Increasing brain-computer interface media depictions: pressing ethical concerns

Gilbert, Frédéric; Pham, Chau; Viaña, John Noel M.; Gillam, William Blair

doi:10.1080/2326263x.2019.1655837

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…745-746). A recent study by Gilbert et al (2019) confirms this insight, reveal-3 A Neuralink progress update, live streamed to YouTube last summer, shows that the technology has already been successfully embedded into the brains of pigs (Neuralink, 2020). iJournal, Vol 6, No.…”

Section: Philosophical Implications Of the Wired Brainmentioning

confidence: 89%

Enter the Matrix: What the new brain-computer interfaces teach us about agency, privacy, and human subjectivity

Dueck¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the last decade, the global brain-computer interface (BCI) industry has experienced significant economic growth and captured the public’s imagination through enthusiastic coverage in the popular media. Responding dialectically to this growing public discourse, this paper overviews the social, ethical, and philosophical aspects of BCIs that pose the greatest concern for information policymakers. By reading the industry’s techno-economic trends against contemporary critical philosophy, I argue that these technologies enable new “posthuman” forms of surveillance and control that challenge democratic notions of freedom, privacy, and equality.

show abstract

Section: Philosophical Implications Of the Wired Brainmentioning

confidence: 89%

Enter the Matrix: What the new brain-computer interfaces teach us about agency, privacy, and human subjectivity

Dueck¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many scientific articles have recently discussed the need for more regulation of neurotechnologies, painting a rather threatening picture of neurotechnology developments [47,48]. However, a recently conducted media review shows quite the opposite [49]. The authors report that mass media portrays BCI technology in an overly positive and enthusiastic manner, including little negative or critical aspects and almost lacking any ethical discussion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thoughts Unlocked by Technology—a Survey in Germany About Brain-Computer Interfaces

Schmid¹,

Friedrich

Kessner³

et al. 2021

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a rapidly evolving neurotechnology connecting the human brain with a computer. In its classic form, brain activity is recorded and used to control external devices like protheses or wheelchairs. Thus, BCI users act with the power of their thoughts. While the initial development has focused on medical uses of BCIs, non-medical applications have recently been gaining more attention, for example in automobiles, airplanes, and the entertainment context. However, the attitudes of the general public towards BCIs have hardly been explored. Among the general population in Germany aged 18–65 years, a representative online survey with 20 items was conducted in summer 2018 (n = 1000) and analysed by descriptive statistics. The survey assessed: affinity for technology; previous knowledge and experience concerning BCIs; the attitude towards ethical, social and legal implications of BCI use and demographic information. Our results indicate that BCIs are a unique and puzzling way of human–machine interaction. The findings reveal a positive view and high level of trust in BCIs on the one hand but on the other hand a wide range of ethical and anthropological concerns. Agency and responsibility were clearly attributed to the BCI user. The participants’ opinions were divided regarding the impact BCIs have on humankind. In summary, a high level of ambivalence regarding BCIs was found. We suggest better information of the public and the promotion of public deliberation about BCIs in order to ensure responsible development and application of this potentially disruptive technology.

show abstract

“…It may downplay other significant risks to trial participants due to the unknown impact of the treatment. Futhermore, as observed with other experimental invasive technologies [13], positive reporting of a clinical trial in mainstream media often ignores the risks and unproven nature of the treatment which may further bias participants' view of their inclusion. It is critical that risks associated with participation in an optogenetics trial (i.e.…”

Section: Key Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%