Since the 1960s, scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals have developed brain–computer interface (BCI) technologies, connecting the user’s brain activity to communication or motor devices. This new technology has also captured the imagination of publics, industry, and ethicists. Academic ethics has highlighted the ethical challenges of BCIs, although these conclusions often rely on speculative or conceptual methods rather than empirical evidence or public engagement. From a social science or empirical ethics perspective, this tendency could be considered problematic and even technocratic because of its disconnect from publics. In response, our trinational survey (Germany, Canada, and Spain) reports public attitudes toward BCIs (N = 1,403) on ethical issues that were carefully derived from academic ethics literature. The results show moderately high levels of concern toward agent-related issues (e.g., changing the user’s self) and consequence-related issues (e.g., new forms of hacking). Both facets of concern were higher among respondents who reported as female or as religious, while education, age, own and peer disability, and country of residence were associated with either agent-related or consequence-related concerns. These findings provide a first look at BCI attitudes across three national contexts, suggesting that the language and content of academic BCI ethics may resonate with some publics and their values.
AasS.WassermanD.. 2016. “Brain–Computer Interfaces and Disability: Extending Embodiment, Reducing Stigma?” Journal of Medical Ethics42 (1): 37–40.
2.
AkinH.RoseK. M.ScheufeleD. A.Simis-WilkinsonM.BrossardD.XenosM. A.CorleyE. A.. 2017. “Mapping the Landscape of Public Attitudes on Synthetic Biology.” BioScience67 (3): 290–300.
3.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI.. 2008. “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-analysis.” Public Understanding of Science17 (1): 35–54.
4.
BeckU.1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Vol. 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BerinskyA. J.MargolisM. F.SancesM. W.. 2014. “Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys.” American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 739–53.
6.
BorryP.SchotsmansP.DierickxK.. 2005. “The Birth of the Empirical Turn in Bioethics.” Bioethics19 (1): 49–71.
7.
BradyF. N.WheelerG. E.. 1996. “An Empirical Study of Ethical Redispositions.” Journal of Business Ethics16 (1996): 927–40.
8.
BrunnerP.BianchiL.GugerC.CincottiF.SchalkG.. 2011. “Current Trends in Hardware and Software for Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCIs).” Journal of Neural Engineering8 (2). doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025001.
9.
BurwellS.SampleM.RacineE.. 2017. “Ethical Aspects of Brain Computer Interfaces: A Scoping Review.” BMC Medical Ethics18 (1): 60.
10.
CabreraL. Y.BittlingerM.LouH.MüllerS.IllesJ.. 2018. “The Re-emergence of Psychiatric Neurosurgery: Insights from a Cross-national Study of Newspaper and Magazine Coverage.” Acta Neurochirurgica160 (3): 625–35.
11.
CimpianA.SalomonE.. 2014. “The Inherence Heuristic: An Intuitive Means of Making Sense of the World, and a Potential Precursor to Psychological Essentialism.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences37 (5): 461–80.
12.
CobbM. D.MacoubrieJ.. 2004. “Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research6 (4): 395–405.
13.
CrutzenR.GoüritzA. S.. 2010. “Social Desirability and Self-reported Health Risk Behaviors in Web-based Research: Three Longitudinal Studies.”BMC Public Health10 (1): 720. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-720.
14.
DavidsonD. J.FreudenburgW. R.. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior28 (3): 302–39.
15.
DavisonA.BarnsI.SchibeciR.. 1997. “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values22 (3): 317–48.
16.
Demers-PayetteO.LehouxP.DaudelinG.. 2016. “Responsible Research and Innovation: A Productive Model for the Future of Medical Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation3 (3): 188–208.
17.
DeweyJ.1927. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
18.
DeweyJ.1966. “Three Independent Factors in Morals.” Educational Theory16 (3): 198–209.
19.
De WittA.OsseweijerP.PierceR.. 2017. “Understanding Public Perceptions of Biotechnology through the ‘Integrative Worldview Framework’.” Public Understanding of Science26 (1): 70–88.
20.
DiepL.WolbringG.. 2015. “Perceptions of Brain-Machine Interface Technology among Mothers of Disabled Children.” Disability Studies Quarterly35 (4). doi:10.18061/.v35i4.3856.
21.
DiStefanoC.ZhuM.MindrilaD.. 2009. “Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations for the Applied Researcher.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation14 (20): 1–11.
22.
DoucetH.2005. “Imagining a Neuroethics Which Would Go Further Than Genethics.” American Journal of Bioethics5 (2): 29–31.
23.
DubljevićV.RacineE.. 2014a. “The ADC of Moral Judgment: Opening the Black Box of Moral Intuitions with Heuristics about Agents, Deeds, and Consequences.” American Journal of Bioethics—Neuroscience5 (4): 3–20.
24.
DubljevićV.RacineE.. 2014b. “A Single Cognitive Heuristic Process Meets the Complexity of Domain-specific Moral Heuristics.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences37 (5): 487–88.
25.
DubljevićV.SattlerS.RacineE.. 2018. “Deciphering Moral Intuition: How agents, Deeds, and Consequences Influence Moral Judgment.” PLOS One13 (10): e0204631.
26.
EngelhardtH. T.2002. “The Ordination of Bioethicists as Secular Moral Experts.” Social Philosophy and Policy19 (2): 59–82.
27.
EvansJ. H.2002. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. New York: University of Chicago Press.
28.
FetzE. E.1969. “Operant Conditioning of Cortical Unit Activity.” Science163 (3870): 955–58.
29.
FinucaneM. L.SlovicP.MertzC. K.FlynnJ.SatterfieldT. A.. 2000. “Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The ‘White Male’ Effect.” Health, Risk & Society2 (2): 159–72.
30.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.MertzC. K.. 1994. “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” Risk Analysis14 (6): 1101–8.
31.
FormanP.2007. “The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology.” History and Technology23 (1-2): 1–152.
32.
FunkC.KennedyB.SciupacE.. 2016. US Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to “Enhance” Human Abilities. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
33.
GaskellG.StaresS.AllansdottirA.AllumN.CastroP.EsmerY.FischlerC., et al.2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of Change? A Report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. Luxembourg: European Union.
34.
GauchatG.2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review77 (2): 167–87.
35.
GibsonB. E.CarnevaleF. A.KingG.. 2012. “‘This Is My Way’: Reimagining Disability, In/Dependence and Interconnectedness of Persons and Assistive Technologies.” Disability and Rehabilitation34 (22): 1894–99.
36.
GöritzA. S.2014. “Determinants of the Starting Rate and the Completion Rate in Online Panel Studies.” In Online Panel Research, edited by CallegaroM.BakerR.BethlehemJ.GöritzA. S., 154–70. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
37.
HedgecoeA. M.2004. “Critical Bioethics: Beyond the Social Science Critique of Applied Ethics.” Bioethics18 (2): 120–43.
38.
HugginsJ. E.MoinuddinA. A.ChiodoA. E.WrenP. A.. 2015. “What Would Brain-Computer Interface Users Want: Opinions and Priorities of Potential Users with Spinal Cord Injury.” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation96 (3): S38–45.
39.
HugginsJ. E.WrenP. A.GruisK. L.. 2011. “What Would Brain-Computer Interface Users Want? Opinions and Priorities of Potential Users with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.” Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis12 (5): 318–24.
40.
HurlbutJ. B.2017. Experiments in Democracy: Human Embryo Research and the Politics of Bioethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
IllesJ.SahakianB. J.FedericoC. A.Morein-ZamirS., eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
JasanoffS.2011. “Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology.” Science and Engineering Ethics17 (4): 621–38.
43.
JasanoffS.2016. “Perfecting the Human: Posthuman Imaginaries and Technologies of Reason.” In Perfecting Human Futures: Transhuman Visions and Technological Imaginations, edited by HurlbutJ. B.Tirosh-SamuelsonH., 73–95. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
44.
JasanoffS.KimS. H., eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
JebariK.HanssonS.-O.. 2013. “European Public Deliberation on Brain Machine Interface Technology: Five Convergence Seminars.” Science and Engineering Ethics19 (3): 1071–86.
46.
JolyP.-B.2010. “On the Economics of Techno-scientific Promises.” In Débordements: Mélanges offerts à Michel Callon, edited by AkrichM.BartheY.MuniesaF.MustarP., 203–22. Paris, France: Presses des Mines.
47.
JongbloedL.2003. “Disability Policy in Canada: An Overview.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies13 (4): 203–9.
48.
KellyS. E.2003. “Public Bioethics and Publics: Consensus, Boundaries, and Participation in Biomedical Science Policy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values28 (3): 339–64.
49.
KleinE.BrownT.SampleM.TruittA. R.GoeringS.. 2015. “Engineering the Brain: Ethical Issues and the Introduction of Neural Devices.” Hastings Center Report45 (6): 26–35.
50.
KreuterF.PresserS.TourangeauR.. 2008. “Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity.” Public Opinion Quarterly72 (5): 847–65. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063.
51.
LavrakasP. J.2008. “Economic Exchange Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, edited by LavrakasP. J., 219–20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
MarcusS., ed. 2002. Neuroethics: Mapping the Field. New York: The Dana Foundation.
53.
MaxwellJ.1992. “Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research.” Harvard Educational Review62 (3): 279–301.
54.
McCollM. A.JarzynowskaA.ShorttS. E. D.. 2010. “Unmet Health Care Needs of People with Disabilities: Population Level Evidence.” Disability & Society25 (2): 205–18.
55.
NijboerF.ClausenJ.AllisonB. Z.HaselagerP.. 2013. “The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders’ Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing.” Neuroethics6 (3): 541–78.
56.
NisbetM. C.GoidelR. K.. 2007. “Understanding Citizen Perceptions of Science Controversy: Bridging the Ethnographic—Survey Research Divide.” Public Understanding of Science16 (4): 421–40.
57.
NuyujukianP.SanabriaJ. A.SaabJ.PandarinathC.JarosiewiczB.BlabeC. H.FrancoB., et al.2018. “Cortical Control of a Tablet Computer by People with Paralysis.” PLOS One13 (11): e0204566.
58.
OngA. D.WeissD. J.. 2000. “The Impact of Anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions.1” Journal of Applied Social Psychology30 (8): 1691–708. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02462.x.
59.
PapadimitriouC.2008. “Becoming En-wheeled: The Situated Accomplishment of Re-embodiment as a Wheelchair User after Spinal Cord Injury.” Disability & Society23 (7): 691–704.
60.
PickersgillM.2013. “The Social Life of the Brain: Neuroscience in Society.” Current Sociology61 (3): 322–40.
61.
PilisukM.AcredoloC.. 1988. “Fear of Technological Hazards: One Concern or Many?” Social Behaviour3 (1): 17–24.
62.
PriestleyM.2005. “We’re All Europeans Now! The Social Model of Disability and European Social Policy.” In The Social Model of Disability: Europe and the Majority World, edited by BarnesC.MercerG., 17–31. Leeds, UK: The Disability Press.
63.
Purcell-DavisA.2013. “The Representations of Novel Neurotechnologies in Social Media: Five Case Studies.” The New Bioethics19 (1): 30–45.
64.
RacineE.SampleM.. 2018. “Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics27 (4): 566–77.
65.
RacineE.WaldmanS.PalmourN.RisseD.IllesJ.. 2007. “‘Currents of Hope’: Neurostimulation Techniques in US and UK Print Media.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics16 (3): 312–16.
66.
ReynoldsS. J.2006. “Moral Awareness and Ethical Predispositions: Investigating the Role of Individual Differences in the Recognition of Moral Issues.” Journal of Applied Psychology91 (1): 233–43. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.233.
67.
RoseN.2009. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
RoweG.FrewerL. J.. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (1): 3–29.
69.
RussellS.HauertS.AltmanR.VelosoM.. 2015. “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.” Nature521 (7553): 415–16.
70.
SakshaugJ.WisniowskiA.RuizD. A. P.BlomA. G.. 2018. “The Feasibility of Obtaining Valid Inferences from Nonprobability Surveys.” Paper presented at the XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, Canada, July 18.
71.
ShakespeareT.WatsonN.. 1997. “Defending the Social Model.” Disability & Society12 (2): 293–300.
72.
ShaneS.WakabayashiD.. 2018. “‘The Business of War’: Google Employees Protest Work for the Pentagon.” The New York Times, p. 4.
73.
ShihJ. J.KrusienskiD. J.WolpawJ. R.. 2012. “Brain-Computer Interfaces in Medicine.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings83 (3): 268–79.
74.
SiegristM.2000. “The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology.” Risk Analysis20 (2): 195–204.
75.
SilversA.2011. “Better Than New! Ethics for Assistive Technologists.” In Design and Use of Assistive Technology, edited by OishiM. M.MitchellI. M.Van der LoosH. F., 3–15. New York: Springer.
76.
SimonR. M.2010. “Gender Differences in Knowledge and Attitude towards Biotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science19 (6): 642–53.
SparksP.ShepherdR.FrewerL. J.. 1994. “Gene Technology, Food Production, and Public Opinion: A UK Study.” Agriculture and Human Values11 (1): 19–28.
79.
SparrowR.2010. “Implants and Ethnocide: Learning from the Cochlear Implant Controversy.” Disability & Society25 (4): 455–66.
80.
StallenP. J. M.TomasA.. 1988. “Public Concern about Industrial Hazards.” Risk Analysis8 (2): 237–45.
81.
SullivanL. S.KleinE.BrownT.SampleM.PhamM.TubigP.FollandR.TruittA.GoeringS.. 2018. “Keeping Disability in Mind: A Case Study in Implantable Brain–Computer Interface Research.” Science and Engineering Ethics24 (2): 479–504.
82.
SunsteinC. R.2005. “Moral Heuristics.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences28 (4): 531–42.
83.
van der ScheerL.WiddershovenG.. 2004. “Integrated Empirical Ethics: Loss of Normativity?” Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy7 (1): 71–79.
84.
van VeenF.GöritzA.SattlerS.. 2016. “Response Effects of Prenotification, Prepaid Cash, Prepaid Vouchers, and Postpaid Vouchers: An Experimental Comparison.” Social Science Computer Review34 (3): 333–46.
85.
VidalF.2009. “Brainhood, Anthropological Figure of Modernity.” History of the Human Sciences22 (1): 5–36.
86.
WexlerA.2016. “The Practices of Do-it-yourself Brain Stimulation: Implications for Ethical Considerations and Regulatory Proposals.” Journal of Medical Ethics42 (4): 211–15.
87.
WinanceM.2006. “Trying Out the Wheelchair: The Mutual Shaping of People and Devices through Adjustment.” Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (1): 52–72.
WolbringG.2016. “Employment, Disabled People and Robots: What Is the Narrative in the Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers?” Societies6 (2): 15.
90.
WolbringG.DiepL.. 2016. “Cognitive/Neuroenhancement through an Ability Studies Lens.” In Cognitive Enhancement, edited by JotterandF.DubljevicV., 57–75. New York: Oxford University Press.
91.
World Health Organization and World Bank. 2011. World Report on Disability. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
92.
YusteR.GoeringS.Agüera y ArcasB.BiG.CarmenaJ. M.CarterA.FinsJ. J., et al.2017. “Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI.” Nature News551 (7679): 159.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
