Brain–computer interface: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:06, 16 April 2025

Revision as of 07:07, 16 April 2025

Line 298:

The legal and social aspects of BCIs complicate mainstream adoption. Concerns include issues of accountability and responsibility, such as claims that BCI influence overrides free will and control over actions, inaccurate translation of cognitive intentions, personality changes resulting from deep-brain stimulation, and the blurring of the line between human and machine.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gale - Product Login |url=https://galeapps.gale.com/apps/auth?userGroupName=nysl_ca_arg&sid=googleScholar&da=true&origURL=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.gale.com%2Fps%2Fi.do%3Fid%3DGALE%257CA594456959%26sid%3DgoogleScholar%26v%3D2.1%26it%3Dr%26linkaccess%3Dabs%26issn%3D00280836%26p%3DAONE%26sw%3Dw%26userGroupName%3Dnysl_ca_arg%26aty%3Dip&prodId=AONE |access-date=2023-12-08 |website=galeapps.gale.com}}</ref> Other concerns involve the use of BCIs in advanced interrogation techniques, unauthorized access ("brain hacking"),<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ienca |first1=Marcello |last2=Haselager |first2=Pim |date=June 2016 |title=Hacking the brain: brain-computer interfacing technology and the ethics of neurosecurity |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9398-9 |journal=Ethics & Information Technology |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=117–129 |doi=10.1007/s10676-016-9398-9 |s2cid=5132634|hdl=2066/157644 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> social stratification through selective enhancement, privacy issues related to mind-reading, tracking and "tagging" systems, and the potential for mind, movement, and emotion control.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Steinert |first1=Steffen |last2=Friedrich |first2=Orsolya |date=2020-02-01 |title=Wired Emotions: Ethical Issues of Affective Brain–Computer Interfaces |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2 |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |language=en |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=351–367 |doi=10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2 |issn=1471-5546 |pmc=6978299 |pmid=30868377}}</ref>

In their current form, most BCIs are more akin to corrective therapies that engage few of such ethical issues. Bioethics is well-equipped to address the challenges posed by BCI technologies, with Clausen suggesting in 2009 that "BCIs pose ethical challenges, but these are conceptually similar to those that bioethicists have addressed for other realms of therapy."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Clausen |first=Jens |date=2009-02-01 |title=Man, machine and in between |url=https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.457.1080C |journal=Nature |volume=457 |issue=7233 |pages=1080–1081 |bibcode=2009Natur.457.1080C |doi=10.1038/4571080a |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=19242454 |s2cid=205043226}}</ref> Haselager and colleagues highlighted the importance of managing expectations and value.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Haselager |first1=Pim |last2=Vlek |first2=Rutger |last3=Hill |first3=Jeremy |last4=Nijboer |first4=Femke |date=2009-11-01 |title=A note on ethical aspects of BCI |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608009001531 |journal=Neural Networks |series=Brain-Machine Interface |volume=22 |issue=9 |pages=1352–1357 |doi=10.1016/j.neunet.2009.06.046 |issn=0893-6080 |pmid=19616405 |hdl-access=free |hdl=2066/77533}}</ref> Standard protocols can ensure ethically sound informed-consent procedures for locked-in patients.

The evolution of BCIs mirrors that of pharmaceutical science, which began as a means to address impairments and now enhances focus and reduces the need for sleep. As BCIs progress from therapies to enhancements, the BCI community is working to create consensus on ethical guidelines for research, development, and dissemination.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Attiah |first1=Mark A. |last2=Farah |first2=Martha J. |date=2014-05-15 |title=Minds, motherboards, and money: futurism and realism in the neuroethics of BCI technologies |journal=Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience |volume=8 |pages=86 |doi=10.3389/fnsys.2014.00086 |issn=1662-5137 |pmc=4030132 |pmid=24860445 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nijboer |first1=Femke |last2=Clausen |first2=Jens |last3=Allison |first3=Brendan Z. |last4=Haselager |first4=Pim |date=2013 |title=The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders' Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing |journal=Neuroethics |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=541–578 |doi=10.1007/s12152-011-9132-6 |issn=1874-5490 |pmc=3825606 |pmid=24273623}}</ref>