Neurotechnologies, such as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neuroprosthetics, and advanced neural monitoring devices, offer groundbreaking benefits. They hold the promise of treating neurological disorders, enabling the disabled, and even enhancing human cognitive capabilities. However, these technologies also raise significant ethical, privacy, and security concerns. For instance, without stringent ethical regulations advancements in neurotechnology could lead to issues of consent, mental privacy, or even socio-economic inequalities; amplified by access to enhancement technologies. Paweł Świeboda "…if neurotechnologies converge then so should governance" emphasises the imperative that ethical regulatory frameworks adapt in tandem with technological advances. Current governance structures, often siloed and reactive, may not be sufficient to address the complex, cross-disciplinary impacts of neurotechnological advancements. Read on here!👇🏼
Five years after its pioneering Recommendation for Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, to which 39 countries have adhered to date, the OECD - OCDE presented its #Neurotechnology Toolkit yesterday in Paris: https://lnkd.in/eDnHXmx5. The aim is to provide a boost to anticipatory #governance, covering each step of the technology development process. The effort has been exemplary and spans 62 national and international cases of good practice from 18 countries. Big kudos to Jerry Sheehan, David Winickoff and Laura K. and the team. The crux of the matter is that the development of technology is accelerating. Neurotechnology devices are also becoming ever more accessible in the consumer space. As Steve Gullans, CEO of Thynk, said at the launch conference, “today, people can build anything with EEG and sensors”. The discovery phase is on, and this traditionally means both dazzling opportunities and big risks. Therapies are evaluated but non-therapeutic approaches are not evaluated for side effects and risks, the former President of Federation of European Neuroscience Societies - FENS Jean-Antoine Girault pointed out. The latter is deeply worrying. In this context, actionable policy needs to be prioritized. Brain-related data, which is currently not included in the sensitive category of #health data, must be protected as well. Updating user consent provisions is also important, to ensure people are fully aware of what future they are logging into. Similarly, there should always be the right to opt out, which assumes reversibility of the technology. Complexity of issues around ethics and rights means that participatory processes and dialogue are essential, as Karen Rommelfanger, PhD emphasized. The issue of agency cannot be left unaddressed. Agreeing on the definition of human enhancement is a massive challenge. What is enhancement to you, might not be enhancement to me. The more overarching issue is that even though technologies are unevenly distributed, the prospect of human enhancement concerns everybody with no exception. We do not want to add a new layer to what is already a world full of inequalities, argued Aida Ponce Del Castillo. Given how porous the boundary line between the two is becoming, it is not useful to draw the line between projects with a therapeutic objective and those aiming at human enhancement. Red lines should be around the values, said Siobhán O'Sullivan. As Marcello Ienca, who eloquently moderated the launch session, stressed in his concluding remarks, there is extensive technology conversion. Human enhancement comes from bio-, nano-, neuro- and other technologies. If technologies converge, so should governance. One should be able to accelerate innovation but also press the brakes, if needed. The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG Virginia Mahieu Maria Koomen Institute of Neuroethics (IoNx)
Human Rights Advisor (Business and Technology)
6moAndrea Olivares Jones Sinali R.