Who gets to be a pioneer?

Here’s where the story gets interesting. Kac wasn’t an unknown guy working alone in a garage. He was teaching art and technology at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in 1997, and Time Capsule involved a gallery, a curator, broadcasters, and remote participants. An earlier venue even canceled the planned work over concerns about liability before it went ahead at Casa das Rosas. He had institutional connections. They were mostly art-world connections, which don’t transfer into scientific credibility.

Warwick was a white British professor speaking from a cybernetics department. Kac was a Brazilian artist presenting a work in São Paulo.

Those descriptions alone cannot tell us how much race, geography, language, profession, or institutional prestige caused the difference in recognition. Brazilian nationality isn’t a racial identity, and two careers aren’t a controlled experiment. Still, it is fair to ask why one setting so readily produced a widely repeated technological “first” while the earlier event is easier to encounter in art history than in the usual Project Cyborg retelling.

The way we package a story matters. A university press statement becomes a science headline. A science headline gets repeated in a talk, then a listicle, then a timeline. Before long, the qualifier has fallen off and a claim about a particular experiment has become the start of the whole story.

Meanwhile, a performance with a working implant, remote scanner, and database gets filed under art. As if art cannot test a technical system and reveal what it does to people.

I’ve seen the same reflex around biohackers. Build something useful outside the expected institution and you may be called a heretic. Put a similar question in a lab and it looks like research. Sometimes that distinction reflects real differences in method and evidence. Sometimes it’s just a shortcut for deciding whose work is worth taking seriously.

Kac isn’t absent from the record, and Warwick didn’t steal an entire field. Histories of implants do credit both of them. The issue is what survives when that history gets compressed into a single name and a single year.

----

The next time someone says a person was “the first cyborg,” I want to know: first to do what, exactly?

What earlier work did the definition exclude? Which people and institutions helped make the event possible? Who got to decide whether an experiment counted as technology or art?

Kac’s chip was under his skin in 1997. Warwick’s followed in 1998, and his team went on to do important work.

Both belong in the story. If our version of technological history has room for only one of them, the problem is with the version we’re telling.