Neurological Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 607–613 | Cite as

Ethical considerations on novel neuronal interfaces

  • Kadircan H. Keskinbora
  • Kader Keskinbora
Review Article


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.


Neuronal interfaces Clinical ethics Nanotechnology Neuroethics 


Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 1.
    Perlmutter JS, Mink JW (2006) Deep brain stimulation. Annu Rev Neurosci 29(2):229–257. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 1107212 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boston Retinal Implant Project (BRIP) home page. Accessed 14 February, 2017.
  4. 4.
    Hansson SO (2005) Implant ethics. J Med Ethics 31(9):519–525. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cogan SF (2008) Neural stimulation and recording electrodes. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 10(2):275–309. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. 7.
    Chen R, Canales A, Anikeeva P (2017) Neural recording and modulation technologies. Nat Rev/Mater 2(16093):1–16Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanlon M (2016) Brain implant enables paralyzed woman to communicate by thought. Accessed February, 10 2017
  9. 9.
    Shen H (2013) News in focus—US brain project puts focus on ethics. Nature 500(7462):261–262. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulus W (2011) Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES–tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychol Rehabil 21(5):602–617. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Boston Retinal Implant Project (BRIP). Accessed February, 14 2017.
  14. 14.
    Sanders R (2016) Sprinkling of neural dust opens door to electroceuticals. Accessed February, 10 2017
  15. 15.
    Choi CQ (2016) Wireless “Neural Dust” could monitor your brain. Sand-sized sensor implants give instant feedback from nerve cells. Popular Sci. . Accessed February, 20 2017
  16. 16.
    Seo D, Carmena JM, Rabaey JM, Alon E, Maharbiz MM (2013) Neural dust: an ultrasonic, low power solution for chronic brain-machine interfaces. Accessed February, 10 2017
  17. 17.
    West N (2013) Mind control scientists find new memory manipulation technology. Accessed February, 10 2017
  18. 18.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2012) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerlai R (2003) Memory enhancement: the progress and our fears. Genes Brain Behav 2(2):187–190. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maguire GQ, McGee EM (1999) Implantable brain chips? Time for debate. Hast Cent Rep 29(1):7–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35(1):21–23. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolpe PR (2000) Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics. Brain Cogn 50(4):387–395. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Dodds S (1996) Exercising restraint: autonomy, welfare and elderly patients. J Med Ethics 22(3):160–163. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altmann J (2009) Preventive arms control for uninhabited military vehicles. In: Capurro R, Nagenborg M (eds) Ethics and robotics. AKA Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strout J. Mind uploading home page. Accessed March 4, 2017
  27. 27.
    White RJ (1999) Brain chip: postpone the debate. Hast Cent Rep 29(6):4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Swan M (2016) The future of brain-computer interfaces: blockchaining your way into a cloudmind. J Evol Technol 26 Issue 2 – October 2016. Accessed March 2, 2017
  31. 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. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.History of Medicine and Medical EthicsBahcesehir University, School of MedicineIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Istinye University, School of MedicineIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations