Brain–computer interfaces and personhood: interdisciplinary deliberations on neural technology

Abstract

Objective. Scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals are currently developing a variety of new devices under the category of brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). Current and future applications are both medical/assistive (e.g. for communication) and non-medical (e.g. for gaming). This array of possibilities has been met with both enthusiasm and ethical concern in various media, with no clear resolution of these conflicting sentiments. Approach. To better understand how BCIs may either harm or help the user, and to investigate whether ethical guidance is required, a meeting entitled ‘BCIs and Personhood: A Deliberative Workshop’ was held in May 2018. Main results. We argue that the hopes and fears associated with BCIs can be productively understood in terms of personhood, specifically the impact of BCIs on what it means to be a person and to be recognized as such by others. Significance. Our findings suggest that the development of neural technologies raises important questions about the concept of personhood and its role in society. Accordingly, we propose recommendations for BCI development and governance.

Brain Computer Interfaces and Communication Disabilities: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Decoding Speech From the Brain

“…Personhood is complex concept with a lengthy philosophical and social history, but often refers to two sets of related criteria: a set of abilities or features that must be possessed to be a person, and the social recognition that someone is a person ( Sample et al, 2019 ). Communication is a critical feature in the experience of personhood, as it is so important for agency and for relations with others.…”

Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior

“…For example, when cognitive enhancement pills are used in a real-life setting, rather than in a controlled research environment, the user may be stigmatized as "weak," "stupid," or "dangerous," thus social interactions and relationships may be affected (Sattler & Singh, 2016;Bavelier et al, 2019), whereas it is rather unlikely that the real-life user of mnemonic methods will be stigmatized in this manner. Refusing the use of enhancement technologies in the case of, for example, a pilot on a difficult flight or of a surgeon doing a complicated surgery may result in other forms of stigmatization, such as blame for the outcomes (of the flight or the surgery) or coercion to use cognitive enhancement, as the availability of the technology may create expectations for its use, especially in high-stake situations (Sample et al, 2019). This negative consequence of the (non-)use of a distinct performance-enhancing method would constitute a measurable difference in outcomes and could be considered a "non-medical side effect" of this biotechnology.…”

Injecting Information into the Mammalian Cortex: Progress, Challenges, and Promise

“…Like such neuroprostheses, artificial stimulation has the potential to help numerous individuals by restoring or even enhancing function. More directly than such neuroprostheses, however, injecting information—particularly arbitrary information—could provide the potential for manipulating the nervous system (Pugh and others 2018), intensifying in particular questions of the individual’s autonomy and personhood (Sample and others 2019; Yuste and others 2017).…”