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
No news articles
- New Addiction Framework to Empower Patients and Reduce Stigmaon November 27, 2020 at 2:00 am
Philosopher Hanna Pickard's Responsibility without Blame model interrogates common assumptions about addiction and offers a new way forward.
- Six From Duke Elected Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Scienceon November 24, 2020 at 4:00 am
Nita A. Farahany, Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society: For distinguished contributions to the field of neuroethics, enabling ...
- Neuroethics: How To Leave the Cave Without Going Astrayon November 18, 2020 at 4:00 pm
Far-reaching innovations in medical practice and forensic medicine often lead to the development of "gray areas" that may create complex quandaries. To discuss a case in point, Dr. Kennedy ...
- Neuroethics: How To Leave the Cave Without Going Astrayon November 17, 2020 at 4:00 pm
It surely does not come as a surprise to anybody that most marketing practices are designed to appeal to our inner selves, bypassing our control circuits and recruiting our reward systems. A new ...
- Studies outline key ethical questions surrounding brain-computer interface techon November 10, 2020 at 9:49 am
The second paper, "The Authenticity of Machine-Augmented Human Intelligence: Therapy, Enhancement, and the Extended Mind," is published in the journal Neuroethics. Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert!
- Geek Speak: Elana Brief, president of the Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technologyon November 3, 2020 at 4:00 pm
Brief works as a research director for the Women’s Health Research Network and as a research scholar at the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia. She received her ...
- Neues Online-Buch: Addiction Neuroethicson August 12, 2020 at 7:31 pm
Research increasingly suggests that addiction has a genetic and neurobiological basis, but efforts to translate research into effective clinical treatments and social policy needs to be informed by ...
- Neuroethics of aDBS Systems Targeting Neuropsychiatric and Movement Disorderson June 1, 2020 at 4:59 pm
Many of the features that make aDBS promising may exacerbate some of the ethical, legal, and social (“neuroethics”) concerns that have been raised about conventional open-loop DBS (e.g. dehumanization ...
- Return of Results from Psychiatric Genomics Research: Attitudes and Barrierson August 2, 2019 at 8:39 am
World Congress of Psychiatric Genetics. Orlando, FL. October 2017. Lázaro-Muñoz G. The Need for Empirical Data When Examining the Neuroethics of Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation (aDBS) Systems.
- Research Programson June 19, 2015 at 6:03 am
Neuroethics Advances in neuroscience expand understandings of how the brain works and open the way for development of new technologies for neurological interventions, treatments, and even enhancements ...
via Google News and Bing News