By 
Researchers warn about the possible social, ethical, and legal consequences of technology interfacing heavily with human brains.
Although it may seem like the distant future of a cyborg, the idea of transcending biological limitations and using one’s brain to control and interact with external electronic devices might sound appealing. However, it may be here sooner than we think.
Researchers at Imperial College London reviewed the current commercial brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and discussed their primary technological limitations and humanitarian concerns in APL Bioengineering. This article is from AIP Publishing.
The most promising method to achieve real-world BCI applications is electroencephalography (EEG), which monitors the brain noninvasively through its electrical activity. EEG-based BCIs (or eBCIs) will require a few technological advancements before widespread use. But, more importantly, they will present a range of legal, social, and ethical concerns.
Although it’s difficult to know precisely what a user feels when using an eBCI on an external device, a few things can be said. ABCs can communicate in both directions. This is especially useful for patients who need assistance with controlling wheelchairs. It also allows the user to control electronic devices.
Rylie Green, one of the authors, stated, “for some of these patients, these devices become so integrated part of themselves that they can’t be removed after the clinical trial.” “It is becoming increasingly clear that neurotechnologies can profoundly influence our human experience and senses of self,” said one of the authors, Rylie Green.
These side effects can have severe psychological and physiological consequences. Intellectual property concerns may also be a concern. Private companies that develop eBCI technology may be able to claim users’ neural data.
Roberto Portillo–Lara, another author, said this is especially concerning because neural data is often thought to be the most private and intimate information associated with any user.” EEG data can be used to determine emotional and cognitive states. This would give unparalleled insight into the user’s intentions, preferences, and emotions.
Access to these platforms is increasing beyond medical treatment. This may lead to social inequalities. EBCDIC, for example, can enhance cognitive function and create extreme disparities in academic and professional success and educational advancements.
Green stated, “this bleak panorama presents an interesting dilemma about how policymakers should be positioned in BCI commercialization.” Green asked if regulatory bodies should intervene to stop misuse and unjust access to neurotech. Should society instead follow the path of previous innovations like the internet and the smartphone, which initially targeted niche markets, but are now being commercialized globally?
She urges global policymakers, neuroscientists, and manufacturers to have these conversations early on and to work together to answer these morally tricky questions.
Green stated that despite the risks, Green believes integrating human intelligence with modern technology is an extraordinary scientific achievement. This is beginning to challenge preconceived notions about what it means to be human.
Comments