Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive Neurotechnology: A Study of the Concept of Invasiveness in Neuroethics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invasive neurotechnologies are a frequent subject of discussion in neuroethics. Technologies, like deep brain stimulation and implantable brain-computer interfaces, are thought to hold significant promise for human health and well-being, but they also raise important ethical questions about autonomy, safety, stigma, privacy, and agency, among others. The terms ‘invasive’ and ‘invasiveness’ are commonly applied to these and other neurotechnologies, yet the concept of invasiveness itself is rarely defined or delimited. Some have suggested that invasiveness may have multiple meanings – physical, emotional, or lifestyle – and that confusion about how people use the terms may lead to harm, especially for users of invasive devices. It is uncertain if debates in neuroethics contribute to this confusion. To investigate this, we conducted a study of how the term ‘invasiveness’ is used in neuroethics. We found that neuroethicists almost always use ‘invasiveness’ to refer to the physical features of interventions, and rarely to refer to other senses of invasiveness. We also found that referencing invasiveness does not determine which ethical issues are prioritized for a given type of neurotechnology. Overall, this study affirms the importance of understanding the meaning and use of the concept of invasiveness in ethical discussion of neurotechnology while also suggesting the need for further work in the area and consideration for rethinking what forms of technology we consider to be invasive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glannon, W. 2017. The evolution of neuroethics. In Debates About Neuroethics, ed. E. Racine and J. Aspler, 19–44. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Ramos, K.M., and W.J. Koroshetz. 2017. Integrating ethics into neurotechnology research and development: The US National Institutes of Health Brain Initiative. In Neuroethics: Anticipating the future, ed. J. Illes, 144–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Burwell, S., M. Sample, and E. Racine. 2017. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: A scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics 18 (60). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y.

  4. Zuk, P., L. Torgerson, D. Sierra-Mercado, and G. Lázaro-Muñoz. 2018. Neuroethics of neuromodulation: An update. Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering 8: 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobme.2018.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schönau, A. 2021. The Spectrum of responsibility ascription for end users of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 14 (3): 423–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09460-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gaudry, K. S., A. Hasan, A. Bedows, P. Celnik, D. Eagleman, P. Grover, J. Illes, R. P. N. Rao, J. T. Robinson, Thyagarajan, et al. 2021. Projections and the potential societal impact of the future of neurotechnologies. Frontiers in Neuroscience 15:658930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.658930.

  7. Micoulaud-Franchi, J.A., G. Fond, and G. Dumas. 2013. Cyborg psychiatry to ensure agency and autonomy in mental disorders. A proposal for neuromodulation therapeutics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7:463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00463.

  8. Rudnick, A. 2011. On the notion of (medical) invasiveness. Health Care Analysis 19 (2): 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-010-0149-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rao, R.P.N. 2013. Brain-computer interfacing: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Leuthardt, E. C., D. W. Moran, T. R. Mullen. 2021. Defining surgical terminology and risk for brain computer interface technologies. Frontiers in Neuroscience 15:599549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.599549.

  11. Bluhm, R., M. Cortright, E. D. Achtyes, and L. Y. Cabrera. 2021. “They are invasive in different ways.”: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the invasiveness of psychiatric electroceutical interventions. AJOB Neuroscience 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1958098.

  12. Müller, S., H. Walter, and M. Christen. 2014. When benefitting a patient increases the risk for harm for third persons—The case of treating pedophilic Parkinsonian patients with deep brain stimulation. International journal of law and psychiatry 37 (3): 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonaci, T., R. Calo, and H.J. Chizek. 2015. App stores for the brain: Privacy & security in Brain-Computer Interfaces. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Science 34 (2): 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2015.2425551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.

  15. MaGuire, G.Q., Jr., and E.M. McGee. 1999. Implantable brain chips? Time for debate. The Hastings Center Report 29 (1): 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert, F., J.N.M. Viaña, M. Bittlinger, I. Stevens, M. Farrow, J. Vickers, S. Dodds, and J. Illes. 2022. Invasive experimental brain surgery for dementia: Ethical shifts in clinical research practices? Bioethics 36 (1): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaillard, M. 2017. “Invasive” and “non-invasive” technologies in neuroscience communication. BioéthiqueOnline 6. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044618ar.

  18. McCall, I.C., N. Minielly, A. Bethune, N. Lipsman, P.J. McDonald, and J. Illes. 2020. Readiness for first-in-human neuromodulatory interventions. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. 47 (6): 785–792. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2020.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Glannon, W. 2010. Consent to deep brain stimulation for neurological and psychiatric disorders. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 21 (2): 104–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Klein, E., and J. Ojemann. 2016. Informed consent in implantable BCI research: Identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices. Journal of Neural Engineering 13(4):043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/043001.

  21. Davis, N.J., and M.G. van Koningsbruggen. 2013. “Non-invasive” brain stimulation is not non-invasive. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 7: 76. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fukushi, T., O. Sakura, and H. Koizumi. 2007. Ethical considerations of neuroscience research: The perspectives on neuroethics in Japan. Neuroscience Research 57 (1): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2006.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borrione, L., and A.R. Brunoni. 2017. Primum non nocere or primum facere meliorem? Hacking the brain in the 21st century. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 39 (4): 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dubljević, V. 2015. Neurostimulation devices for cognitive enhancement: Toward a comprehensive regulatory framework. Neuroethics 8:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9225-0.

  25. Ramos, K. M., C. Grady, H. T. Greely, W. Chiong, J. Eberwine, N. A. Farahany, L. S. Johnson, B. T. Hyman, S. E. Hyman, Rommelfanger, et al. 2019. The NIH BRAIN initiative: Integrating neuroethics and neuroscience. Neuron 101(3):394-398.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.024.

  26. Chiong, W. 2020. Insiders and outsiders: Lessons for neuroethics from the history of bioethics. AJOB Neuroscience 11 (3): 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1778118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goering, S., and E. Klein. 2020. Fostering neuroethics integration with neuroscience in the BRAIN initiative: Comments on the NIH neuroethics roadmap. AJOB Neuroscience 11 (3): 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1778120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wexler, A., and L. Specker Sullivan. 2021. Translational neuroethics: A vision for a more integrated, inclusive, and impactful field. AJOB Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.2001078.

  29. De S Haan, E. Rietveld, M. Stokhof, and D. Denys. 2017. Becoming more oneself? Changes in personality following DBS treatment for psychiatric disorders: Experiences of OCD patients and general considerations. PLoS ONE 12 (4): e0175748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schönau, A., I. Dasgupta, T. Brown, E. Versalovic, E. Klein, and S. Goering. 2021. Mapping the dimensions of agency. AJOB Neuroscience. 12 (2–3): 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Ave. Suite 1475, TN, 37203, Nashville, USA

    Benjamin Collins

  2. Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Benjamin Collins

  3. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Eran Klein

  4. Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Eran Klein

Authors
  1. Benjamin Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eran Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Collins.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Collins, B., Klein, E. Invasive Neurotechnology: A Study of the Concept of Invasiveness in Neuroethics. Neuroethics 16, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09518-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09518-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation