Mobilizing the private sector for responsible innovation in neurotechnology

Abstract

To the Editor -Emerging neurotechnologies raise important governance questions related to, for example, dual use, brain data privacy, and manipulation of personal autonomy. Although many public sector research initiatives have implemented measures to address these issues, similar systematic measures in the private sector have yet to emerge. This gap is critical, as neurotech innovation today is largely driven by a set of companies that are subject to growing public scrutiny [1][2][3][4][5] . Here we detail lessons, emerging practices and open questions for responsible innovation in the private sector that are the result of three years of policy deliberations that began with a 2018 conference in Shanghai convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and led to the release of the "OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology" last year 6 . The principles therein cover opportunities and challenges for better innovation practices in company settings-including the use of ethics advisory boards, company-level principles, and ethics-by-design approaches-with broad relevance beyond neurotech to digital medicine and corporate R&D activities in today's era of 'tech-lash' . We argue that it is time for a radical shift in the conversation about governance of emerging neurotech: effective governance must focus on the private sector as a central actor early on-before trajectories are locked in and scaling takes off-and requires a new set of policy perspectives and collaborative tools to do so. These tools must complement existing efforts in public-sector research ethics, post hoc product regulation and corporate social responsibility. They must also reflect the growing recognition that we cannot rely on industry self-regulation alone to steer innovation activity in socially desirable directions.

The Best Predictor of the Future—the Metaverse, Mental Health, and Lessons Learned From Current Technologies

“…We believe that it is critical for researchers to consider this when designing studies and hypotheses as we cannot rely on companies to share data on worrying trends. Indeed, in a recent commentary on the private regulation of neurotechnology [35], the authors note that paying out settlements when harm is done is something that has simply become part of the "cost of doing business." Hence, we as users must question how we will be protected from the potential harms of the metaverse and who will be responsible for regulating it.…”

Taking modern psychiatry into the metaverse: Integrating augmented, virtual, and mixed reality technologies into psychiatric care

“…As such, we argue that it should be assumed that the data collected by the metaverse which can be used for medical purposes could also be used for less noble causes, such as shaping consumer beliefs and behavior. While this would most likely occur via currently employed techniques, such as targeted advertising, the chance that manipulation of patients through commercially available brain stimulation or biofeedback devices may one day be possible should not simply be discounted (43). We also argue that we should assume that abuses will occur unless rather explicit limitations are placed on what can legally be done with data collected in the metaverse which is used for a medical purpose.…”

Creating 3D Objects with Integrated Electronics via Multiphoton Fabrication In Vitro and In Vivo

“…For example, human-computer interfaces could be used to beneficially treat medical patients with neurological conditions; however, such technology could also be used by a bad actor in such a way (e.g., hacking into them to control or obtain information from the device) that negatively affects the privacy and autonomy of the individuals using them. [112][113][114] One way to responsibly negotiate future dual-use dilemmas is to take steps to try and identify them in advance and subsequently have researchers work with regulators to creatively design ethical safeguards that can be engineered into and alongside the development of the technologies. For example, one safeguarding procedure may involve keeping key aspects of research knowledge secure (e.g., by withholding it) that would otherwise enable the harmful use of such research.…”