The Ethics Of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs)
By Sanjana PB
Everyone who has ever been fond of watching science-fiction or superhero movies has dreamt of having superpowers such as telepathy and telekinesis at least once in their lifetime. At present, we witness a phenomenon that comes as close to achieving these “superpowers” in reality as humanly possible – Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs). It is a powerful combination of human biology and technology to achieve an almost miraculous feat. But do these “superpowers” belong to the hero or the villain in the story of reality? How powerful are they in the hands of the hero and how destructive are they in the hands of the villain? Read the article to find answers to such posed questions; Brain-Computer Interfaces – Boon or Bain?
What Are BCIs?
A Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is a hardware and software communications system that permits cerebral activity alone to control computers or external devices (Nicolas-Alonso & Gomez-Gil, 2012). These can be used for various purposes in the health and medicine sector, ranging from treating neurological diseases to improving cognitive abilities. This can also be used as a mechanism of communication by severely disabled people who are completely paralyzed or “locked in” by neurological, or neuromuscular disorders. Though they are mainly designed for patients, they can also be used by healthy subjects to control devices solely by brain activity.
This technology could further be used to give rise to newer and more useful technologies, potentially impacting not just individuals, but society as a whole (Vlek et al., 2012). With the steady development in this field, the possibilities seem to be endless and the outcomes seem to know no bounds. However, this is the very problem – there are no bounds to what this invention can do. BCIs thus present the world with significant ethical and legal challenges concerning mind control, privacy, autonomy, and human identity.
Benefits
Clinical applications of BCI can be divided into two categories. The first category aims at providing a technological alternative for users’ lost function and can be considered a form of assistive technology. The second category aims at rehabilitation of the users’ own neural pathways to restore the lost function (Vlek et al., 2012).
As mentioned earlier, BCIs can be used as remarkable tools to improve the quality of life of severely disabled people. It simultaneously reduces the burden on the caretakers of disabled patients and makes their responsibilities less onerous. Moreover, BCI applications potentially represent a powerful tool for revealing hidden information in the user’s brain that cannot be expressed (Nicolas-Alonso & Gomez-Gil, 2012).
BCI has been recognized for its wide applications in communications, motor restoration, locomotion, and environmental control for patients with neurological diseases or injuries associated with the drastic loss of sensory and motor functions.
Research into BCI technology was primarily focused on essential and assistive applications such as spelling devices, wheelchair control, or neuroprostheses. However, recent advancements have increased interest in the entertainment applications of BCIs even though they had been on the back burner for the longest time now. Thus, the usage of BCIs has been extended to non-disabled people as well.
Adversities -
Safety
BCIs may pose a direct risk of harm to the user, especially the ones that are invasive and require surgical interventions. Implanted devices may cause infection of the surrounding tissues and acute trauma to the brain among other complications. In a long-term scenario, the affected neural tissue may develop glial scarring. Researchers are also unsure if the brain returns to normal once the device is taken out. Device failures are a possibility. Just as a BCI can provide unprecedented benefits to people with locked-in syndrome, a sudden lack of functionality would impact the user directly and immediately (Burwell et al., 2017).
Humanity and Personhood
Some researchers argue that being more robotic makes one less human and that BCI could generate the “risk of losing what makes us human” (Burwell et al., 2017). This evolutionary process of the merging of human aspects with that of a robot has come to be known as ‘cyborgization’. As indicated by the phenomena of interest, including changes in social identity, personality, and authenticity could alter a person’s perception of personhood.
Stigma
BCIs seem to enforce the stigma that individuals with disabilities are a burden on society, and can influence individuals to seek out BCIs solely because of this negative idea.
Morality and Legal Responsibility
The potential widespread use of BCI raises a debate about whether we have less control over our thoughts after the insertion of BCI or whether the choice to get a BCI device makes the user responsible for all of the device’s output. In essence, the argument is over whether the unique characteristics of BCI will require changes to our legal systems and understanding of morality (Burwell et al., 2017).
Informed Consent
BCI has triggered extensive controversies surrounding the informed consent of the patients as the target population of BCIs is a vulnerable group. Some patients might not want to adopt the use of BCIs despite its perceived benefits. In addition, if a non-communicative individual has a BCI and can use it to achieve a basic level of communication, it is doubtful that this would be sufficient for informed consent for further research purposes.
Privacy and Security
The notable expansion of the field of BCIs opens a prospect of “neurocrime”: extending the range of computer crime to neural devices (Ienca & Haselager, 2016). An infamous type of neurocrime called ‘brain-hacking’ aims at illicit access to and manipulation of neural information and computation. Neural manipulation translates to meddling with the subject’s underlying cognition, behavior, and self-identity. There is no doubt that the emerging risks of this malicious affair cause complex atrocities. Ensuring ethical safeguards against this activity should be considered a priority if further progress has to be made.
Conclusion
With significant development in the field of artificial intelligence over the recent years, one thing has been clear from the very beginning – Misuse of AI can lead to mass destruction. Any new invention in this field has seen a myriad of positive benefits that have a vast advantage for the population, but it has also seen how its counter-productive usage creates havoc and causes ruins.
Brain-Computer Interfaces happen to be an intriguing topic for many, and at first impression, seems to be a futuristic advancement in technology, which it undeniably is. But it is yet to be perfected. To further reduce the ethical conundrums associated with it, it will, however, take years of research and clinical trials. Issues relating to moral responsibility can, in different ways, confront researchers, clinicians, and developers with backgrounds in any of the various disciplines typically involved in BCI research or application (Vlek et al., 2012). To determine the validity of this equipment, we shall have to wait patiently and examine the results we get in the times to come.
Works Cited
Burwell, S., Sample, M., & Racine, E. (2017). Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y
Ienca, M., & Haselager, P. (2016). Hacking the Brain: Brain–computer Interfacing Technology and the Ethics of Neurosecurity. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9398-9
Nicolas-Alonso, L. F., & Gomez-Gil, J. (2012). Brain Computer Interfaces, a Review. Sensors, 12(2), 1211–1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/s120201211
Vlek, R. J., Steines, D., Szibbo, D., Kübler, A., Schneider, M., Haselager, P., & Nijboer, F. (2012). Ethical Issues in Brain–Computer Interface Research, Development, and Dissemination. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 36(2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1097/npt.0b013e31825064cc.