Skip to main content

A Technocratic Oath

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Protecting the Mind

Abstract

In the last decades, novel neurotechnologies are enabling the collecting and analyzing of neuronal data as well as the targeted alteration of brain activity. While this progress has the potential to help many patients with neurological or mental diseases, it also raises significant ethical and societal consequences, putting the mental privacy, identity and agency of citizens potentially at risk. As one approach to provide ethical guidelines to novel neurotechnologies, we propose a “Technocratic Oath,” as a pledge of simple, fundamental ethical core principles to be adopted by Neurotechnology developers and the industry. Our proposed Technocratic Oath is anchored on seven ethical principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, dignity, privacy and transparency. The Technocratic Oath is modelled after the Hippocratic Oath, a pledge taken by all physicians as they enter the medical profession. While legally non-binding, the professional weight of the Hippocratic Oath has historically led to responsible practices in the world of medicine. Similarly, the Technocratic Oath could help establish and propagate a core of ethical principles to ensure responsible innovation and to protect the fundamental human rights of patients and consumers.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anumanchipalli K, Chartier J, Chang E (2019) Speech synthesis from neural decoding of spoken sentences. Nature 568:493–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aparisi A (2006) Ética y deontología para juristas. Eunsa, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • Askitopoulou H, Vgontzas AN (2017) The relevance of the hippocratic oath to the ethical and moral values of contemporary medicine. Part I: the hippocratic oath from antiquity to modern times. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5348-4

  • Berger H (1929) Über das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr 87(1):527–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton JW, Frey L, Hopp J, Korb P, Koubeissi M, Lievens W, Pestana-Knight E, St. Louis E (2016) Electroencephalography (EEG): An Introductory Text and Atlas of Normal and Abnormal Findings in Adults, Children, and Infants

    Google Scholar 

  • Caton R (1970) The electric currents of the brain. Am J EEG Technol 10(1):12–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fothergill W, Knight B, Stahl I, Ulnicane B (2019) Responsible data governance of neuroscience big data. Front Neuroinformatics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2019.00028

  • Gamboa-Bernal GA (2020)  Importancia e implicaciones de un juramento en tiempos de pandemia. Persona y Bioética 24(1):5–13. https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2020.24.1.1

  • Ienca M, Andorno R (2017) Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy 13(1):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insel TR, Landis SC, Collins FS (2013) The NIH BRAIN Initiative. Science 340(6133):687–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239276

  • Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell 1(9):389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

  • Kaiser UB (2014) Editorial: advances in neuroscience. the brain initiative and implications for neuroendocrinology. Mol Endocrinol 28(10):1589–1591

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaes C (2018) Invasive brain-computer interfaces and neural recordings from humans. In: Manhan-Vaughan D (ed) Handbook of in vivo neural plasticity techniques. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 527–539

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lemarchand G (2010) Ciencia para la paz y el desarrollo: el caso del Juramento Hipocrático para Científicos, UNESCO. http://www.centropaz.com.ar/publicaciones/paz/paz35.pdf#page=pag71-73

  • Moses DA, Leonard MK, Makin JG, Chang EF (2019) Real-time decoding of question-and-answer speech dialogue using human cortical activity. Nat Commun 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10994-4

  • Musk E (2019) An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. BioRxiv, 703801

    Google Scholar 

  • NIH (2021) https://braininitiative.nih.gov/

  • RAE (2001) Las definiciones de los términos “juramento,” “lealtad,” “fidelidad,” “honor” de la vigésimo segunda edición del Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua del año 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelfsema PR, Denys D, Klink PC (2018) Mind reading and writing: the future of neurotechnology. Trends Cogn Sci 22(7):598–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salles A et al (2019) NeuroView the human brain project : responsible brain research for the benefit of society neuroview. Neuron 101(3):380–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Salvatierra JM, Taype-Rondan A (2018) Evolution of the hippocratic oath: what has changed and why? Rev Med Chile 146(12):1498–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen BYH (2013) US brain project puts focus on ethics. Nature 500:6–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulmasy DP (1999) What is an oath and why should a physician swear one? Theor Med Bioeth 20:329–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • tech@facebook (2020) https://tech.fb.com/

  • Thimot J, Kenneth LS (2017) Wirelessly powered implants. Nat Biomed Eng 1:1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ujwal C, Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday R (2016) Brain–computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation. Nat Rev Neurol 12(9):513–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2016.113

  • Velasquez-Manoff M (2020) The mind readers. The New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyrwicka W, Sterman M (1968) Instrumental conditioning of sensorimotor cortex EEG spindles in the waking cat. Physiol Behav 3:703–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuste R, Bargmann CI (2017) Towards a global brain initiative. Cell 168:956–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuste R et al (2017) Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence. Nature 551:159–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by the IBM—Columbia University Data Science Institute grant (“Noninvasive Brain Computer Interface Data: Ethical and Privacy Challenges;” R. Yuste and Ken Shepard, PIs.), NSF DBI 1644405 (“Coordinating Global Brain Project;” R. Yuste and C. Bargmann, PIs.) and of the Precision Medicine & Society Program, from Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons (“Genomic Data Regulation: A Legal Framework for NeuroData Privacy Protection;” R. Yuste, and G. Hripcsak, PIs), FONDECYT Postdoctorado 3190914 to Leonie Kausel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Yuste .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Álamos, M.F. et al. (2022). A Technocratic Oath. In: López-Silva, P., Valera, L. (eds) Protecting the Mind. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, vol 49. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94032-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics