Will these five NeuroRights help harness emerging neurotechnologies for the common good?

__

Data for Good: Bio­log­i­cal Sci­en­tist, DSI Mem­ber Rafael Yuste on the Eth­i­cal Devel­op­ment of Neu­rotech­nol­o­gy (Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty release):

“Brain-com­put­er inter­faces may soon have the pow­er to decode people’s thoughts and inter­fere with their men­tal activ­i­ty. Even now the inter­faces, or BCIs, which link brains direct­ly to dig­i­tal net­works, are help­ing brain-impaired patients and amputees per­form sim­ple motor tasks such as mov­ing a cur­sor, con­trol­ling a motor­ized wheel­chair, or direct­ing a robot­ic arm. And non­in­va­sive BCI’s that can under­stand words we want to type and place them onto screens are being developed.

But in the wrong hands, BCIs could be used to decode pri­vate thoughts, inter­fere with free will, and pro­found­ly alter human nature.

To counter that pos­si­bil­i­ty, Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty pro­fes­sor of bio­log­i­cal sci­ences and Data Sci­ence Insti­tute mem­ber Rafael Yuste found­ed the Neu­roR­ights Ini­tia­tive, which advo­cates for the respon­si­ble and eth­i­cal devel­op­ment of neu­rotech­nol­o­gy. The ini­tia­tive puts forth eth­i­cal codes and human rights direc­tives that pro­tect peo­ple from poten­tial­ly harm­ful neu­rotech­nolo­gies by ensur­ing the benign devel­op­ment of brain-com­put­er inter­faces and relat­ed neurotechnologies.”

The five Neu­roR­ights are:

The Right to Per­son­al Iden­ti­ty: Bound­aries must be devel­oped to pro­hib­it tech­nol­o­gy from dis­rupt­ing the sense of self or blur­ring the line between a person’s inter­nal pro­cess­ing and exter­nal tech­no­log­i­cal inputs;

The Right to Free Will: Peo­ple should con­trol their own deci­sion mak­ing, with­out manip­u­la­tion from exter­nal neurotechnologies;

The Right to Men­tal Pri­va­cy: Data obtained from mea­sur­ing neur­al activ­i­ty should be kept pri­vate, and the sale, com­mer­cial trans­fer, and use of neur­al data should be strict­ly regulated;

The Right to Equal Access to Men­tal Aug­men­ta­tion: Glob­al guide­lines should be estab­lished to ensure the fair and just access to men­tal-enhance­ment neu­rotech­nolo­gies that could fur­ther increase soci­etal and eco­nom­ic dis­par­i­ties; and

The Right to Pro­tec­tion from Algo­rith­mic Bias: Coun­ter­mea­sures to com­bat bias should be the norm for machine learn­ing when used with­in neu­rotech­nol­o­gy devices, and algo­rithm design should include input from user groups to counter bias.

News in Context:

• A call to action: We need the right incen­tives to guide eth­i­cal inno­va­tion in neu­rotech and healthcare
• Let’s antic­i­pate the poten­tial mis­use of neu­ro­log­i­cal data to min­i­mize the risks–and max­i­mize the benefits
• New report: Empow­er­ing 8 Bil­lion Minds via Eth­i­cal Devel­op­ment and Adop­tion of Neurotechnologies
• Grow­ing debate about the ethics and reg­u­la­tion of direct-to-con­sumer tran­scra­nial direct cur­rent stim­u­la­tion (tDCS)
• First, do no harm? Com­mon anti­cholin­er­gic meds seen to increase demen­tia risk
• The FDA cre­ates new Dig­i­tal Health unit to reimag­ine reg­u­la­to­ry paths in the age of scal­able, AI-enhanced innovation
• Five rea­sons the future of brain enhance­ment is dig­i­tal, per­va­sive and (hope­ful­ly) bright

How to address pri­va­cy, eth­i­cal and reg­u­la­to­ry issues: Exam­ples in cog­ni­tive enhance­ment, depres­sion and ADHD from Sharp­Brains