Sara Goering, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Washington.
Sara Goering is co-author of an article published in the journal Nature where he advocates, as part of a group of internationally renowned experts, for the need to establish an ethical code and legislation that regulates the application of brain devices. He explains how this technology could condition the way of being of citizens.
P. Why is it necessary to establish an ethical code for the implantation of brain devices?
R. Implanted brain devices hold great promise for addressing disease or injury, but they also provide a unique type of access that could serve to alter our neural activity. Given that our neural activity is the basis that defines the way we think and who we are (our consciousness, our memories, our personality, our responsibility for action, everything is in our brain activity), we must be careful when advancing in the design of devices that can significantly alter the way we think about ourselves and the world.
P. How could these devices change our brain?
R. deep brain stimulators [como los microchips implantados en el cerebro] They significantly help Parkinson’s patients with the problems of tremor and muscle stiffness. But some people also experience psychosocial changes, they feel an increase in impulsivity, personality changes… The devices have effects on our behavior but those effects are difficult to perceive, so they can make the patient have an ambiguous feeling about control of their actions. They may feel like they don’t know how much the device is influencing their behaviors or thoughts and how much is up to them.
P. So would it be possible to hack humans and change their will, for example?
R. Currently, to my knowledge, that level of specificity is not possible, but the vulnerability of a device to hacking is of great concern. If a hacker can alter the way a device works, then he could command a robotic arm to move in a particular way that the user did not intend. Or it could change the patterns of stimulation in a brain microchip to make someone feel different. Since those states also influence the will, it would be an indirect manipulation of the will.
P. Who decides if a device is going to improve the brain or not?
R. People could decide for themselves if they want a device or if it is an improvement for them. But determining which devices to make requires a broader societal conversation about the potential individual benefits and dangers of certain types of control and access to the brain. It is particularly important to listen to people with disabilities, who could benefit most from this technology, to be clear about what types of devices are preferable and for what reasons; and how much is it reasonable for us to give up in privacy, for example.
Improved memory is attractive to most of us, but the ability to forget is also incredibly valuable.
P. What if only a select few can afford to have these devices implanted?
R. This may happen at first. These questions need to be addressed, as some of the enhanced capabilities could potentially give the people who use them competitive advantages, although this is not currently happening. I think an even more important question is that we consider the implications of improving some of the capabilities that look promising but might not be as valuable as they seem. For example, enhanced memory is attractive to most of us as we age, but the ability to forget is also incredibly valuable and should not be underestimated.
P. Could a new social gap be created between those who have access to cognitive enhancements and those who cannot afford it?
R. Possibly, but it depends on the type of technologies used. That someone can connect directly to the Internet with their mind or that they can go from thoughts to text messages without the need to type (as Facebook and Neuralink hope) would allow them to access information faster, but that would not be enough for me to think more clearly or better. Having capabilities controlled by brain-computer interfaces could allow us to do things with thought and could make us more productive or less dependent on the limitations of our own musculature, which could create a kind of gap.
P. If the use of these devices spreads but not everyone has the same access to them, could we become almost two different types of humans?
R. It depends on the technology we consider. Most of today’s devices are designed to help people achieve functioning that is normal and not superhuman or completely different from human. However, opening up access to the brain allows for different experiences than are typically human. If a device can stimulate my sensory cortex to make me feel like I’m touching something my body isn’t touching, then virtual worlds can become convincingly real. If devices can significantly improve a person’s memory or give them a way to send messages to other people’s brains without speaking (as some brain-to-brain interface studies suggest), then at least norms about being human as we understand today could change, depending on whether people have implants or not.
P. Do you think it is possible to achieve equitable access to neurotechnologies to improve the brain?
R. For starters, we don’t have the same access to basic mental health care, at least in the US, so I’m not very hopeful that we’ll have the same access to mind-enhancement technologies. Addressing equality of access is a serious concern, but it is perhaps more important to determine whether the alleged improvements are really improvements and whether they are worth pursuing.
