User:Bart Casabona/Brain–computer interface

As technology continually blurs the line between science fiction and reality, the advent of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) poses a profound ethical quandary. These neural interfaces, heralded as marvels of innovation, facilitate direct communication between the human brain and external devices. However, the ethical landscape surrounding BCIs is intricate and multifaceted, encompassing concerns of privacy invasion, autonomy, consent, and the potential societal implications of merging human cognition with machine interfaces. Delving into the ethical considerations of BCIs illuminates the intricate balance between technological advancement and safeguarding fundamental human rights and values. Many of the concerns raised can be divided into two groups, user centric issues and legal and social issues.

Ethical concerns in the user centric sphere tend to revolve around the safety of the user and the effects that this technology will have on said user over a period of time. These can include but are not limited to: long-term effects to the user remain largely unknown, obtaining informed consent from people who have difficulty communicating, the consequences of BCI technology for the quality of life of patients and their families, health-related side-effects (e.g. neurofeedback of sensorimotor rhythm training is reported to affect sleep quality), therapeutic applications and their potential misuse, safety risks, non-convertibility of some of the changes made to the brain, lack of access to maintenance, repair and spare parts in case of company bankruptcy, etc. However these issues are similar to issues in any new product, like a new vaccine.

The legal and social aspect of BCIs is a metaphorical minefield for any entity attempting to make BCIs mainstream. Some of these concerns would be issues of accountability and responsibility: claims that the influence of BCIs overrides free will and control over sensory-motor actions, claims that cognitive intention was inaccurately translated due to a BCI malfunction, personality changes involved caused by deep-brain stimulation, concerns regarding the state of becoming a "cyborg" - having parts of the body that are living and parts that are mechanical, questions about personality: what does it mean to be a human, blurring of the division between human and machine and inability to distinguish between human vs. machine-controlled actions, use of the technology in advanced interrogation techniques by governmental authorities, “brain hacking” or the unauthorized access of someones BCI , selective enhancement and social stratification, mind reading and privacy, tracking and "tagging system", mind control, movement control, and emotion control. In addition many researchers have theorized that BCIs would only worsen social inequalities seen today.

In their current form, most BCIs are far removed from the ethical issues considered above. They are actually similar to corrective therapies in function. Clausen stated in 2009 that "BCIs pose ethical challenges, but these are conceptually similar to those that bioethicists have addressed for other realms of therapy". Moreover, he suggests that bioethics is well-prepared to deal with the issues that arise with BCI technologies. Haselager and colleagues pointed out that expectations of BCI efficacy and value play a great role in ethical analysis and the way BCI scientists should approach media. Furthermore, standard protocols can be implemented to ensure ethically sound informed-consent procedures with locked-in patients.

The case of BCIs today has parallels in medicine, as will its evolution. Similar to how pharmaceutical science began as a balance for impairments and is now used to increase focus and reduce need for sleep, BCIs will likely transform gradually from therapies to enhancements. Efforts are made inside the BCI community to create consensus on ethical guidelines for BCI research, development and dissemination. As innovation continues, ensuring equitable access to BCIs will be crucial, failing which generational inequalities can arise which can adversely affect the right to human flourishing.