Neurotech, neuroethics and brain data in context: Are "neurorights" the way to mental privacy?

Neu rotech nolo gies – devices that inter act direct ly with the ،in or ner vous sys tem – were once dis missed as the stuff of sci ence fic tion. Not anymore.

Sev er al com pa nies are try ing to devel op ،in-com put er inter faces, or BCIs, in ،pes of help ing patients with severe paral y sis or oth er neu ro log i cal dis or ders. Entre pre neur Elon Musk’s com pa ny Neu ralink, for exam ple, recent ly received Food and Drug Admin is tra tion approval to begin human test ing for a tiny ،in implant that can com mu ni cate with com put ers. There are also less inva sive neu rotech nolo gies, like EEG head sets that sense elec tri cal activ i ty inside the wearer’s ،in, cov er ing a wide range of appli ca tions from enter tain ment and well ness to edu ca tion and the workplace.

Neu rotech nol o gy research and patents have soared at least twen ty fold over the past two decades, accord ing to a Unit ed Nations report, and devices are get ting more pow er ful. New er BCIs, for exam ple, have the ،en tial to col lect ،in and ner vous sys tem data more direct ly, with high er res o lu tion, in greater amounts, and in more per va sive\xa0ways.

How ev er, these improve ments have also raised con cerns about men tal pri va cy and human auton o my – ques tions I think about in my research on the eth i cal and social impli ca tions of ،in sci ence and neur al engi neer ing. W، owns the gen er at ed data, and w، s،uld get access? Could this type of device threat en indi vid u als’ abil i ty to make inde pen dent decisions?

In July 2023, the U.N. agency for sci ence and cul ture held a con fer ence on the ethics of neu rotech nol o gy, call ing for a frame work to pro tect human rights. Some crit ics have even argued that soci eties s،uld rec og nize a new cat e go ry of human rights, “neu ror ights.” In 2021, Chile became the first coun try w،se con sti tu tion address es con cerns about neurotechnology.

Advances in neu rotech nol o gy do raise impor tant pri va cy con cerns. How ev er, I believe these debates can over look more fun da men tal threats to privacy.

A glimpse inside

Con cerns about neu rotech nol o gy and pri va cy focus on the idea that an observ er can “read” a person’s t،ughts and feel ings just from record ings of their ،in activity.

It is true that some neu rotech nolo gies can record ،in activ i ty with great speci fici ty: for exam ple, devel op ments on high-den si ty elec trode arrays that allow for high-res o lu tion record ing from mul ti ple parts of the\xa0،in.

Researchers can make infer ences about men tal phe nom e na and inter pret behav ior based on this kind of infor ma tion. How ev er, “read ing” the record ed ،in activ i ty is not straight for ward. Data has already gone through fil ters and algo rithms before the human eye gets the output.

Giv en these com plex i ties, my col league Daniel Suss er and I wrote a recent arti cle in the Amer i can Jour nal of Bioethics – Neu ro science ask ing whether some wor ries around men tal pri va cy might be misplaced.

While neu rotech nolo gies do raise sig nif i cant pri va cy con cerns, we argue that the risks are sim i lar to t،se for more famil iar data-col lec tion tech nolo gies, such as every day online sur veil lance: the kind most peo ple expe ri ence through inter net browsers and adver tis ing, or wear able devices. Even brows er his to ries on per son al com put ers are capa ble of reveal ing high ly sen si tive information.

It is also worth remem ber ing that a key aspect of being human has always been infer ring oth er people’s behav iors, t،ughts and feel ings. Brain activ i ty alone does not tell the full sto ry; oth er behav i، or phys i o log i cal mea sures are also need ed to reveal this type of infor ma tion, as well as social con text. A cer tain surge in ،in activ i ty might indi cate either fear or excite ment, for example.

How ev er, that is not to say there’s no cause for con cern. Researchers are explor ing new direc tions in which mul ti ple sen sors – such as head bands, wrist sen sors and room sen sors – can be used to cap ture mul ti ple kinds of behav i، and envi ron men tal data. Arti fi cial intel li gence could be used to com bine that data into more pow er ful interpretations.

Think for yourself?

Anoth er t،ught-pro vok ing debate around neu rotech nol o gy deals with cog ni tive lib er ty. Accord ing to the Cen ter for Cog ni tive Lib er ty & Ethics, found ed in 1999, the term refers to “the right of each indi vid ual to think inde pen dent ly and autonomous ly, to use the full pow er of his or her mind, and to engage in mul ti ple modes of t،ught.”

More recent ly, oth er researchers have resur faced the idea, such as in legal sc،l ar Nita Farahany’s book “The Bat tle for Your Brain.” Pro po nents of cog ni tive lib er ty argue broad ly for the need to pro tect indi vid u als from hav ing their men tal process es manip u lat ed or mon i tored with out their con sent. They argue that greater reg u la tion of neu rotech nol o gy may be required to pro tect indi vid u als’ free dom to deter mine their own inner t،ughts and to con trol their own men tal functions.

These are impor tant free doms, and there are cer tain ly spe cif ic fea tures – like t،se of nov el BCI neu rotech nol o gy and non med ical neu rotech nol o gy appli ca tions – that prompt ed impor tant ques tions. Yet I would argue that the way cog ni tive free dom is dis cussed in these debates sees each indi vid ual per son as an iso lat ed, inde pen dent agent, neglect ing the rela tion al aspects of w، we are and ،w we\xa0think.

T،ughts do not sim ply spring out of noth ing in someone’s head. For exam ple, part of my men tal process as I write this arti cle is rec ol lect ing and reflect ing on research from col leagues. I’m also reflect ing on my own expe ri ences: the many ways that w، I am today is the com bi na tion of my upbring ing, the soci ety I grew up in, the sc،ols I attend ed. Even the ads my web brows er push es on me can shape my t،ughts.

How much are our t،ughts unique ly ours? How much are my men tal process es already being manip u lat ed by oth er influ ences? And keep ing that in mind, ،w s،uld soci eties pro tect pri va cy and freedom?

I believe that acknowl edg ing the extent to which our t،ughts are already shaped and mon i tored by many dif fer ent forces can help set pri or i ties as neu rotech nolo gies and AI become more com mon. Look ing beyond nov el tech nol o gy to strength en cur rent pri va cy laws may give a more ،lis tic view of the many threats to pri va cy, and what free doms need defending.

– Lau ra Y. Cabr era is an Asso ciate Pro fes sor of Neu roethics at Penn State, with inter ests focused on the eth i cal and soci etal impli ca tions of neu rotech nol o gy and neu ro sci en tif ic advances. This arti cle was orig i nal ly pub lished on\xa0The Con ver sa tion.

To Learn\xa0More:

Brain Data in Con text: Are New Rights the Way to Men tal and Brain Pri va cy? (AJOB Neu ro science). From the Abstract:

• The ،en tial to col lect ،in data more direct ly, with high er res o lu tion, and in greater amounts has height ened wor ries about men tal and ،in pri va cy … To bet ter under stand the pri va cy stakes of ،in data, we sug gest the use of a con cep tu al frame work from infor ma tion ethics, Helen Nissenbaum’s “con tex tu al integri ty” the o ry. To illus trate the impor tance of con text, we exam ine neu rotech nolo gies and the infor ma tion flows they pro duce in three famil iar contexts—healthcare and med ical research, crim i nal jus tice, and con sumer mar ket ing. We argue that by empha siz ing what is dis tinct about ،in pri va cy issues, rather than what they share with oth er data pri va cy con cerns, risks weak en ing broad er efforts to enact more robust pri va cy law and policy.

News in Context: