Christian B. J. Hansen
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This paper will explore how ethical concerns change when brain computer interfaces move from a research setting into a commercial setting. This paper will argue that the transition from research to commercial settings might change the intentions for the artefact and will explore hypothesis of what this change might affect. This paper will discuss how possible intentions for brain computer interfaces in commercial settings will have an impact on the products developed and what consequences this might have for individuals and society. The ethical concerns discussed in this paper includes privacy, enhancement and the digital divide. This paper will also present possible future research which could help investigate both the hypothesis put forward and the topic of brain computer interfaces moving from research to commercial settings in general.
- Arstila, V. and Scott, F. 2011. Brain Reading and Mental Privacy. Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences. 15, 2 (2011), 204--212.Google Scholar
- Ball, J. W. 2011. Addressing and overcoming the digital divide in schools. The health education monograph. 28, 3 (2011), 56--59.Google Scholar
- Biosensor Technology | NeuroSky: http://neurosky.com/. Accessed: 2014-11-28.Google Scholar
- Bonaci, T., Calo, R. and Chizeck, H. J. 2014. App stores for the brain: Privacy & security in Brain-Computer Interfaces. 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering (May 2014), 1--7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bos, D. P. 2014. Improving usability through post-processing.Google Scholar
- Corralejo, R., Member, S., Member, S., Álvarez, D., Hornero, R. and Member, S. 2014. Assessment of Neurofeedback Training by means of Motor Imagery based - BCI for Cognitive Rehabilitation. (2014), 3630--3633.Google Scholar
- Crossing the Digital Divide: Bridges and Barriers to Digital Inclusion: 2011. http://www.edutopia.org/digital-divide-technology-access-inclusion. Accessed: 2015-06-02.Google Scholar
- Davidson, D. 1963. ACTIONS, REASONS, AND CAUSES. The Journal of Philosophy. 60, 23 (1963), 685--700.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DiMaggio, P., Hargittati, E., Celeste, C. and Shafer, S. 2004. Digital Inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. Social inequality. K. Neckerman, ed. Russel Sage Foundation. 355--400.Google Scholar
- Emotiv | EEG System | Electroencephalography: http://emotiv.com/. Accessed: 2014-11-28.Google Scholar
- Van Erp, J., Lotte, F. and Tangermann, M. 2012. Brain-Computer Interfaces: Beyond Medical Applications. Computer. 45, 4 (2012), 26--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Friedman, B. and Kahn, Jr., P. H. 2003. Human Values, Ethics, and Design. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grimpe, B., Hartswood, M. and Jirotka, M. 2014. Towards a Closer Dialogue between Policy and Practice : Responsible Design in HCI. (2014), 2965--2974. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haselager, P., Vlek, R., Hill, J. and Nijboer, F. 2009. A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society. 22, 9 (Nov. 2009), 1352--7. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hempel, L., Ostermeier, L., Schaaf, T. and Vedder, D. 2013. Towards a social impact assessment of security technologies: A bottom-up approach. Science and Public Policy. 40, 6 (Dec. 2013), 740--754.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Introduction to Modern Brain-Computer Interface Design: 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlwvgm3AHvc&index=1&list=PLbbCsk7MUIGcO_lZMbyymWU2UezVHNaMq. Accessed: 2015-04-27.Google Scholar
- Kübler, a., Nijboer, F., Mellinger, J., Vaughan, T. M., Pawelzik, H., Schalk, G., McFarland, D. J., Birbaumer, N. and Wolpaw, J. R. 2005. Patients with ALS can use sensorimotor rhythms to operate a brain-computer interface. Neurology. 64, (2005), 1775--1777.Google Scholar
- Nijboer, F., Clausen, J., Allison, B. Z. and Haselager, P. 2013. The asilomar survey: Stakeholders' opinions on ethical issues related to brain-computer interfacing. Neuroethics. 6, (2013), 541--578.Google Scholar
- Nissenbaum, H. 2001. How computer systems embody values. Computer. 34, 3 (2001). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy. 39, 6 (Dec. 2012), 751--760.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rawls, J. 2012. Two Concepts of Rules. Interpretation A Journal Of Bible And Theology. 64, 1 (2012), 3--32.Google Scholar
- Roadmap 2020: 2015. http://bnci-horizon-2020.eu/roadmap. Accessed: 2015-01-08.Google Scholar
- Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the New Millenium Commentary. Neuron. 35, (2002), 21--23.Google Scholar
- Safire, W. 2005. Are Your Thoughts Your Own?: "Neuroprivacy" and the Legal Implications of Brain Imaging The Committee on Science and Law. (2005).Google Scholar
- Schomberg, R. von 2013. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. Responsible Innovation Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. R. Owen, J. Bessant, and M. Heinzt, eds. Wiley. 51--74.Google Scholar
- Schreiber, D. 2012. On social attribution: implications of recent cognitive neuroscience research for race, law, and politics. Science and engineering ethics. 18, 3 (Sep. 2012), 557--66.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. R. 1980. Minds, brains, and programs. (1980), 417--457.Google Scholar
- Toppi, J., Risetti, M., Quitadamo, L. R., Petti, M., Bianchi, L., Salinari, S., Babiloni, F., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D. and Astolfi, L. 2014. Investigating the effects of a sensorimotor rhythm-based BCI training on the cortical activity elicited by mental imagery. Journal of neural engineering. 11, (2014), 035010.Google Scholar
- Wahlstrom, K. 2013. Privacy and Brain-Computer Interfaces: clarifying the risks. AiCE 2013 (Melbourne, 2013), 1--8.Google Scholar
- West, A., Lewis, J. and Currie, P. 2009. Students' Facebook "friends": public and private spheres. May 2015 (2009), 37--41.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- When brain computer interfaces move from research to commercial use
Recommendations
Privacy and brain-computer interfaces: identifying potential privacy disruptions
Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) interpret neural activity, applying it to the control of external devices. As BCIs approach market viability, ethical implications come under consideration. This paper identifies potential privacy disruptions. BCI ...
Towards ambulatory brain-computer interfaces: a pilot study with P300 signals
ACE '09: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment TechnologyBrain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) are communication systems that enable users to interact with computers using only brain activity. This activity is generally measured by ElectroEncephaloGraphy (EEG). A major limitation of BCI is the electrical ...
Comments