ANA Investigates Disruptive Technologies: Neuroethics Role in Advancing Innovation.
Brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies, such as deep brain stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation, have clear medical benefits and are largely familiar to the medical community. Meanwhile, companies are developing BCIs for personal use, to promote cognitive performance and assist with everyday tasks. On a recent episode of the ANA Investigates podcast, Dr Karen Rommelfanger, professor at Emory University and founder of the Institute of Neuroethics, discusses the neuroethics of medical and commercial applications of BCI. BCI encompasses both sensing technologies (which monitor brain activity) and stimulating devices (which alter brain pathways). Dr Rommelfanger begins the podcast by distinguishing between the two. She emphasizes that many commercially available devices tend to be wearable sensing technologies as an effort to be more easily accessible, affordable, and less invasive than clinical technology.1 At the present moment, she says we should not fall prey to popular media and sci-fi tropes about so-called “mind reading” or “mind control.” However, Dr Rommelfanger says that there are legitimate concerns around privacy with existing consumer-ready devices, both around how companies use the data they collect and whether that data are adequately secured as there are gaps in regulations, particularly around potential inferences that might be made about individuals' current or future brain function. In the podcast, Dr Rommelfanger discusses how devices especially in the clinical research realm that can sense, but also stimulate are the most advanced of BCIs; for example, brain mapping to enable communication and speech in those who have lost the ability to do so and affecting aspects of personality and emotional range with implantable electrodes for intractable depression. She makes the point later in the podcast that neuroethics can guide the development in these clinical and consumer devices as well, such as considering the inclusiveness of different ethnicities and hair types when developing the standard electroencephalogram (EEG) leads.2 She also addresses the neuroethics related to brain organoids, tiny 3-dimensional aggregates of brain cells currently used in research and development of novel treatments, some of which have been observed to produce spontaneous electrical activity that resembles the activity of brains of premature human embryos. She outlines how questions about the moral status of brain organoids may influence how organoids are handled and how tissue donors are consented for research. Dr Rommelfanger concludes the podcast by discussing the clinicians' role in helping patients understand the utility and limits of commercially available BCI technologies and advocating for greater clinician involvement in BCI development.3 She suggests that clinicians familiarize themselves with information from the Institute of Neuroethics Think and Do Tank (see Institute of Neuroethics Guidance), International Neuroethics Society, and the Dana Foundation to educate patients and fellow clinicians attempting to navigate this field in applied and practical neuroethics and related policy.4, 5 On a societal level, she points to a role for physicians in promoting access and medical reimbursement of BCI technologies. She also emphasizes the need to promote equity in the development of BCI, both to improve user experiences across diverse groups and to prevent misuse of technologies. R.D.S. conducted the primary podcast interview and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. R.D.S., A.J.C., K.S.R., and A.L.G. participated in the podcast interview and edited the manuscript. R.D.S., A.J.C., A.L.G. have nothing to disclose. K.S.R. offers consulting for policy entities, foundations, and companies related to neurotechnology and ethics strategy.
Read more