Neurotechnologies – devices that interact directly with the brain or nervous system – were once dismissed as the stuff of science fiction. Not anymore.
Several companies are trying to develop brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, in hopes of helping patients with severe paralysis or other neurological disorders. Entrepreneur Elon Musk’s company Neuralink, for example, recently received Food and Drug Administration approval to begin human testing for a tiny brain implant that can communicate with computers. There are also less invasive neurotechnologies, like EEG headsets that sense electrical activity inside the wearer’s brain, covering a wide range of applications from entertainment and wellness to education and the workplace.
Neurotechnology research and patents have soared at least twentyfold over the past two decades, according to a United Nations report, and devices are getting more powerful. Newer BCIs, for example, have the potential to collect brain and nervous system data more directly, with higher resolution, in greater amounts, and in more pervasive ways.
However, these improvements have also raised concerns about mental privacy and human autonomy – questions I think about in my research on the ethical and social implications of brain science and neural engineering. Who owns the generated data, and who should get access? Could this type of device threaten individuals’ ability to make independent decisions?
In July 2023, the U.N. agency for science and culture held a conference on the ethics of neurotechnology, calling for a framework to protect human rights. Some critics have even argued that societies should recognize a new category of human rights, “neurorights.” In 2021, Chile became the first country whose constitution addresses concerns about neurotechnology.
Advances in neurotechnology do raise important privacy concerns. However, I believe these debates can overlook more fundamental threats to privacy.
A glimpse inside
Concerns about neurotechnology and privacy focus on the idea that an observer can “read” a person’s thoughts and feelings just from recordings of their brain activity.
It is true that some neurotechnologies can record brain activity with great specificity: for example, developments on high-density electrode arrays that allow for high-resolution recording from multiple parts of the brain.
Researchers can make inferences about mental phenomena and interpret behaviour based on this kind of information. However, “reading” the recorded brain activity is not straightforward. Data has already gone through filters and algorithms before the human eye gets the output.
Given these complexities, my colleague Daniel Susser and I wrote a recent article in the American Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience asking whether some worries around mental privacy might be misplaced.
While neurotechnologies do raise significant privacy concerns, we argue that the risks are similar to those for more familiar data-collection technologies, such as everyday online surveillance: the kind most people experience through internet browsers and advertising, or wearable devices. Even browser histories on personal computers are capable of revealing highly sensitive information.
It is also worth remembering that a key aspect of being human has always been inferring other people’s behaviours, thoughts and feelings. Brain activity alone does not tell the full story; other behavioural or physiological measures are also needed to reveal this type of information, as well as social context. A certain surge in brain activity might indicate either fear or excitement, for example.
However, that is not to say there’s no cause for concern. Researchers are exploring new directions in which multiple sensors – such as headbands, wrist sensors and room sensors – can be used to capture multiple kinds of behavioural and environmental data. Artificial intelligence could be used to combine that data into more powerful interpretations.
Think for yourself?
Another thought-provoking debate around neurotechnology deals with cognitive liberty. According to the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, founded in 1999, the term refers to “the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full power of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought.”
More recently, other researchers have resurfaced the idea, such as in legal scholar Nita Farahany’s book “The Battle for Your Brain.” Proponents of cognitive liberty argue broadly for the need to protect individuals from having their mental processes manipulated or monitored without their consent. They argue that greater regulation of neurotechnology may be required to protect individuals’ freedom to determine their own inner thoughts and to control their own mental functions.
These are important freedoms, and there are certainly specific features – like those of novel BCI neurotechnology and nonmedical neurotechnology applications – that prompted important questions. Yet I would argue that the way cognitive freedom is discussed in these debates sees each individual person as an isolated, independent agent, neglecting the relational aspects of who we are and how we think.
Thoughts do not simply spring out of nothing in someone’s head. For example, part of my mental process as I write this article is recollecting and reflecting on research from colleagues. I’m also reflecting on my own experiences: the many ways that who I am today is the combination of my upbringing, the society I grew up in, the schools I attended. Even the ads my web browser pushes on me can shape my thoughts.
How much are our thoughts uniquely ours? How much are my mental processes already being manipulated by other influences? And keeping that in mind, how should societies protect privacy and freedom?
I believe that acknowledging the extent to which our thoughts are already shaped and monitored by many different forces can help set priorities as neurotechnologies and AI become more common. Looking beyond novel technology to strengthen current privacy laws may give a more holistic view of the many threats to privacy, and what freedoms need defending.
Teknolojia za neva - vifaa vinavyoingiliana moja kwa moja na ubongo au mfumo wa neva - wakati mmoja vilikataliwa kuwa mambo ya uwongo wa kisayansi. Si tena. Kampuni kadhaa zinajaribu kuendeleza muunganisho wa ubongo na kompyuta (BCI) kwa matumaini ya kusaidia wagonjwa wenye kupooza kali au magonjwa mengine ya neva. Kampuni ya Elon Musk, Neuralink, imepokea idhini kutoka kwa Idara ya Chakula na Dawa ya Marekani (FDA) kuanza majaribio ya ubongo mdogo unaoweza kuwasiliana na kompyuta. Vifaa vya teknolojia ya ubongo vinavyoweza kuathiri ubongo, kama vile vichwa vya EEG, vinaweza kugundua shughuli za umeme ndani ya ubongo wa mtumiaji, na kufunika matumizi mbalimbali kutoka kwa burudani na afya hadi elimu na mahali pa kazi. Utafiti wa teknolojia ya ubongo na hati miliki zimepanda angalau mara ishirini katika miongo miwili iliyopita, kulingana na ripoti ya Umoja wa Mataifa, na vifaa vinakuwa na nguvu zaidi. Kwa mfano, BCI mpya zina uwezo wa kukusanya data ya ubongo na mfumo wa neva moja kwa moja zaidi, kwa azimio la juu, kwa kiasi kikubwa, na kwa njia za kuenea zaidi. Hata hivyo, maboresho haya pia yameinua wasiwasi kuhusu faragha ya akili na uhuru wa binadamu - maswali ninayofikiria katika utafiti wangu juu ya athari za kimaadili na kijamii za sayansi ya ubongo na uhandisi wa neva. Ni nani anayemiliki data zinazozalishwa, na ni nani anayepaswa kupata upatikanaji? Je, aina hii ya kifaa inaweza kutishia uwezo wa watu kufanya maamuzi ya kujitegemea? Mnamo Julai mwaka huu, Shirika la Sayansi na Utamaduni la Umoja wa Mataifa (UNASCE) limepanga mkutano wa maadili ya teknolojia ya neva, na kutaka mfumo wa kulinda haki za binadamu. "Wakati huo huo, Chile ilitangaza kuwa ""haki za binadamu"" na ""haki za neural"" katika Katiba yake ya mwaka 2021 na kuwa nchi ya kwanza ambayo imepitisha sheria za kikatiba zinazohusu teknolojia ya ubongo." Maendeleo katika teknolojia ya neva huinua wasiwasi muhimu wa faragha. Hata hivyo, naamini mjadala huu unaweza kupuuza vitisho vya msingi zaidi kwa faragha. Wasiwasi kuhusu teknolojia ya neva na faragha unazingatia wazo kwamba mtazamaji anaweza "kusoma" mawazo na hisia za mtu kutoka tu kwa rekodi za shughuli zao za ubongo. Ni kweli kwamba baadhi ya teknolojia za neva zinaweza kurekodi shughuli za ubongo kwa usahihi mkubwa: kwa mfano, maendeleo ya safu za elektroni zenye wiani wa juu ambazo huruhusu kurekodi kwa azimio la juu kutoka sehemu nyingi za ubongo. Watafiti wanaweza kufanya inferences kuhusu matukio ya akili na kutafsiri tabia kulingana na aina hii ya habari. Hata hivyo, "kusoma" utendaji wa ubongo uliorekodiwa si rahisi. Takwimu tayari zimepitia vichungi na algorithms kabla ya jicho la binadamu kupata pato. Kwa kuzingatia utata huu, mwenzangu Daniel Susser na mimi tuliandika makala ya hivi karibuni katika American Journal of Bioethics <unk> Neuroscience kuuliza kama baadhi ya wasiwasi kuhusu faragha ya akili inaweza kuwa misplaced. Ingawa teknolojia ya neva inazalisha wasiwasi mkubwa wa faragha, tunasema kuwa hatari ni sawa na zile za teknolojia za kukusanya data za kawaida, kama vile ufuatiliaji wa kila siku mtandaoni: aina ambayo watu wengi hupata kupitia vivinjari vya mtandao na matangazo, au vifaa vinavyoweza kuvaliwa. Hata historia ya kivinjari kwenye kompyuta za kibinafsi inaweza kufunua habari zenye kujihusisha sana. Pia ni muhimu kukumbuka kwamba kipengele muhimu cha kuwa binadamu daima imekuwa inferring tabia za watu wengine, mawazo na hisia. Utendaji wa ubongo peke yake haufasiri hadithi nzima; hatua nyingine za tabia au za kisaikolojia zinahitajika pia kufunua aina hii ya habari, pamoja na muktadha wa kijamii. Kwa mfano, ongezeko fulani la utendaji wa ubongo laweza kuonyesha hofu au msisimko. Hata hivyo, hilo halimaanishi kwamba hakuna sababu ya kuwa na wasiwasi. Watafiti ni kuchunguza mwelekeo mpya katika ambayo sensorer nyingi - kama vile headbands, sensorer mkono na sensorer chumba - inaweza kutumika kukamata aina mbalimbali za tabia na data ya mazingira. Akili bandia inaweza kutumika kuchanganya data hiyo katika tafsiri zenye nguvu zaidi. Je, unajifikiria mwenyewe? Mazungumzo mengine yanayochochea kufikiri kuhusu teknolojia ya neva yanahusu uhuru wa utambuzi. Kulingana na Kituo cha Uhuru wa Utambuzi na Maadili, kilichoanzishwa mnamo 1999, neno hili linarejelea haki ya kila mtu ya kufikiria kwa kujitegemea na kujitegemea, kutumia nguvu kamili ya akili yake, na kushiriki katika njia nyingi za kufikiri. Hivi karibuni, watafiti wengine wameibuka tena wazo hilo, kama vile katika kitabu cha mwanasheria Nita Farahani, The Battle for Your Brain. Wao wanasema kwamba udhibiti mkubwa wa teknolojia ya neva inaweza kuhitajika kulinda uhuru wa watu binafsi kuamua mawazo yao ya ndani na kudhibiti kazi zao za akili. Hizi ni uhuru muhimu, na kuna hakika sifa maalum - kama wale wa riwaya BCI neurotechnology na nonmedical neurotechnology maombi - kwamba alichochea maswali muhimu. Hata hivyo, ningesema kwamba njia ambayo uhuru wa utambuzi unajadiliwa katika mjadala huu unaona kila mtu binafsi kama wakala wa kujitegemea, na kupuuza mambo ya uhusiano wa nani sisi na jinsi tunavyofikiri. Mawazo hayajitokezi tu kutoka katika kichwa cha mtu. Kwa mfano, sehemu ya mchakato wangu wa akili ninapoandika makala hii ni kukumbuka na kutafakari juu ya utafiti kutoka kwa wenzangu. Mimi pia ni kutafakari juu ya uzoefu wangu mwenyewe: njia nyingi kwamba mimi ni leo ni mchanganyiko wa malezi yangu, jamii nilikua katika, shule nilihudhuria. Hata matangazo ambayo kivinjari changu cha wavuti hunipelekea yanaweza kuunda mawazo yangu. Mawazo yetu ni yetu tu kwa kadiri gani? Mchakato wangu wa kiakili umedhibitiwa na uvutano mwingine kadiri gani? Na kwa kuzingatia hilo, jamii zinapaswa kulindaje faragha na uhuru? """Kutambua kiwango ambacho mawazo yetu tayari yameundwa na kufuatiliwa na nguvu nyingi tofauti inaweza kusaidia kuweka vipaumbele wakati teknolojia ya neva na AI inakuwa ya kawaida zaidi." Kuangalia zaidi ya teknolojia mpya ili kuimarisha sheria za sasa za faragha inaweza kutoa mtazamo wa jumla wa vitisho vingi kwa faragha, na ni uhuru gani unahitaji kutetezwa.