Privacy Challenges to the Democratization of Brain Data

The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance

Neuroscience research is producing big brain data which informs both advancements in neuroscience research and drives the development of advanced datasets to provide advanced medical solutions. These brain data are produced under different jurisdictions in different formats and are governed under different regulations. The governance of data has become essential and critical resulting in the development of various governance structures to ensure that the quality, availability, findability, accessibility, usability, and utility of data is maintained. Furthermore, data governance is influenced by various ethical and legal principles. However, it is still not clear what ethical and legal principles should be used as a standard or baseline when managing brain data due to varying practices and evolving concepts. Therefore, this study asks what ethical and legal principles shape the current brain data governance landscape? A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of articles focused on biomedical, neuro and brain data governance was carried out to identify the ethical and legal principles which shape the current brain data governance landscape. The results revealed that there is currently a large variation of how the principles are presented and discussions around the terms are very multidimensional. Some of the principles are still at their infancy and are barely visible. A range of principles emerged during the thematic analysis providing a potential list of principles which can provide a more comprehensive framework for brain data governance and a conceptual expansion of neuroethics.

Wearable Biosensors in the Workplace: Perceptions and Perspectives

Objectives

Wearable body and brain sensors are permeating the consumer market and are increasingly being considered for workplace applications with the goal of promoting safety, productivity, health, and wellness. However, the monitoring of physiologic signals in real-time prompts concerns about benefit and risk, ownership of such digital data, data transfer privacy, and the discovery and disclosure of signals of possible health significance. Here we explore the perceptions and perspectives of employers and employees about key ethical considerations regarding the potential use of sensors in the workplace.

Methods

We distributed a survey developed and refined based on key research questions and past literature to a wide range and size of industries in British Columbia, Canada. Both employers (potential Implementers) and employees (potential Users) were invited to participate.

Results

We received 344 survey responses. Most responses were from construction, healthcare, education, government, and utilities sectors. Across genders, industries, and workplace sizes, we found a convergence of opinions on perceived benefit and concern between potential Implementers and potential Users regarding the motivation to use biosensors in the workplace. Potential Implementers and Users also agreed on issues pertaining to safety, privacy, disclosure of findings of possible medical significance, risks, data ownership, data sharing, and transfer of data between workplaces. The greatest variability between potential Users and Implementers pertained to data ownership.

Conclusion

Strong agreement in the perception of biosensor use in the workplace between potential Implementers and Users reflects shared interest, motivation, and responsibility for their use. The use of sensors is rapidly increasing, and transparency about key use factors–both practical and ethical–is essential to maintain the current and desirable level of solidarity.

Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies

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.

Opportunities and Limitations of Mobile Neuroimaging Technologies in Educational Neuroscience

As the field of educational neuroscience continues to grow, questions have emerged regarding the ecological validity and applicability of this research to educational practice. Recent advances in mobile neuroimaging technologies have made it possible to conduct neuroscientific studies directly in naturalistic learning environments. We propose that embedding mobile neuroimaging research in a cycle (Matusz, Dikker, Huth, & Perrodin, 2019), involving lab-based, seminaturalistic, and fully naturalistic experiments, is well suited for addressing educational questions. With this review, we take a cautious approach, by discussing the valuable insights that can be gained from mobile neuroimaging technology, including electroencephalography and functional near-infrared spectroscopy, as well as the challenges posed by bringing neuroscientific methods into the classroom. Research paradigms used alongside mobile neuroimaging technology vary considerably. To illustrate this point, studies are discussed with increasingly naturalistic designs. We conclude with several ethical considerations that should be taken into account in this unique area of research.

Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies

Advancements in novel neurotechnologies, such as brain computer interfaces (BCI) and neuromodulatory devices such as deep brain stimulators (DBS), will have profound implications for society and human rights. While these technologies are improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental and neurological diseases, they can also alter individual agency and estrange those using neurotechnologies from their sense of self, challenging basic notions of what it means to be human. As an international coalition of interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners, we examine these challenges and make recommendations to mitigate negative consequences that could arise from the unregulated development or application of novel neurotechnologies. We explore potential ethical challenges in four key areas: identity and agency, privacy, bias, and enhancement. To address them, we propose (1) democratic and inclusive summits to establish globally-coordinated ethical and societal guidelines for neurotechnology development and application, (2) new measures, including "Neurorights," for data privacy, security, and consent to empower neurotechnology users' control over their data, (3) new methods of identifying and preventing bias, and (4) the adoption of public guidelines for safe and equitable distribution of neurotechnological devices.

Readiness for First-In-Human Neuromodulatory Interventions

BACKGROUND

Novel neurointerventions present innovative therapeutic approaches to a range of treatment-refractory disorders. We sought to characterize factors that inform and define translational readiness for first-in-human (FIH) neuromodulatory trials.

METHODS

We used a two-part methodology involving a scoping review of the biomedical literature on the readiness of FIH trials for both neurological and non-neurological applications, and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders about decision-making for neuromodulation using magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound as a case example.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty factors relevant to FIH readiness were identified in the scoping review. Trial design, adequacy of preclinical evidence, and risk were ubiquitous across biotechnologies. Target organ, target function, and inadequacy of animal models were dominant in the neurointervention literature. Interview results on the relative importance of these factors reveal divergent values, priorities, and understandings both between patients and clinicians and between patients affected by different conditions.

CONCLUSION

Readiness of neurotechnology for FIH trials is defined by a multitude of interacting factors that pertain to clinical and nonclinical priorities, perceptions, and values.