Brain–machine interfaces (BMIs), which enable a two-way flow of signals, information, and directions between human neurons and computerized machines, offer spectacular opportunities for therapeutic and consumer applications, but they also present unique dangers to the safety, privacy, psychological health, and spiritual well-being of their users. The sale of these devices as commodities for profit exacerbates such issues and may subject the user to an unequal exchange with corporations. Catholic healthcare professionals and bioethicists should be especially concerned about the implications for the essential dignity of the persons using the new BMIs.
Summary:
The commercial sale of brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) generates and exacerbates problems for end-users' safety, psychological health, and spiritual well-being.
AndrewsBill. 2020. “Mind-controlled Rats Are Now a Thing.” Discover41, no. 1: 38.
2.
AndujarMarvinCrawfordChris S.NijholtAntinusJacksonFranceGilbertJuan E.. 2015. “Artistic Brain–Computer Interfaces: The Expression and Stimulation of the User’s Affective State.” Brain–Computer Interfaces2, no. 2–3: 60–69.
BrouwerAnne-MarieHogervorstMaartenReuderinkBorisWerfYsbrand van derErpJan van. 2015. “Physiological Signals Distinguish between Reading Emotional and Non-emotional Sections in a Novel.” Brain–Computer Interfaces2, no. 2–3: 76–89.
7.
Catholic Church. 1997. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Dell’OroRoberto. 2019. “On the Ultimate That Is the First: Thinking Beyond (Bio)ethics.” Gregorianum100, no. 3: 621–47.
15.
Department of Commerce. 2019. “Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation.” Federal Register84, no. 210: 58141.
16.
DrewLiam. 2019. “The Ethics of Brain–Computer Interfaces” Nature571:S19–21.
Francis. 2015. Laudato si’, On Care for Our Common Home. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
23.
Francis. 2019. Address to Participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, February 25, 2019. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
24.
GallagherPamelaMacLachlanMalcolm. 1999. “Psychological Adjustment and Coping in Adults with Prosthetic Limbs.” Behavioral Medicine25, no. 3:117–24.
25.
GaoFengLiuHangxinXieXuQiSiyuanZhuYixinWuYingnianLuHongjingZhuSong-Chun. 2019. “A Tale of Two Explanations: Enhancing Human Trust by Explaining Robot Behavior.” Science Robotics4, no. 37: eaay4663.
26.
GardArianna M.DottererHailey L.HydeLuke W.. 2019. “Genetic Influences on Antisocial Behavior: Recent Advances and Future Directions.” Current Opinion in Psychology27:46–55.
GilbertFredericGoddardElizaViañaJohn Noel M.CarterAdrianHorneMalcolm. 2017. “I Miss Being Me: Phenomenological Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation.” AJOB Neuroscience8, no. 2: 96–109.
GopinathD.WeinbergG. A.. 2016. “Generative Physical Model Approach for Enhancing the Stroke Palette for Robotic Drummers.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems86:207–15.
31.
Grand View Research. 2017. “Robotic Prosthetics Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Technology (Microprocessor Controlled, Myoelectric Prosthetics), by Extremity (Lower Body, Upper Body Extremity), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2018–2025.” https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/robotic-prosthetics-market.
32.
GrüblerGerd. 2011. “Beyond the Responsibility Gap: Discussion Note on Responsibility and Liability in the Use of Brain–Computer Interfaces.” AI & Society26, no.4: 377–82.
HaselagerPim. 2013. “Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency.” Minds & Machines23:405–18.
36.
HaynesJohn DylanSakaiKatsuyukiReesGeraintGilbertSamFrithChrisPassinghamRichard E.. 2007. “Reading Hidden Intentions in the Human Brain.” Current Biology17:323–28.
37.
HeideggerMartin. 1993. “The Question Concerning Technology.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited by KrellD. F., translated by LovittW.. London, UK: Routledge, 307–342.
IbsenStuartTongAdaSchuttCarolynEsenerSadikChalasaniSreekanth H.. 2015. “Sonogenetics Is a Non-invasive Approach to Activating Neurons in Caenorhabditis Elegans.” Nature Communications6. Article No. 8264.
KappErnst. 2018. Elements of a Philosophy of Technology: On the Evolutionary History of Culture. Edited by KirkwoodJeffrey WestWeatherbyLeif. Translated by WolfeLauren K.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
KuikenT. A.2009. “Targeted Muscle Reinnervation for Real-time Myoelectric Control of Multifunction Artificial Arms.” Journal of the American Medical Association301, no.6: 619–28.
McFarlandDennis J.WolpawJonathan R.. 2018. “Brain–Computer Interface Use is a Skill That User and System Acquire Together.” PLoS Biology16, no. 7: e2006719.
56.
MiddletonAlexandra. 2017. “Reterritorialization of the Body: Ethnographies of Emergent Biotechnologies.” Anthropological Quarterly90, no. 1: 267–76.
MonaroMerylinGamberiniLucianoSartoriGiuseppe. 2017. “The Detection of Faked Identity Using Unexpected Questions and Mouse Dynamics.” PLoS One12, no. 5: e0177851.
59.
MosesDavid A.LeonardMatthew K.MakinJoseph G.ChangEdward F.. 2019. “Real-time Decoding of Question-and-answer Speech Dialogue Using Human Cortical Activity.” Nature Communications10: Article No. 3096.
60.
MuskElonNeuralink. 2019. “An Integrated Brain-machine Interface Platform with Thousands of Channels.” Journal of Medical Internet Research21, no. 10: e16194.
61.
NakarSharonWeinbergerSaraGreenbaumDov. 2015. “Legal and Social Implications of Predictive Brain Machine Interfaces: Duty of Care, Negligence, and Criminal Responsibility.” AJOB Neuroscience6, no. 4: 40–42.
NierhausTillVidaurreCarmenSannelliClaudiaMuellerKlaus-RobertVillringerArno. 2020. “Immediate Brain Plasticity after One Hour of Brain–Computer Interface (BCI).” Journal of Physiology:1–17.
Ortiz-CatalanMaxHakanssonBoBranemarkRickard. 2014. “An Osseointegrated Human-machine Gateway for Long-term Sensory Feedback and Motor Control of Artificial Limbs.” Science Translational Medicine6, no. 257:257re6.
Reports and Data. 2019. “Brain-computer Interface Market by Product (Non-invasive BCI, Invasive BCI, Partially BCI, Others), By End User (Medical, Military, Others), By Application (Healthcare, Smart Home Control, Communication, Entertainment & Gaming) and Segment Forecasts, 2017–2026.” https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/brain-computer-interface-market.
SoonChun SiongHeAnna HanxiBodeStefanHaynesJohn-Dylan. 2013. “Predicting Free Choices for Abstract Intentions.” Proceedings of the National Academies of Science110, no. 15: 5733–34.
83.
StaviskySergey D.WillettFrancis R.WilsonGuy H.MurphyBrian A.RezaiiPaymonAvansinoDonald T.MembergWilliam D., et al.2019. “Neural Ensemble Dynamics in Dorsal Motor Cortex during Speech in People with Paralysis.” eLife, December 10. https://elifesciences.org/articles/46015.
84.
SteinertSteffenFriedrichOrsalya. 2020. “Wired Emotions: Ethical Issues of Affective Brain–Computer Interfaces.” Science and Engineering Ethics26, no. 1: 351–67.
US Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2018. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
VolkmannJensDanielsChristineWittKarsten. 2020. “Neuropsychiatric Effects of Subthalamic Neurostimulation in Parkinson Disease.” National Review of Neurology6, no. 9:487–98.
WuShiyiXuXiangminShuLinHuBin. 2017. “Estimation of Valence of Emotion Using Two Frontal EEG Channels.” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine1:1127–30.
99.
ZhangJingWangTaoZhangChen-chengZeljicKristinaZhanShikunSunBo-minLiDian-you. 2017. “The Safety Issues and Hardware-related Complications of Deep Brain Stimulation Therapy: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis of 478 Patients with Parkinson’s Disease.” Clinical Interventions in Aging12:923–28.
100.
ZhangXiaoWuDongruiDingLieyunLuoHanbinLinChin-TengJungTzyy-Ping. 2020. “Tiny Noise Can Make an EEG-based Brain-computer Interface Speller Output Anything.” arXiv, February 6. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11569.
