Will better neurotech regulations be enough to address privacy, effectiveness and potential harm concerns?

See above the fas­ci­nat­ing pre­sen­ta­tions by Dr. Anna Wexler, Dr. Karen Rom­melfanger and Jacque­line Stud­er on pri­va­cy and ethics dur­ing the 2019 Sharp­Brains Vir­tu­al Sum­mit.

We still lack clear stan­dards and tax­onomies for neu­rotech­nol­o­gy but sev­er­al ini­tia­tives are under­way to antic­i­pate and address the chal­lenges. One impor­tant take-away is that it is impor­tant to be aspi­ra­tional and prag­mat­ic rather than “legal­is­tic” — by con­sid­er­ing diverse pol­i­cy and indus­try per­spec­tives, striv­ing for the widest ben­e­fit with the min­i­mum risks, and bet­ter edu­cat­ing users, we can enable ben­e­fi­cial inno­va­tion in ways that reg­u­la­tion alone –as impor­tant as it is– cannot.

News in Context:

• A call to action: We need the right incen­tives to guide eth­i­cal inno­va­tion in neu­rotech and healthcare
• Neu­ro­engi­neer­ing meets neu­roethics to address treat­ment-resis­tant depression
• The Nation­al Acad­e­my of Med­i­cine (NAM) shares dis­cus­sion paper to help empow­er 8 bil­lion minds
• Debate: What are the ethics of dis­cour­ag­ing much-need­ed inno­va­tion giv­en poten­tial pri­va­cy concerns?
• We need to rethink neu­ro­science. And you can help us
• 10 high­lights from the 2019 Sharp­Brains Vir­tu­al Summit
• Five rea­sons the future of brain enhance­ment is dig­i­tal, per­va­sive and (hope­ful­ly) bright