Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies

Kate S Gaudry; Hasan Ayaz; Avery Bedows; Pablo Celnik; David Eagleman; Pulkit Grover; Judy Illes; Rajesh P N Rao; Jacob T Robinson; Krishnan Thyagarajan; Working Group on Brain-Interfacing Devices in 2040

doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.658930

Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies

Front Neurosci. 2021 Nov 15:15:658930. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.658930. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Kate S Gaudry¹, Hasan Ayaz^{2

3

4

5

6}, Avery Bedows⁷, Pablo Celnik⁸, David Eagleman⁹, Pulkit Grover^{10

11}, Judy Illes^{12

13}, Rajesh P N Rao¹⁴, Jacob T Robinson^{15

16

17

18}, Krishnan Thyagarajan¹⁹; Working Group on Brain-Interfacing Devices in 2040

Collaborators

Working Group on Brain-Interfacing Devices in 2040:
Nena Bains, John Brigagliano, Robert Carter, Caleb Kemere, Mark P Mathison, Jon Neiditz, Karen Rommelfanger, Joseph Snyder

Affiliations

¹ Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC, United States.
² School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
³ Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
⁴ Drexel Solutions Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
⁵ Department of Family and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
⁶ Center for Injury Research and Prevention, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
⁷ Substrate Group, New York, NY, United States.
⁸ Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
⁹ Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
¹⁰ Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
¹¹ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
¹² Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
¹³ Neuroethics Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
¹⁴ Center for Neurotechnology, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, DC, United States.
¹⁵ Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
¹⁶ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
¹⁷ Applied Physics Program, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
¹⁸ Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
¹⁹ Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), A Xerox Company, Palo Alto, CA, United States.

Abstract

Traditionally, recording from and stimulating the brain with high spatial and temporal resolution required invasive means. However, recently, the technical capabilities of less invasive and non-invasive neuro-interfacing technology have been dramatically improving, and laboratories and funders aim to further improve these capabilities. These technologies can facilitate functions such as multi-person communication, mood regulation and memory recall. We consider a potential future where the less invasive technology is in high demand. Will this demand match that the current-day demand for a smartphone? Here, we draw upon existing research to project which particular neuroethics issues may arise in this potential future and what preparatory steps may be taken to address these issues.

Keywords: brain interfacing; brain recording; brain stimulation; ethics; minutely invasive; neuroethics; non-invasive; policy.

Publication types

Review