Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical considerations on novel neuronal interfaces

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Neurological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wireless powered implants, each smaller than a grain of rice, have the potential to scan and stimulate brain cells. Further research may lead to next-generation brain-machine interfaces for controlling prosthetics, exoskeletons, and robots, as well as “electroceuticals” to treat disorders of the brain and body. In conditions that can be particularly alleviated with brain stimulation, the use of such mini devices may pose certain challenges. Health professionals are becoming increasingly more accountable in decision-making processes that have impacts on the life quality of individuals. It is possible to transmit such stimulation using remote control principles. Perhaps, the most important concern regarding the use of these devices termed as “neural dust” is represented by the possibility of controlling affection and other mental functions via waves reaching the brain using more advanced versions of such devices. This will not only violate the respect for authority principle of ethics, but also medical ethics, and may potentially lead to certain incidents of varying vehemence that may be considered illegal. Therefore, a sound knowledge and implementation of ethical principles is becoming a more important issue on the part of healthcare professionals. In both the ethical decision-making process and in ethical conflicts, it may be useful to re-appraise the principles of medical ethics. In this article, the ethical considerations of these devices are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perlmutter JS, Mink JW (2006) Deep brain stimulation. Annu Rev Neurosci 29(2):229–257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Suthana N, Haneef Z, Stern J, Mukamel R, Behnke E, Knowlton B, Fried I (2012) Memory enhancement and deep-brain stimulation of the entorhinal area. N Engl J Med 366(6):502–510. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa 1107212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Boston Retinal Implant Project (BRIP) home page. http://www.bostonretinalimplant.org Accessed 14 February, 2017.

  4. Hansson SO (2005) Implant ethics. J Med Ethics 31(9):519–525. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004009803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cogan SF (2008) Neural stimulation and recording electrodes. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 10(2):275–309. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.10.061807.160518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cramer SC, Sur M, Dobkin BH, O'Brien C, Sanger TD, Trojanowski JQ, Rumsey JM, Hicks R, Cameron J, Chen D, Chen WG, Cohen LG, deCharms C, Duffy CJ, Eden GF, Fetz EE, Filart R, Freund M, Grant SJ, Haber S, Kalivas PW, Kolb B, Kramer AF, Lynch M, Mayberg HS, McQuillen PS, Nitkin R, Pascual-Leone A, Reuter-Lorenz P, Schiff N, Sharma A, Shekim L, Stryker M, Sullivan EV, Vinogradov S Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications. Brain 134(6):1591–1609. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr039

  7. Chen R, Canales A, Anikeeva P (2017) Neural recording and modulation technologies. Nat Rev/Mater 2(16093):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanlon M (2016) Brain implant enables paralyzed woman to communicate by thought. http://newatlas.com/utrecht-mind-machine-interface/46475/. Accessed February, 10 2017

  9. Shen H (2013) News in focus—US brain project puts focus on ethics. Nature 500(7462):261–262. https://doi.org/10.1038/500261a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paulus W (2011) Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES–tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychol Rehabil 21(5):602–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2011.557292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramirez S, Liu X, Lin PA, Suh J, Pignatelli M, Redondo RL, Ryan TJ, Tonegawa S (2013) Creating a false memory in the hippocampus. Science 341(6144):387–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Han W, Tellez LA, Rangel MJ Jr, Motta SC, Zhang X, Perez IO, Canteras NS, Shammah-Lagnado SJ, van den Pol AN, de Araujo IE (2017) Integrated control of predatory hunting by the central nucleus of the amygdala. Cell 168(1–2):311–324 e318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. The Boston Retinal Implant Project (BRIP). http://www.bostonretinalimplant.org/ Accessed February, 14 2017.

  14. Sanders R (2016) Sprinkling of neural dust opens door to electroceuticals. https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/03/sprinkling-of-neural-dust-opens-door-to-electroceuticals/. Accessed February, 10 2017

  15. Choi CQ (2016) Wireless “Neural Dust” could monitor your brain. Sand-sized sensor implants give instant feedback from nerve cells. Popular Sci. https://www.popsci.com/tiny-wireless-implants-could-monitor-your-brain . Accessed February, 20 2017

  16. Seo D, Carmena JM, Rabaey JM, Alon E, Maharbiz MM (2013) Neural dust: an ultrasonic, low power solution for chronic brain-machine interfaces. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2196v1.pdf. Accessed February, 10 2017

  17. West N (2013) Mind control scientists find new memory manipulation technology. http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/mind-control-scientists-successfully.html. Accessed February, 10 2017

  18. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2012) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gerlai R (2003) Memory enhancement: the progress and our fears. Genes Brain Behav 2(2):187–190. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1601-183X.2003.00019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maguire GQ, McGee EM (1999) Implantable brain chips? Time for debate. Hast Cent Rep 29(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/3528533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35(1):21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolpe PR (2000) Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics. Brain Cogn 50(4):387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00534-1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Giordano J. Neurotechnological progress: the need for neuroethics. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/BBVA-OpenMind-James-Giordano-Neurotechnological-Progress-The-Need-for-Neuroethics.pdf Accessed March 12, 2017

  24. Dodds S (1996) Exercising restraint: autonomy, welfare and elderly patients. J Med Ethics 22(3):160–163. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.3.160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Altmann J (2009) Preventive arms control for uninhabited military vehicles. In: Capurro R, Nagenborg M (eds) Ethics and robotics. AKA Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  26. Strout J. Mind uploading home page. http://ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/MUHomePage.html Accessed March 4, 2017

  27. White RJ (1999) Brain chip: postpone the debate. Hast Cent Rep 29(6):4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527863

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Amanda Martin A, Becker K, Darragh M, Giordano J (2016) A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: part 3—“second tradition neuroethics”—ethical issues in neuroscience. Philosophy Ethics Humanities Med 11(1):7–62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-016-0037-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marcus G, Koch C. The future of brain implants http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/the-future-of-brain-implants/news-story/0721c077d78177ae56e04c823bbaba8c. Accessed February 23, 2017

  30. Swan M (2016) The future of brain-computer interfaces: blockchaining your way into a cloudmind. J Evol Technol 26 Issue 2 – October 2016. http://jetpress.org/v26.2/swan.htm Accessed March 2, 2017

  31. Tomasik B (2011) Risks of astronomical future suffering. Foundational Research Institute (Last update: 26 Aug 2017) http://foundationalresearchorg/publications/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/. Accessed August 28, 2017

  32. Marchesano J, Brenner S (2010) Nanotechnology in biology: understanding future ethical dilemmas from past technologies. Ethics Biol Eng Med (EBEM) 1(4):247–258. https://doi.org/10.1615/EthicsBiologyEngMed.v1.i4.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kader Keskinbora contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. History of Medicine and Medical Ethics, Bahcesehir University, School of Medicine, Incirli Cad. 43-5, Bakirkoy, 34159, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kadircan H. Keskinbora

  2. Istinye University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kader Keskinbora

Authors
  1. Kadircan H. Keskinbora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kader Keskinbora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kadircan H. Keskinbora.

Ethics declarations

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keskinbora, K.H., Keskinbora, K. Ethical considerations on novel neuronal interfaces. Neurol Sci 39, 607–613 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-3209-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-017-3209-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation