Neuroscience

The Future of Neurotechnology: Brain Healing or Brain Hacking?

March 31, 2023
Data Privacy, Human Rights Law, Neuroscience

Gordon Unzen, MJLST Staffer

Brain control and mindreading are no longer ideas confined to the realm of science fiction—such possibilities are now the focus of science in the field of neurotechnology. At the forefront of the neurotechnology revolution is Neuralink, a medical device company owned by Elon Musk. Musk envisions that his device will allow communication with a computer via the brain, restore mobility to the paralyzed and sight to the blind, create mechanisms by which memories can be saved and replayed, give rise to abilities like telepathy, and even transform humans into cyborgs to combat sentient artificial intelligence (AI) machines.[1]

Both theoretical and current applications of brain-interfacing devices, however, raise concerns about infringements upon privacy and freedom of thought, with the technology providing intimate information ripe for exploitation by governments and private companies.[2] Now is the time to consider how to address the ethical issues raised by neurotechnology so that people may responsibly enjoy its benefits.

What is Neurotechnology?

Neurotechnology describes the use of technology to understand the brain and its processes, with goals to control, repair, or improve brain functioning.[3] Neurotechnology research uses techniques that record brain activity such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and that stimulate the brain such as transcranial electrical stimulation (tES).[4] Both research practices and neurotechnological devices can be categorized as invasive, wherein electrodes are surgically implanted in the brain, or non-invasive, which do not require surgery.[5] Neurotechnology research is still in its infancy but development rates will likely continue accelerating with the use of increasingly advanced AI to help make sense of the data.[6]

Work in neurotechnology has already led to the proliferation of applications impacting fields from medicine to policing. Bioresorbable electronic medication speeds up nerve regeneration, deep brain stimulators function as brain pacemakers targeting symptoms of diseases like Parkinson’s, and neurofeedback visualizes brain activity for the real-time treatment of mental illnesses like depression.[7] Recently, a neurotechnological device that stimulates the spinal cord allowed a stroke patient to regain control of her arm.[8] Electroencephalogram (EEG) headsets are used by gamers as a video game controller and by transportation services to track when a truck driver is losing focus.[9] In China, the government uses caps to scan employees’ brainwaves for signs of anxiety, rage, or fatigue.[10] “Brain-fingerprinting” technology, which analyzes whether a subject recognizes a given stimulus, has been used by India’s police since 2003 to ‘interrogate’ a suspect’s brain, although there are questions regarding the scientific validity of the practice.[11]

Current research enterprises in neurotechnology aim to push the possibilities much further. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta financed invasive neurotechnology research using an algorithm that decoded subject’s answers to simple questions from brain activity with a 61% accuracy.[12] The long-term goal is to allow everyone to control their digital devices through thought alone.[13] Musk similarly aims to begin human trials for Neuralink devices designed to help paralyzed individuals communicate without the need for typing, and he hopes this work will eventually allow Neuralink to fully restore their mobility.[14] However, Musk has hit a roadblock in failing to acquire FDA approval for human-testing, despite claiming that Neuralink devices are safe enough that he would consider using them on his children.[15] Others expect that neurofeedback will eventually see mainstream deployment through devices akin to a fitness tracker, allowing people to constantly monitor their brain health metrics.[16]

Ethical Concerns and Neurorights

Despite the possible medical and societal benefits of neurotechnology, it would be dangerous to ignore the ethical red flags raised by devices that can observe and impose on brain functioning. In a world of increasing surveillance, the last bastion of privacy and freedom exists in the brain. This sanctuary is lost when even the brain is subject to data collection practices. Neurotechnology may expose people to dystopian thought policing and hijacking, but more subtly, could lead to widespread adverse psychological consequences as people live in constant fear of their thoughts being made public.[17]

Particularly worrisome is how current government and business practices inform the likely near-future use of data collected by neurotechnology. In law enforcement contexts such as interrogations, neurotechnology could allow the government to cause people to self-incriminate in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Private companies that collect brain data may be required to turn it over to governments, analogous to the use of Fitbit data as evidence in court.[18] If the data do not go to the government, companies may instead sell them to advertisers.[19] Even positive implementations can be taken too far. EEG headsets that allow companies to track the brain activity of transportation employees may be socially desirable, but the widespread monitoring of all employees for productivity is a plausible and sinister next step.

In light of these concerns, ethicist and lawyer Nita Farahany argues for updating human rights law to protect cognitive privacy and liberty.[20] Farahany describes a right of self-determination regarding neurotechnology to secure freedom from interference, to access the technology if desired, and to change one’s own brain by choice.[21] This libertarian perspective acknowledges the benefits of neurotechnology for which many may be willing to sacrifice privacy, while also ensuring that people have an opportunity to say no its imposition. Others take a more paternalistic approach, questioning whether further regulation is needed to limit possible neurotechnology applications. Sigal Samuel notes that cognitive-enhancing tools may create competition that requires people to either use the technology or get left behind.[22] Decisions to engage with neurotechnology thus will not be made with the freedom Farahany imagines.

Conclusion

Neurotechnology holds great promise for augmenting the human experience. The technology will likely play an increasingly significant role in treating physical disabilities and mental illnesses. In the near future, we will see the continued integration of thought as a method to control technology. We may also gain access to devices offering new cognitive abilities from better memory to telepathy. However, using this technology will require people to give up extremely private information about their brain functions to governments and companies. Regulation, whether it takes the form of a revamped notion of human rights or paternalistic lawmaking limiting the technology, is required to navigate the ethical issues raised by neurotechnology. Now is the time to act to protect privacy and liberty.

[1] Rachel Levy & Marisa Taylor, U.S. Regulators Rejected Elon Musk’s Bid to Test Brain Chips in Humans, Citing Safety Risks, Reuters (Mar. 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/neuralink-musk-fda/.

[2] Sigal Samuel, Your Brain May Not be Private Much Longer, Vox (Mar. 17, 2023), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/3/17/23638325/neurotechnology-ethics-neurofeedback-brain-stimulation-nita-farahany.

[3] Neurotechnology, How to Reveal the Secrets of the Human Brain?, Iberdrola,https://www.iberdrola.com/innovation/neurotechnology#:~:text=Neurotechnology%20uses%20different%20techniques%20to,implantation%20of%20electrodes%20through%20surgery(last accessed Mar. 19, 2023).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Margaretta Colangelo, how AI is Advancing NeuroTech, Forbes (Feb. 12, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2020/02/12/how-ai-is-advancing-neurotech/?sh=277472010ab5.

[7] Advances in Neurotechnology Poised to Impact Life and Health Insurance, RGA (July 19, 2022), https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/research/advances-in-neurotechnology-poised-to-impact-life-and-health-insurance.

[8] Stroke Patient Regains Arm Control After Nine Years Using New Neurotechnology, WioNews (Feb. 22, 2023), https://www.wionews.com/trending/stroke-patients-can-regain-arm-control-using-new-neurotechnology-says-research-564285.

[9] Camilla Cavendish, Humanity is Sleepwalking into a Neurotech Disaster, Financial Times (Mar. 3, 2023), https://www.ft.com/content/e30d7c75-90a3-4980-ac71-61520504753b.

[10] Samuel, supra note 2.

[11] Id.

[12] Sigal Samuel, Facebook is Building Tech to Read your Mind. The Ethical Implications are Staggering, Vox (Aug. 5, 2019), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/5/20750259/facebook-ai-mind-reading-brain-computer-interface.

[13] Id.

[14] Levy & Taylor, supra note 1.

[15] Id.

[16] Manuela López Restrepo, Neurotech Could Connect Our Brains to Computers. What Could Go Wrong, Right?, NPR (Mar. 14, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/03/14/1163494707/neurotechnology-privacy-data-tracking-nita-farahany-battle-for-brain-book.

[17] Vanessa Bates Ramirez, Could Brain-Computer Interfaces Lead to ‘Mind Control for Good’?, Singularity Hub (Mar. 16, 2023), https://singularityhub.com/2023/03/16/mind-control-for-good-the-future-of-brain-computer-interfaces/.

[18] Restrepo, supra note 16.

[19] Samuel, supra note 12.

[20] Samuel, supra note 2.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

“Football Is a Microcosm of America”

February 13, 2021
Class Action, Corporate Ethics, Neuroscience, Sports Law

Emily Moss, MJLST Staffer

Sunday’s Super Bowl LV had a notably different tone than in any other year. Cardboard cutouts and masked fans filled the stadium, there was no audience on the field during The Weeknd’s halftime performance, and the NFL aired an anti-racism commercial that opened with the line “football is a microcosm of America.” This commercial, which NPR dubbed the “worst hypocrisy from a sports league,” is the most recent in the NFL’s string of racial justice focused actions. Yet the league where Colin Kaepernick has not played since he knelt in protest of police brutality and racial inequality is unwilling to reckon with its own racial injustices. Days before this year’s atypical Super Bowl aired, ABC News reported on emails it obtained, suggesting that clinicians doing evaluations as part of the NFL’s concussion settlement program were required to use different cognitive scales for Black and White players.

Th ABC News report stemmed from a long line of litigation over NFL players’ head injuries. In 2014, faced with growing research about the effects of professional football on players’ brains and a long list of players who committed suicide in a pattern related to brain injuries, the NFL and a class of “roughly 18,000 retired players and their beneficiaries” entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiffs’ attorneys Sol Weiss and Christopher Seeger stated that the agreement was “an extraordinary settlement for retired NFL players and their families—from those who suffer with neurocognitive illnesses today, to those who are currently healthy but fear they may develop symptoms decades into the future.” Some plaintiffs, however, expressed concern, calling the settlement a “lousy deal” for players whose symptoms would not meet the compensation requirements.

On August 25, 2020, Black NFL retirees Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued the NFL. The complaint claims that “the [NFL concussion] Settlement Agreement is marred by an unacceptable flaw: the National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC (collectively, ‘the NFL’) have been avoiding paying head-injury claims under the Settlement Agreement based on a formula for identifying qualifying diagnoses that explicitly and deliberately discriminates on the basis of race.” Pursuant to the settlement, in order to establish a player’s cognitive function decline, clinicians compare players to a baseline. When determining the baseline, doctors can consider a number of factors, including age, education, and, significantly, race. A scale that uses such “race-norming” assumes that Black players start out with a lower cognitive function baseline than White players. The result is that a Black player may be denied compensation for the same cognitive function that would trigger compensation for a White player. This scheme “is particularly insidious because it presumes Black retirees to be less intelligent than their non-Black fellow retirees.” The complaint thus alleges deprivation of equal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The NFL moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on November 2, 2020. The motion argues that (1) the use of “race-norming” is contemplated by the 2014 judicially-approved settlement to which the plaintiffs were given notice and an opportunity to object, (2) the plaintiffs failed to establish intent to discriminate as required by § 1981, and (3) the plaintiffs failed to establish but-for causation as required by § 1981. The plaintiffs filed a reply in December but the judge has yet not ruled.

In a statement responding to Henry and Davenport’s suit, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell claimed that “[t]he federal court is overseeing the operation and implementation of that settlement, and we are not part of selecting the clinicians, the medical experts, who are making decisions on a day-to-day basis.” However, when Davenport applied for compensation based on a determination from a clinician who did not apply race-norming standards, the NFL appealed his application, claiming “his neuropsychological test scores may have been calculated with improper demographic norm adjustments.” And while the NFL maintains that the settlement program does not require race-norming, according to a recent ABC News report, a neuropsychologist who evaluated NFL players for the settlement program claimed that, in his experience, “when clinicians deviate from the algorithm, there are multiple inquiries levied at them.” Another clinician stated that assessment was “right on target.”

The ABC News investigation supports the lawsuit’s claim that the NFL compensates White and Black players based on different standards. As one clinician put it “[b]ottom line is that the norms do discriminate against Black players . . . [s]o now what? In this time of reckoning, like many professions, I think we need to look closely at the expected and unexpected ramifications of our practices.” While the NFL has not released its settlement statistics, the ramifications of this practice is clear. Black retirees will be denied compensation more than White retirees. In a country where medical racism is prevalent, the NFL is indeed a “microcosm of America.”

Is There a Reasonable Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow?: Legal Ethics, Brain Stimulation and Neuroprosthetics

March 3, 2017
Biotechnology, Ethics, Neuroscience

Angela Fralish, MJLST Invited Blogger

As expert bioethicist Dr. Walter Glannon remarks, “Interventions in the brain raise general ethical questions about weighing the potential benefit of altering neural circuits against the potential harm from neurophysiological and psychological sequelae.” Laws governing human subject research for these interventions mandate that “risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits.” Modern brain technologies in neuroprosthetics make the harm/benefit analysis challenging because there are many unanswered questions surrounding neuroprosthetic implementation.

So what is a neuroprosthetic? Neuroprosthetic devices use electrode muscle and nerve stimulation to produce muscle contraction and restore motor function. Basically, since the brain controls the body, a device is put on the brain telling it to make the body work. Through neuroprosthetics devices, a person may restore movement by bypassing nervous system damage which allows greater independence in daily living. To someone whose dependence is caused by non-working body parts such as blindness, Parkinson’s or spinal cord paralysis, this technology holds great potential for a higher quality of life.

However, the use of a neuroprosthetic may involve negative side effects. Some are more behavioral such as gambling and addiction while others are biological like pain from overstimulation. For instance, Steffen K. Rosahl discusses how “relatives and friends sometimes complain of personality changes in the patient, ranging from transient confusion and bradyphrenia to euphoria or depression.” Further, implanting the device is not an exact science and if done incorrectly, a completely different result may occur such as loss of speech or other unknown changes. Research also indicates that an autonomy-capable neuroprosthetic can influence the brain if its actions go unchecked, making it a threat to the user and his or her surroundings. There are serious risks and concerns associated with the use of neurprosthetic technology.

The juncture of law, science and research is especially prevalent in modern neurological research. The cochlear implant is one such example. While the implant has allowed many children all over the world to hear for the first time, it has also led to shock and convulsions. In Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, Inc., the plaintiffs won a $7.25 million verdict in a negligence action when the manufacturer failed to adequately test or obtain approval for a new material in one of their implant designs. The unanswered legal questions in this case evolved around product recalls for implants, overcoming federal preemption, regulatory laws governing research submissions and product liability. Exactly how does a business recall an implant in someone’s brain!?

Clearly, legal-science partnerships are in high demand in advancing neurological research. Scientists need to understand the law and lawyers need to understand science. This principle is critically important when research institutions weigh the risks and benefits to subjects before that device ever hits the market. As Stephen Breyer, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “In this age of science, we must build legal foundations that are sound in science as well as in law. Scientists have offered their help. We in the legal community should accept that offer.”

Exploring the Final Frontier—The Relevance of Brain Imaging in Litigation

February 15, 2017
Biotechnology, Litigation, Neuroscience

Mary Riverso, MJLST Staffer

Human curiosity and technological advancements have led to the exploration of the ends of the earth, the deep seas, even outer space. We have learned so much about the animals we live amongst, the nooks and crannies of planet Earth, and our role in the universe. But as we continue to explore farther and farther outward, we often overlook how little we actually know about ourselves.

The human brain remains predominantly mysterious and unknown. Neuroscientists continue to attempt to map the brain, to assign different functions and behaviors to the different regions of the brain supposedly responsible for them. However, a thorough understanding remains nearly impossible given the intricate circuitry of brain functioning. While certain areas of the brain are sometimes responsible for discrete tasks, complex functions are not exclusively localized. It is more accurate to think of the brain as composed of neuron circuits – the different regions constantly connecting with one another via neuron circuits to work together to process information and complete tasks. Technological advancements now allow for many groundbreaking and non-invasive means of observing the functioning brain. For example, devices administering scans for functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, monitor blood flow to detect areas of activity. Whereas an electroencephalogram, or EEG, is a test that measures and records the electrical activity of your brain. Finally, magnetoencephalography, or MEG, captures the magnetic fields generated by neural activity. As the capacity and means to monitor brain functioning expand, the potential for successful brain mapping increases. As a result, using brain images resulting from these scans as evidence in litigation becomes more tempting.

The potential for brain imaging to be used as expert evidence in litigation is already being explored. Criminal defendants, such as Herbert Weinstein, want to use the results from brain scans and tests to show that they are not responsible for their criminal actions due to a physical mental disease or defect. Other defense teams see the potential of brain imaging to aid in assessments of truth-telling. Physicians who administer the tests must be willing to testify as expert witnesses to the results and their medical conclusions. Often times, the physicians probe brain function and analyze energy utilization of the brain and then administer tests of human behavior and mental representations to provide a basis for their medical conclusions. However, a major hurdle for potential neuroscientific evidence is its relevance under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 (“FRE 401”). FRE 401 demands that before such evidence be admitted, it must have a tendency to make a fact of consequence more of less probable. But because the brain remains so misunderstand, it is difficult, or arguably impossible, to draw any exact conclusions that a physical disease or defect in fact caused a behavioral or mental defect. As a result, courts have come out on either side of the threshold issue in FRE 401 – some have found that the neuroscientific evidence is appropriate for consideration by a jury who can decide what inferences to draw from it, while others find that this kind of evidence is too prejudicial while being only minimally probative and exclude the evidence under FRE 403, and still others allow the evidence but only for limited purposes, such as the sentencing phase of proceedings instead of the guilt phase. As technology continues to advance and neuroscientists continue to learn more about brain functioning, this kind of evidence may become commonplace in litigation. But for now, the admissibility decision seems to be fact-and-circumstance dependent, based on the case, the expert, the evidence, and the judge.

Culpability in Criminal Law and the Emerging Field of Neuroscience

February 26, 2016
Criminal Law, Neuroscience

Daniel Mensching, MJLST Staffer

Criminal law has long held that people are accountable for their behavior and that most behavior is intentional and conscious. This is necessary for the legal system to determine culpability and therefore warrant punishment. In his article Blaming the Brain, Seven K. Erickson explores how the still young field of cognitive neuroscience is beginning to challenge traditional notions of free will independent action and potential legal consequences of this shift in understanding. While the implications for emerging understandings of neuroscience are far-reaching and delve into areas such as psychology and philosophy, viewing human actions as mechanical and absent of free will raises serious questions in the field of law as well, especially criminal law.

Cognitive neuroscience, though still in its infancy, holds the potential to explain all human behavior as a result of involuntary processes occurring within the brain. According to Erickson, cognitive neuroscience leads us to the view that “we are a passive audience to the electrical cadence of neuronal firings buried deep within our heads” and that “what we perceive as the mind is nothing more than a cognitive adaptation established by our brains to allow higher-ordered behavior.” This view is entirely incompatible with the notion of human agency that holds that people evaluate their environments and make choices.

Many exceptions are already made, both in the legal system and in general, for people with certain mental defects. While some defects are obvious, the list of recognizable mental disorders is growing rapidly. The number of official diagnosable mental disorders has increased by almost 300% in the past 50. Behaviors that were once considered indicative of poor character are now considered medical disorders. What could have been considered laziness or immaturity 50 years ago can now be treated with a prescription for amphetamines, a drug considered addictive and dangerous and is therefore illegal for the general public. Many of these diagnoses are made based on inherently subjective criteria. Criminal law already contains the affirmative defense of insanity, and cognitive neuroscience begs the question of how and to what extent neurological conditions should influence culpability and punishment.

But the criminal system is not aimed solely at punishing for the sake of justice. Another main goal of criminal law is to reduce crime in society, both by deterring would-be criminals and by reducing recidivism. While understanding human behavior as simple mechanics may make punishment seem irrational, cognitive neuroscience aims to ameliorate the criminal justice system by understanding the causes of criminal behavior and therefore being able to effectively predict crime and rehabilitate offenders.

Neuroscience

Contact Information