Who is responsible if a brain-controlled robot drops a baby?
As brain-controlled robots enter everyday life, an article published in Science states that now is the time to take action and put in place guidelines that ensure the safe and beneficial use of direct brain-machine interaction.
Accountability, responsibility, privacy and security are all key when considering ethical dimensions of this emerging field.
If a semi-autonomous robot did not have a reliable control or override mechanism, a person might be considered negligent if they used it to pick up a baby, but not for other less risky activities. The authors propose that any semi-autonomous system should include a form of veto control – an emergency stop – to help overcome some of the inherent weaknesses of direct brain-machine interaction.
Professor John Donoghue, Director of the Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering in Geneva, Switzerland, and co-author of the paper, said: “Although we still don’t fully understand how the brain works, we are moving closer to being able to reliably decode certain brain signals. We shouldn’t be complacent about what this could mean for society. We must carefully consider the consequences of living alongside semi-intelligent brain-controlled machines and we should be ready with mechanisms to ensure their safe and ethical use.”
“We don’t want to overstate the risks nor build false hope for those who could benefit from neurotechnology. Our aim is to ensure that appropriate legislation keeps pace with this rapidly progressing field.”
Protecting biological data recorded by brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) is another area of concern. Security solutions should include data encryption, information hiding and network security. Guidelines for patient data protection already exist for clinical studies but these standards differ across countries and may not apply as rigorously to purely human laboratory research.
Professor Niels Birbaumer, Senior Research Fellow at the Wyss Center in Geneva (formerly at University of Tübingen, Germany), and co-author of the paper, said: “The protection of sensitive neuronal data from people with complete paralysis who use a BMI as their only means of communication, is particularly important. Successful calibration of their BMI depends on brain responses to personal questions provided by the family (for example, “Your daughter’s name is Emily?”). Strict data protection must be applied to all people involved, this includes protecting the personal information asked in questions as well as the protection of neuronal data to ensure the device functions correctly.”
The possibility of ‘brainjacking’ – the malicious manipulation of brain implants – is a serious consideration say the authors. While BMI systems to restore movement or communication to paralysed people do not initially seem an appealing target, this could depend on the status of the user – a paralysed politician, for example, might be at increased risk of a malicious attack as brain readout improves.
The Latest on: Neuroethics
- Living brain tissue experiments raise new kinds of ethical questionson February 17, 2020 at 7:16 am
Her answers have been edited for brevity and clarity. Rommelfanger: The whole reason that the field I work in, neuroethics, exists is because there does seem to be something culturally important about ...
- Brain imaging has limited applicability in evaluating defendant's sanityon February 3, 2020 at 2:30 am
they say in a review article in the journal Neuroethics. MRIs and other brain scans are good for many things but they really have limited use when you talk about truly determining if someone was ...
- Neuroethics: How To Leave the Cave Without Going Astrayon February 1, 2020 at 4:00 pm
Knowledge and use of knowledge are different moments in the discovery process by humans. If we do not search, we will not know -- hence, we will not even know what can be of benefit for us. If we ...
- Brain imaging provides little insight in insanity evaluationon January 31, 2020 at 9:03 am
they say in a review article in the journal Neuroethics. "MRIs and other brain scans are good for many things but they really have limited use when you talk about truly determining if someone was ...
- Scientists Partially Revive Disembodied Pig Brains, Raising Huge Questionson April 18, 2019 at 11:08 am
including the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Yale University and the Neuroethics Working Group of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). What’s more, bioethicist Stephen ...
- Dr B. Tyr Fothergillon January 19, 2018 at 6:16 am
Tyr Fothergill is a Research Fellow in Ethics Support and Researcher ... Tyr is interested in responsible data governance; technology ethics and neuroethics; information management; ethics ...
- Return of Results from Psychiatric Genomics Research: Attitudes and Barrierson January 17, 2018 at 10:03 am
International Neuroethics Society Meeting. Washington, DC. November 2017 Lázaro-Muñoz G. Improving Ethical Guidance for the Return of Results from Psychiatric Genomics Research. American Society for ...
- Neuroethics of aDBS Systems Targeting Neuropsychiatric and Movement Disorderson December 23, 2017 at 4:45 pm
February 2018. Lázaro-Muñoz G. The Need for Empirical Data When Examining the Neuroethics of Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation (aDBS) Systems. International Neuroethics Society Meeting. Washington, DC.
- Past Projectson December 6, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Neuroethics research at Impact Ethics has been funded through two CIHR grants: Therapeutic Hopes and Ethical Concerns (2005-2009) and States of Mind: Emerging Issues in Neuroethics (2006-2012). Our ...
via Google News and Bing News