Translational Neuroethics: A Vision for a More Integrated, Inclusive, and Impactful Field

When Two Become One: Singular Duos and the Neuroethical Frontiers of Brain-to-Brain Interfaces

Advances in brain-brain interface technologies raise the possibility that two or more individuals could directly link their minds, sharing thoughts, emotions, and sensory experiences. This paper explores conceptual and ethical issues posed by such mind-merging technologies in the context of clinical neuroethics. Using hypothetical examples along a spectrum from loosely connected pairs to fully merged minds, the authors sketch out a range of factors relevant to identifying the degree of a merger. They then consider potential new harms like loss of identity, psychological domination, loss of mental privacy, and challenges for notions of autonomy and patient benefit when applied to merged minds. While radical technologies may seem to necessitate new ethical paradigms, the authors suggest the individual-focus underpinning clinical ethics can largely accommodate varying degrees of mind mergers so long as individual patient interests remain identifiable. However, advanced decisionmaking and directives may have limitations in addressing the dilemmas posed. Overall, mind-merging possibilities amplify existing challenges around loss of identity, relating to others, autonomy, privacy, and the delineation of patient interests. This paper lays the groundwork for developing resources to address the novel issues raised, while suggesting the technologies reveal continuity with current healthcare ethics tensions.

Applying the IEEE BRAIN neuroethics framework to intra-cortical brain-computer interfaces

Objective. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are neuroprosthetic devices that allow for direct interaction between brains and machines. These types of neurotechnologies have recently experienced a strong drive in research and development, given, in part, that they promise to restore motor and communication abilities in individuals experiencing severe paralysis. While a rich literature analyzes the ethical, legal, and sociocultural implications (ELSCI) of these novel neurotechnologies, engineers, clinicians and BCI practitioners often do not have enough exposure to these topics.Approach. Here, we present the IEEE Neuroethics Framework, an international, multiyear, iterative initiative aimed at developing a robust, accessible set of considerations for diverse stakeholders.Main results. Using the framework, we provide practical examples of ELSCI considerations for BCI neurotechnologies. We focus on invasive technologies, and in particular, devices that are implanted intra-cortically for medical research applications.Significance. We demonstrate the utility of our framework in exposing a wide range of implications across different intra-cortical BCI technology modalities and conclude with recommendations on how to utilize this knowledge in the development and application of ethical guidelines for BCI neurotechnologies.

Neuroethical implications of focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness

BACKGROUND

MR-guided focused ultrasound is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant mental illness, and merits contextualized ethical exploration in relation to more extensive ethical literature regarding other psychosurgical and neuromodulation treatment options for this patient population. To our knowledge, this topic has not yet been explored in the published literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss in detail the neuroethical implications of MR-guided focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness as an emerging treatment modality.

METHODS

Due to the lack of published literature on the topic, the approach involved a detailed survey and review of technical and medical literature relevant to focused ultrasound and established ethical issues related to alternative treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant, severe and persistent mental illness. The manuscript is structured according to thematic and topical findings.

RESULTS

This technology has potential benefits for patients suffering with severe mental illness, compared with established alternatives. The balance of technical, neuroscientific and clinical considerations should inform ethical deliberations. The nascent literature base, nuances in legal classification and permissibility depending upon jurisdiction, influences of past ethical issues associated with alternative treatments, tone and framing in media articles, and complexity of clinical trials all influence ethical assessment and evaluations of multiple stakeholders. Recommendations for future research are provided based on these factors.

CONCLUSION

Salient ethical inquiry should be further explored by researchers, clinicians, and ethicists in a nuanced manner methodologically, one which is informed by past and present ethical issues related to alternative treatment options, broader psychiatric treatment frameworks, pragmatic implementation challenges, intercultural considerations, and patients' ethical concerns.