Explore the vast range of titles available.

Current BCI technology is mainly focused on therapeutic outcomes, such as helping people with spinal-cord injuries. It might take years or even decades until BCI and other neurotechnologies are part of our daily lives. Such advances could revolutionize the treatment of many conditions, from brain injury and paralysis to epilepsy and schizophrenia, and transform human experience for the better. But the technology could also exacerbate social inequalities and offer corporations, hackers, governments or anyone else new ways to exploit and manipulate people.

Background Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) is a set of technologies that are of increasing interest to researchers. BCI has been proposed as assistive technology for individuals who are non-communicative or paralyzed, such as those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or spinal cord injury. The technology has also been suggested for enhancement and entertainment uses, and there are companies currently marketing BCI devices for those purposes (e.g., gaming) as well as health-related purposes (e.g., communication). The unprecedented direct connection created by BCI between human brains and computer hardware raises various ethical, social, and legal challenges that merit further examination and discussion. Methods To identify and characterize the key issues associated with BCI use, we performed a scoping review of biomedical ethics literature, analyzing the ethics concerns cited across multiple disciplines, including philosophy and medicine. Results Based on this investigation, we report that BCI research and its potential translation to therapeutic intervention generate significant ethical, legal, and social concerns, notably with regards to personhood, stigma, autonomy, privacy, research ethics, safety, responsibility, and justice. Our review of the literature determined, furthermore, that while these issues have been enumerated extensively, few concrete recommendations have been expressed. Conclusions We conclude that future research should focus on remedying a lack of practical solutions to the ethical challenges of BCI, alongside the collection of empirical data on the perspectives of the public, BCI users, and BCI researchers.

Ethical issues concerning brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) have already received a considerable amount of attention. However, one particular form of BCI has not received the attention that it deserves: Affective BCIs that allow for the detection and stimulation of affective states. This paper brings the ethical issues of affective BCIs in sharper focus. The paper briefly reviews recent applications of affective BCIs and considers ethical issues that arise from these applications. Ethical issues that affective BCIs share with other neurotechnologies are presented and ethical concerns that are specific to affective BCIs are identified and discussed.

Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) enable direct communication between the brain and external computers, allowing processing of brain activity and the ability to control external devices. While often used for medical purposes, BCIs may also hold great promise for nonmedical purposes to unlock human neurocognitive potential. In this Essay, we discuss the prospects and challenges of using BCIs for cognitive enhancement, focusing specifically on invasive enhancement BCIs (eBCIs). We discuss the ethical, legal, and scientific implications of eBCIs, including issues related to privacy, autonomy, inequality, and the broader societal impact of cognitive enhancement technologies. We conclude that the development of eBCIs raises challenges far beyond practical pros and cons, prompting fundamental questions regarding the nature of conscious selfhood and about who—and what—we are, and ought, to be.

Brain implants are being trialled for their potential to ameliorate treatment-resistant conditions or to restore function. However, there are no clear guidelines for continued access to brain implants for trial participants whose symptoms improve with these devices.

Brain-controlled prosthetic robots that restore independent activities of daily living to paralyzed people are about to enter everyday life environments (1). The regained ability to grasp a cup of coffee, hand over a credit card, or sign a document with a pen (1) enhances the independence and self-determination of severely paralyzed individuals. However, introducing devices controlled via brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) into everyday environments, possibly enhancing the capabilities of able-bodied people to interact with digital devices, raises a number of ethical and social challenges in the areas of (i) autonomy, responsibility, and accountability; (ii) data security and privacy; and (iii) managing end-user expectations about a promising field of medical advances. We here take a closer look at these issues and suggest some possible answers to addressing them.

Background The rapid expansion of research on Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) is not only due to the promising solutions offered for persons with physical impairments. There is also a heightened need for understanding BCIs due to the challenges regarding ethics presented by new technology, especially in its impact on the relationship between man and machine. Here we endeavor to present a scoping review of current studies in the field to gain insight into the complexity of BCI use. By examining studies related to BCIs that employ social research methods, we seek to demonstrate the multitude of approaches and concerns from various angles in considering the social and human impact of BCI technology. Methods For this scoping review of research on BCIs’ social and ethical implications, we systematically analyzed six databases, encompassing the fields of medicine, psychology, and the social sciences, in order to identify empirical studies on BCIs. The search yielded 73 publications that employ quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Results Of the 73 publications, 71 studies address the user perspective. Some studies extend to consideration of other BCI stakeholders such as medical technology experts, caregivers, or health care professionals. The majority of the studies employ quantitative methods. Recurring themes across the studies examined were general user opinion towards BCI, central technical or social issues reported, requests/demands made by users of the technology, the potential/future of BCIs, and ethical aspects of BCIs. Conclusions Our findings indicate that while technical aspects of BCIs such as usability or feasibility are being studied extensively, comparatively little in-depth research has been done on the self-image and self-experience of the BCI user. In general there is also a lack of focus or examination of the caregiver’s perspective.

The rapidly advancing field of brain-computer (BCI) and brain-to-brain interfaces (BBI) is stimulating interest across various sectors including medicine, entertainment, research, and military. The developers of large-scale brain-computer networks, sometimes dubbed ‘Mindplexes’ or ‘Cloudminds’, aim to enhance cognitive functions by distributing them across expansive networks. A key technical challenge is the efficient transmission and storage of information. One proposed solution is employing blockchain technology over Web 3.0 to create decentralised cognitive entities. This paper explores the potential of a decentralised web for coordinating large brain-computer constellations, and its associated benefits, focusing in particular on the conceptual and ethical challenges this innovation may pose pertaining to (1) Identity, (2) Sovereignty (encompassing Autonomy, Authenticity, and Ownership), (3) Responsibility and Accountability, and (4) Privacy, Safety, and Security. We suggest that while a decentralised web can address some concerns and mitigate certain risks, underlying ethical issues persist. Fundamental questions about entity definition within these networks, the distinctions between individuals and collectives, and responsibility distribution within and between networks, demand further exploration.

Closed-loop medical devices such as brain-computer interfaces are an emerging and rapidly advancing neurotechnology. The target patients for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are often severely paralyzed, and thus particularly vulnerable in terms of personal autonomy, decisionmaking capacity, and agency. Here we analyze the effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of both persons (as patients or research participants) and neurotechnological closed-loop medical systems. We show that although BCIs can strengthen patient autonomy by preserving or restoring communicative abilities and/or motor control, closed-loop devices may also create challenges for moral and legal accountability. We advocate the development of a comprehensive ethical and legal framework to address the challenges of emerging closed-loop neurotechnologies like BCIs and stress the centrality of informed consent and refusal as a means to foster accountability. We propose the creation of an international neuroethics task force with members from medical neuroscience, neuroengineering, computer science, medical law, and medical ethics, as well as representatives of patient advocacy groups and the public.

Background The rapid development of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology has sparked profound debates about the right to privacy, particularly concerning its potential to enable mind reading. While scholars have proposed the establishment of neurorights to safeguard mental privacy, questions remain about whether BCIs can genuinely decode inner thoughts and what makes their ethical implications distinctive. Methods This study conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 Chinese experts in the BCI and neuroscience fields to explore their perspectives on the concept, feasibility, and limitations of BCI-based mind reading (BMR). The transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis to identify key themes and insights. Results The findings reveal a range of expert perspectives on the interpretations and feasibility of BMR. Most participants believe that current BCI technology cannot decode inner thoughts, although they acknowledge the potential for future advancements. Key technical challenges, such as signal quality and reliance on background information, are highlighted. Conclusion We summarize the interpretations, feasibility, and limitations of BMR and introduce a distinction between “strong BMR” and “weak BMR” to clarify their technical and ethical implications. Based on our analysis, we argue that current BMR does not pose unique ethical challenges compared with other forms of mind reading, and therefore does not yet justify the establishment of a distinct right to mental privacy.