Researcher’s Perspectives on Non-therapeutic Applications of Brain-computer Interface Technology

Peter Zuk – The University of Texas at Arlington; Gabriel Lazaro Munoz – Harvard Medical School; Odile van Stuijvenberg – Utrecht University; Erika Versalovic – Harvard Medical School

Abstract: Brain-based visual prostheses (BVPs) aim to restore a functional analogue of sight for people with acquired blindness. However, there has been limited published consideration of ethical and social implications of BVP research. BVP researcher perspectives are an important input to normative reflection on this emerging technology due to the situated knowledge they can supply to ethical analysis [1].

We interviewed current and former BVP researchers on a range of topics, including those listed above. Here, we present results of interviews (n=20) analyzed using thematic content analysis with a focus on potential non-therapeutic applications of BVP and other contemporary neurotechnologies. Researchers provided input on their awareness of efforts to develop these technologies for non-therapeutic applications, the feasibility of doing so, and the perceived acceptability of such uses.

Researchers expressed a range of views in all three areas (aware-unaware, feasible-infeasible, and acceptable-unacceptable). They also discussed concerns related to agency, cognitive and behavioral control, dual use, fairness, hacking, harmful experiences, identity, mental state decoding, and privacy. Four researchers also articulated a normative concept that we term therapeutic priority, emphasizing the importance of focusing on medical applications of BVPs as opposed to non-medical ones.

1) Niketeghad S, Pouratian N. “Brain Machine Interfaces for Vision Restoration: The Current State of Cortical Visual Prosthetics.” Neurotherapeutics. 2019;16(1):134-143.

Keywords: Brain computer interface, Treatment vs enhancement