Advertisement

Ethics of Brain–Computer Interfaces for Enhancement Purposes

  • Fiachra O’Brolcháin
  • Bert Gordijn
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter outlines two key ethical issues associated with the possible development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for enhancement purposes. Following a brief introduction to brain-computer interfaces, a scenario in which their use for enhancement purposes becomes commonplace is sketched. General ethical issues associated with the widespread adoption of brain-computer interfaces for enhancement are then introduced. The concept of privacy is presented and various issues surrounding this concept are discussed. BCIs are likely to create new challenges in relation to informational privacy and psychological privacy. These challenges are explored, particularly in relation to liberty, autonomy, personal identity, psychological well-being, and safety. It is recommended that the privacy of future BCI users is protected. Following this, the related concept of autonomy is introduced, and various issues surrounding this concept are examined. The manner in which BCIs are likely to impact autonomy is explored, with a particular focus on freedom, brain hacking, and the transfer of autonomy. Due to the moral significance of autonomy, it is recommended that restrictions are placed on the development and availability of certain types of BCIs.

Keywords

Virtual Reality Brain Activity Brain State Informational Privacy Privacy Norm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, A. (2011). Privacy and Medicine. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011). Stansford, CA: Stansford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/privacy-medicine/.
  2. Anthony, S. (2012). Hackers backdoor the human brain, successfully extract sensitive data. ExtremeTech. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134682-hackers-backdoor-the-human-brain-successfully-extract-sensitive-data
  3. Berger, T. W., Chapin, J. K., Gerhardt, G. A., McFarland, D. J., Principe, J. C., Soussou, W. V., Taylor, D. M., & Tresco, P. A. (2007). International assessment of research and development. In Brain-computer interfaces. Baltimore: World Technology Evaluation Center.Google Scholar
  4. Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. (2011). Infinite reality: Avatars, eternal Life, new worlds, and the dawn of the virtual revolution. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, S. (2008). Personal autonomy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/personal-autonomy/
  6. Christman, J. (2011). Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/autonomy-moral/
  7. Clausen, J. (2008). Moving minds: Ethical aspects of neural motor prostheses. Biotechnology Journal, 3(12), 1493–1501. doi:10.1002/biot.200800244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clausen, J. (2009). Man, machine and in between. Nature, 457(7233), 1080–1081. doi:10.1038/4571080a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne. (2011). Nissan teams up with EPFL for futurist car interfaces. EPFL News Mediacom. Retrieved from http://actu.epfl.ch/news/nissan-teams-up-with-epfl-for-futurist-car-interfa/
  10. Edlinger, G., Holzner, C., & Guger, C. (2011). A hybrid brain-computer interface for smart home control. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer interaction. Interaction techniques and environments (pp. 417–426). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21605-3_46.
  11. Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 33–52. doi:10.1023/A:1010018611096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floridi, L. (2005). The Ontological interpretation of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 185–200. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0001-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Google. (2013). Google glass. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://www.google.com/glass/start/
  14. Gordijn, B., & Buyx, A. M. (2010). Neural engineering. In Scientific and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, J. (2008). On Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grübler, G. (2011). Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces. AI and Society, 26(4), 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haselager, P., Vlek, R., Hill, J., & Nijboer, F. (2009). A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Networks, 22(9), 1352–1357. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.06.046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holm, S., & Voo, T. C. (2011). Brain-machine interfaces and personal responsibility for action - maybe not as complicated after all. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(3). doi:10.2202/1941-6008.1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (2005). The moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Lecuyer, A., Lotte, F., Reilly, R. B., Leeb, R., Hirose, M., & Slater, M. (2008). Brain-computer interfaces, virtual reality, and videogames. Computer, 41(10), 66–72. doi:10.1109/MC.2008.410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Locke, J. (1689). The second treatise of government (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Lopes, A. C., Pires, G., & Nunes, U. (2013). Assisted navigation for a brain-actuated intelligent wheelchair. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(3), 245–258. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2012.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinovic, I., Davies, D., Frank, M., Perito, D., Ros, T., & Song, D. (2012). On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. In Presented at the 21st USENIC Security Symposium, Bellevie, WA.Google Scholar
  24. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGee, E. M. (2007). Should there be a law – Brain chips: Ethical and policy issues. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 24, 81.Google Scholar
  26. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Minati, L., Nigri, A., Rosazza, C., & Bruzzone, M. G. (2012). Thoughts turned into high-level commands: Proof-of-concept study of a vision-guided robot arm driven by functional MRI (fMRI) signals. Medical Engineering & Physics, 34(5), 650–658. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morozov, E. (2013, March 9). How Facebook could get you arrested. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/09/facebook-arrested-evgeny-morozov-extract
  29. Nijholt, A., Bos, D. P.-O., & Reuderink, B. (2009). Turning shortcomings into challenges: Brain–computer interfaces for games. Entertainment Computing, 1(2), 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2009.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Brolchain, F., & Gordijn, B. Brain-computer interfaces and user responsibility. In ten Have, H., & Gordijn, B. (Eds.). Handbook of global bioethics. New York: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2012). Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pires, G., Nunes, U., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2012). Evaluation of brain-computer interfaces in accessing computer and other devices by people with severe motor impairments. Procedia Computer Science, 14, 283–292. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plass-Oude Bos, D., Reuderink, B., Van der Lar, B., Gürkök, H., Mühl, C., Poel, M., Nijholt, A., & Heylen, D. (2010). Brain-computer interfacing and games. In Brain-computer interfaces. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Rivington, J. (2013). Google glass: What you need to know. TechRadar. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://www.techradar.com/news/video/google-glass-what-you-need-to-know-1078114
  35. Scanlon, T. (1975). Thomson on privacy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4(4), 315–322. doi:10.2307/2265076.Google Scholar
  36. Talwar, S. K., Xu, S., Hawley, E. S., Weiss, S. A., Moxon, K. A., & Chapin, J. K. (2002). Behavioural neuroscience: Rat navigation guided by remote control. Nature, 417(6884), 37–38. doi:10.1038/417037a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tamburrini, G. (2009). Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics, 2(3), 137–149. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
  39. Wolpaw, J. R., Birbaumer, N., Heetderks, W. J., McFarland, D. J., Peckham, P. H., Schalk, G., Donchin, E., Quatrano, L. A., Robinson, C. J., & Vaughan, T. M. (2000). Brain–computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. IEEE Transactions of Rehabilitation Engineering, 8(2), 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EthicsDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations