Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data

Beyond neural data: Cognitive biometrics and mental privacy

Innovations in wearable technology and artificial intelligence have enabled consumer devices to process and transmit data about human mental states (cognitive, affective, and conative) through what this paper refers to as "cognitive biometrics." Devices such as brain-computer interfaces, extended reality headsets, and fitness wearables offer significant benefits in health, wellness, and entertainment through the collection and processing and cognitive biometric data. However, they also pose unique risks to mental privacy due to their ability to infer sensitive information about individuals. This paper challenges the current approach to protecting individuals through legal protections for "neural data" and advocates for a more expansive legal and industry framework, as recently reflected in the draft UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, to holistically address both neural and cognitive biometric data. Incorporating this broader and more inclusive approach into legislation and product design can facilitate responsible innovation while safeguarding individuals' mental privacy.

Sharing brain imaging data in the Open Science era: how and why?

The sharing of human neuroimaging data has great potential to accelerate the development of imaging biomarkers in neurological and psychiatric disorders; however, major obstacles remain in terms of how and why to share data in the Open Science context. In this Health Policy by the European Cluster for Imaging Biomarkers, we outline the current main opportunities and challenges based on the results of an online survey disseminated among senior scientists in the field. Although the scientific community fully recognises the importance of data sharing, technical, legal, and motivational aspects often prevent active adoption. Therefore, we provide practical advice on how to overcome the technical barriers. We also call for a harmonised application of the General Data Protection Regulation across EU countries. Finally, we suggest the development of a system that makes data count by recognising the generation and sharing of data as a highly valuable contribution to the community.

An Anticipatory Approach to Ethico-Legal Implications of Future Neurotechnology

This paper provides a justificatory rationale for recommending the inclusion of imagined future use cases in neurotechnology development processes, specifically for legal and policy ends. Including detailed imaginative engagement with future applications of neurotechnology can serve to connect ethical, legal, and policy issues potentially arising from the translation of brain stimulation research to the public consumer domain. Futurist scholars have for some time recommended approaches that merge creative arts with scientific development in order to theorise possible futures toward which current trends in technology development might be steered. Taking a creative, imaginative approach like this in the neurotechnology context can help move development processes beyond considerations of device functioning, safety, and compliance with existing regulation, and into an active engagement with potential future dynamics brought about by the emergence of the neurotechnology itself. Imagined scenarios can engage with potential consumer uses of devices that might come to challenge legal or policy contexts. An anticipatory, creative approach can imagine what such uses might consist in, and what they might imply. Justifying this approach also prompts a co-responsibility perspective for policymaking in technology contexts. Overall, this furnishes a mode of neurotechnology's emergence that can avoid crises of confidence in terms of ethico-legal issues, and promote policy responses balanced between knowledge, values, protected innovation potential, and regulatory safeguards.

Brain Data in Context: Are New Rights the Way to Mental and Brain Privacy?

The potential to collect brain data more directly, with higher resolution, and in greater amounts has heightened worries about mental and brain privacy. In order to manage the risks to individuals posed by these privacy challenges, some have suggested codifying new privacy rights, including a right to "mental privacy." In this paper, we consider these arguments and conclude that while neurotechnologies do raise significant privacy concerns, such concerns are-at least for now-no different from those raised by other well-understood data collection technologies, such as gene sequencing tools and online surveillance. To better understand the privacy stakes of brain data, we suggest the use of a conceptual framework from information ethics, Helen Nissenbaum's "contextual integrity" theory. To illustrate the importance of context, we examine neurotechnologies and the information flows they produce in three familiar contexts-healthcare and medical research, criminal justice, and consumer marketing. We argue that by emphasizing what is distinct about brain privacy issues, rather than what they share with other data privacy concerns, risks weakening broader efforts to enact more robust privacy law and policy.

Understanding the Ethical Issues of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs): A Blessing or the Beginning of a Dystopian Future?

In recent years, scientific discoveries in the field of neuroscience combined with developments in the field of artificial intelligence have led to the development of a range of neurotechnologies. Advances in neuroimaging systems, neurostimulators, and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are leading to new ways of enhancing, controlling, and "reading" the brain. In addition, although BCIs were developed and used primarily in the medical field, they are now increasingly applied in other fields (entertainment, marketing, education, defense industry). We conducted a literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to provide background information about ethical issues related to the use of BCIs. Among the ethical issues that emerged from the thematic data analysis of the reviewed studies included questions revolving around human dignity, personhood and autonomy, user safety, stigma and discrimination, privacy and security, responsibility, research ethics, and social justice (including access to this technology). This paper attempts to address the various aspects of these concerns. A variety of distinct ethical issues were identified, which, for the most part, were in line with the findings of prior research. However, we identified two nuances, which are related to the empirical research on ethical issues related to BCIs and the impact of BCIs on international relationships. The paper also highlights the need for the cooperation of all stakeholders to ensure the ethical development and use of this technology and concludes with several recommendations. The principles of bioethics provide an initial guiding framework, which, however, should be revised in the current artificial intelligence landscape so as to be responsive to challenges posed by the development and use of BCIs.

What an International Declaration on Neurotechnologies and Human Rights Could Look like: Ideas, Suggestions, Desiderata

International institutions such as UNESCO are deliberating on a new standard setting instrument for neurotechnologies. This will likely lead to the adoption of a soft law document which will be the first global document specifically tailored to neurotechnologies, setting the tone for further international or domestic regulations. While some stakeholders have been consulted, these developments have so far evaded the broader attention of the neuroscience, neurotech, and neuroethics communities. To initiate a broader debate, this target article puts to discussion twenty-five considerations and desiderata for recognition by a future instrument. They are formulated at different levels of abstraction, from the big picture to technical details, seek to widen the perspective of preparatory reports and transcend the narrow debate about "neurorights" which overshadows many richer and more relevant aspects. These desiderata are not an exhaustive enumeration but a starting point for discussions about what deserves and what requires protection by an international instrument.

Ethical considerations for integrating multimodal computer perception and neurotechnology

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer perception technologies (e.g., digital phenotyping and affective computing) promise to transform clinical approaches to personalized care in psychiatry and beyond by offering more objective measures of emotional states and behavior, enabling precision treatment, diagnosis, and symptom monitoring. At the same time, passive and continuous nature by which they often collect data from patients in non-clinical settings raises ethical issues related to privacy and self-determination. Little is known about how such concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data, as parallel advances in computer perception, AI, and neurotechnology enable new insights into subjective states. Here, we present findings from a multi-site NCATS-funded study of ethical considerations for translating computer perception into clinical care and contextualize them within the neuroethics and neurorights literatures.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 20), clinicians (n = 12), developers (n = 12), and clinician developers (n = 2) regarding their perspective toward using PC in clinical care. Transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA using Thematic Content Analysis.

Results

Stakeholder groups voiced concerns related to (1) perceived invasiveness of passive and continuous data collection in private settings; (2) data protection and security and the potential for negative downstream/future impacts on patients of unintended disclosure; and (3) ethical issues related to patients' limited versus hyper awareness of passive and continuous data collection and monitoring. Clinicians and developers highlighted that these concerns may be exacerbated by the integration of neural data with other computer perception data.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the integration of neurotechnologies with existing computer perception technologies raises novel concerns around dignity-related and other harms (e.g., stigma, discrimination) that stem from data security threats and the growing potential for reidentification of sensitive data. Further, our findings suggest that patients' awareness and preoccupation with feeling monitored via computer sensors ranges from hypo- to hyper-awareness, with either extreme accompanied by ethical concerns (consent vs. anxiety and preoccupation). These results highlight the need for systematic research into how best to implement these technologies into clinical care in ways that reduce disruption, maximize patient benefits, and mitigate long-term risks associated with the passive collection of sensitive emotional, behavioral and neural data.

Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.

Towards an understanding of global brain data governance: ethical positions that underpin global brain data governance discourse

Introduction

The study of the brain continues to generate substantial volumes of data, commonly referred to as "big brain data," which serves various purposes such as the treatment of brain-related diseases, the development of neurotechnological devices, and the training of algorithms. This big brain data, generated in different jurisdictions, is subject to distinct ethical and legal principles, giving rise to various ethical and legal concerns during collaborative efforts. Understanding these ethical and legal principles and concerns is crucial, as it catalyzes the development of a global governance framework, currently lacking in this field. While prior research has advocated for a contextual examination of brain data governance, such studies have been limited. Additionally, numerous challenges, issues, and concerns surround the development of a contextually informed brain data governance framework. Therefore, this study aims to bridge these gaps by exploring the ethical foundations that underlie contextual stakeholder discussions on brain data governance.

Method

In this study we conducted a secondary analysis of interviews with 21 neuroscientists drafted from the International Brain Initiative (IBI), LATBrain Initiative and the Society of Neuroscientists of Africa (SONA) who are involved in various brain projects globally and employing ethical theories. Ethical theories provide the philosophical frameworks and principles that inform the development and implementation of data governance policies and practices.

Results

The results of the study revealed various contextual ethical positions that underscore the ethical perspectives of neuroscientists engaged in brain data research globally.

Discussion

This research highlights the multitude of challenges and deliberations inherent in the pursuit of a globally informed framework for governing brain data. Furthermore, it sheds light on several critical considerations that require thorough examination in advancing global brain data governance.

Virtual emotions and Criminal Law

This article examines the role that Criminal Law should play in regulating the non-therapeutic use of immersive Virtual Reality (VR), specifically its massive use by consumers. The starting point has been to consider VR as an intermediate risk scenario, for the purposes of Criminal Law, between the criminality entirely generated in the physical world and that developed in the 2D digital environments [cybercrimes and criminality linked to social networks and persuasive Artificial Intelligence (AI)]. Firstly, specialize literature has been analyzed to establish the nature of virtual reality. From a technical standpoint, virtual reality is a neurotechnology infused with high-risk artificial intelligence; an inseparable synthesis of non-invasive neurotechnology and a set of AI systems, considered high-risk for the fundamental rights of citizens. From the perspective of its functioning, VR is a "transformative" neurotechnology capable of altering what people perceive as reality. This is possible, because its realism lies in the emotional immersion of the user in the virtual experience, similarly to how our brain functions. Therefore, the key idea in the immersive functioning of virtual reality is its capacity to evoke and modify human emotions, which results its greater harmful potential compared to the 2D environment. From there, three central and specific areas of (legally unaddressed) risk arise: (1) the special comprehensive nature of the data collected and stored during its use; (2) its ability to mentally reproduce the "physical" experience of the avatar in the user; and (3) its significant capacity to manipulate individuals. Secondly, the paper examines both the reported cases and the foreseeable criminality in virtual worlds or "proto-metaverse," focusing on the three risk areas, and exemplifying them with attacks on mental privacy, sexual freedom, and consumer manipulation. Finally, it is proposed that Criminal Law should also intervene (as soon as possible) to define the "red lines" of massive virtual reality use by citizens. With a democratic and human-centered approach, a basic legal framework is outlined for the criminalization of specific harms and risks associated with virtual reality, adapting the existing legal framework as necessary.

Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation

The ability to record and alter brain activity by using implantable and nonimplantable neural devices, while poised to have significant scientific and clinical benefits, also raises complex ethical concerns. In this Perspective, we raise awareness of the ability of artificial intelligence algorithms and data-aggregation tools to decode and analyze data containing highly sensitive information, jeopardizing personal neuroprivacy. Voids in existing regulatory frameworks, in fact, allow unrestricted decoding and commerce of neurodata. We advocate for the implementation of proposed ethical and human rights guidelines, alongside technical options such as data encryption, differential privacy and federated learning to ensure the protection of neurodata privacy. We further encourage regulatory bodies to consider taking a position of responsibility by categorizing all brain-derived data as sensitive health data and apply existing medical regulations to all data gathered via pre-registered neural devices. Lastly, we propose that a technocratic oath may instill a deontology for neurotechnology practitioners akin to what the Hippocratic oath represents in medicine. A conscientious societal position that thoroughly rejects the misuse of neurodata would provide the moral compass for the future development of the neurotechnology field.

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

How I became myself after merging with a computer: Does human-machine symbiosis raise human rights issues?

Novel usages of brain stimulation combined with artificially intelligent (AI) systems promise to address a large range of diseases. These new conjoined technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces (BCI), are increasingly used in experimental and clinical settings to predict and alleviate symptoms of various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Due to their reliance on AI algorithms for feature extraction and classification, these BCI systems enable a novel, unprecedented, and direct connection between human cognition and artificial information processing. In this paper, we present the results of a study that investigates the phenomenology of human-machine symbiosis during a first-in-human experimental BCI trial designed to predict epileptic seizures. We employed qualitative semi-structured interviews to collect user experience data from a participant over a six-years period. We report on a clinical case where a specific embodied phenomenology emerged: namely, after BCI implantation, the patient reported experiences of increased agential capacity and continuity; and after device explantation, the patient reported persistent traumatic harms linked to agential discontinuity. To our knowledge, this is the first reported clinical case of a patient experiencing persistent agential discontinuity due to BCI explantation and potential evidence of an infringement on patient right, where the implanted person was robbed of her de novo agential capacities when the device was removed.

Use of Computation Ecosystems to Analyze the Kidney-Heart Crosstalk

The identification of mediators for physiologic processes, correlation of molecular processes, or even pathophysiological processes within a single organ such as the kidney or heart has been extensively studied to answer specific research questions using organ-centered approaches in the past 50 years. However, it has become evident that these approaches do not adequately complement each other and display a distorted single-disease progression, lacking holistic multilevel/multidimensional correlations. Holistic approaches have become increasingly significant in understanding and uncovering high dimensional interactions and molecular overlaps between different organ systems in the pathophysiology of multimorbid and systemic diseases like cardiorenal syndrome because of pathological heart-kidney crosstalk. Holistic approaches to unraveling multimorbid diseases are based on the integration, merging, and correlation of extensive, heterogeneous, and multidimensional data from different data sources, both -omics and nonomics databases. These approaches aimed at generating viable and translatable disease models using mathematical, statistical, and computational tools, thereby creating first computational ecosystems. As part of these computational ecosystems, systems medicine solutions focus on the analysis of -omics data in single-organ diseases. However, the data-scientific requirements to address the complexity of multimodality and multimorbidity reach far beyond what is currently available and require multiphased and cross-sectional approaches. These approaches break down complexity into small and comprehensible challenges. Such holistic computational ecosystems encompass data, methods, processes, and interdisciplinary knowledge to manage the complexity of multiorgan crosstalk. Therefore, this review summarizes the current knowledge of kidney-heart crosstalk, along with methods and opportunities that arise from the novel application of computational ecosystems providing a holistic analysis on the example of kidney-heart crosstalk.

Philosophical foundation of the right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnologies

Neurotechnologies broadly understood are tools that have the capability to read, record and modify our mental activity by acting on its brain correlates. The emergence of increasingly powerful and sophisticated techniques has given rise to the proposal to introduce new rights specifically directed to protect mental privacy, freedom of thought, and mental integrity. These rights, also proposed as basic human rights, are conceived in direct relation to tools that threaten mental privacy, freedom of thought, mental integrity, and personal identity. In this paper, our goal is to give a philosophical foundation to a specific right that we will call right to mental integrity. It encapsulates both the classical concepts of privacy and non-interference in our mind/brain. Such a philosophical foundation refers to certain features of the mind that hitherto could not be reached directly from the outside: intentionality, first-person perspective, personal autonomy in moral choices and in the construction of one's narrative, and relational identity. A variety of neurotechnologies or other tools, including artificial intelligence, alone or in combination can, by their very availability, threaten our mental integrity. Therefore, it is necessary to posit a specific right and provide it with a theoretical foundation and justification. It will be up to a subsequent treatment to define the moral and legal boundaries of such a right and its application.

Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought

Progress in neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides unprecedented insights into the human brain. There are increasing possibilities to influence and measure brain activity. These developments raise multifaceted ethical and legal questions. The proponents of neurorights argue in favour of introducing new human rights to protect mental processes and brain data. This article discusses the necessity and advantages of introducing new human rights focusing on the proposed new human right to mental self-determination and the right to freedom of thought as enshrined in Art.18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Art. 9 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). I argue that the right to freedom of thought can be coherently interpreted as providing comprehensive protection of mental processes and brain data, thus offering a normative basis regarding the use of neurotechnologies. Besides, I claim that an evolving interpretation of the right to freedom of thought is more convincing than introducing a new human right to mental self-determination.