Hastings Center Report
Brain-Computer Interfaces Raise New Questions about Mental Privacy
Speech brain-computer interfaces could restore the ability to speak to people who are paralyzed. But the research in this area raises fears that it could lead to technologies that read people’s thoughts. How should researchers and the public weigh restoration against mental surveillance? This question is the topic of an article and two commentaries published in the Hastings Center Report. A fourth article looks at what researchers owe the people who take part in brain-computer interface trials. All four pieces are part of the Neuroscience & Society series funded by the Dana Foundation.
- Narayan Sankaran and Winston Chiong argue that the privacy risk depends partly on which brain signals a device decodes. Motor-cortex signals reflect deliberate attempts to speak; semantic signals, on the other hand, indicate the origins of thoughts, abstract concepts that don’t yet exist as speech. The authors urge researchers to make “communicative intent” a priority. Read the article.
- In a commentary that responds to the article, Marcello Ienca distinguishes between two kinds of mental privacy: decoding what someone is thinking and inferring traits and risks from brain data. He contends that each needs different safeguards. Read the commentary.
- In another commentary, Andrea Lavazza cautions that although today’s speech devices can’t simply become surveillance tools, the methods behind them could be adapted, and a patient’s consent can’t authorize future developments. She calls for early safeguards and international standards for brain-decoding systems that preserve access to speech restoration while limiting unwanted brain monitoring. Read the commentary.
- Erika Versalovic, Beatriz Mamede, Sara Goering, and Eran Klein write that participants in early-stage brain-computer interface trials often describe their involvement as a job: long commutes, tiring and tedious sessions, and coworker-like relationships with the research team. The authors argue that the usual “altruistic volunteer” model for such participants fits poorly. They maintain that these participants are owed recognition and more meaningful roles, not just standard protections, and higher compensation where regulations allow. Read the article.
