Insight into Neuroethical Considerations of the Newly Emerging Technologies and Techniques of the Global Brain Initiatives

Introduction

At the rock face of neurobiology stand seven global brain initiatives. Through them, much of the global funding for neuroscience and neurotechnology (over 9 billion USD) is being channeled, and the rapid development of new techniques and technologies is the result. Some ethicists have questioned the sufficiency of the pre-existing ethical and legal frameworks to provide adequate oversight for such rapidly-emerging neurotechnologies and their often-unique applications and implications.

The inability of ethics to keep up with emerging scientific techniques and technologies is well-recognized. ‘Crashes’ do sometimes occur, setting back scientific fields and compromising public trust. Legislation can be then tightened to prevent repeating the issue, but much damage has already been done [1]. The prior incorporation of neuroethics is therefore recognized as a primary tool to advance, rather than obstruct, neuroscience.

Upgrades to such ethical/legal frameworks governing neurotechnology have been suggested up to the insertion of ‘neurorights’ into global human rights documents [2]. Advances in our understanding of the brain and our increasing ability to record, decode, and manipulate brain function, represent significant challenges to our relationships and attitudes toward the human mind and human identity. Resulting in technological advances have significant implications for human life and society [3].

In 2018, Rommelfanger et al. therefore highlighted the necessity for neuroethics to form an integral part of neuroscientific endeavors. “Questions to guide ethical research in the international brain initiatives” [4], were presented to each of the seven global brain initiatives (Table 1A). A special 2019 Neuroethics edition of the journal Neuron then included responsive neuroethics reports from each of the seven brain initiatives (summarized below). Arguably, these were brief, broadly focused, and expressed relatively low levels of ethical concern. The various committees and working groups discussing such issues seemed to have been placed largely internal to such initiatives, thus representing a potential conflict of interest. The requirement for more rigorous considerations of the potential negative as well as the positive outcomes from such emerging neurotechnology is argued here. However, many statements within these reports did highlight the potential inadequacy of the legal frameworks; inadequacies relating to the lack of expertise and general understanding and training of neuroscientists relating to neuroethics; and acknowledged that potentially novel ethical questions were emerging along with the development of such technologies.

Table 1.

Identified areas of ethical significance for emerging technologies of the brain initiatives.

A: Summary of the 5 Neuroethics Questions (from Rommelfanger et al. 2018)
Q1	What is the potential impact of a model or neuroscientific account of disease on individuals, communities, and society?
Q2	What are the ethical standards of biological material and data collection?
Q3	What is the moral significance of neural systems that are under development in neuroscience research laboratories?
Q4	How could brain interventions impact or reduce autonomy?
Q5	In which contexts might a neuroscientific technology/innovation be used or deployed?

B: 16 Identified areas of ethical importance for specific emerging technologies of the brain initiatives (as suggested in this paper)
	Focus areas	Significance
1	Brain switches	The ability to identify and manipulate target key ‘brain-switch’ areas that can be enhanced and/or repressed.
2	Towards the universal use of BCIs	From experimental, to clinical, through to more universal (military, transport, gaming, and communication) applications of BCIs.
3	Towards less-invasive measurement of brain signaling	The technological move from highly invasive, to micro-invasive, to non-invasive technologies related to brain signaling and/or BCI interfaces may remove many of the former barriers to the more universal use, acceptance, and application of these technologies.
4	Towards de-personalization	In the move away from human therapists or care-based approaches to those based on AI or robots (i.e. for autism), or more direct brain manipulation. What is being lost/gained in this transition?
5	Pinocchio	Are AI, robotics, and/or brain-like computing moving into territories where they may be considered as having “moral significance” and/or gaining “consciousness” or “sapience”?
6	BCIs and autonomy	The ability of elements of BCIs to compromise autonomy, agency, and culpability.
7	Culpability	Brain scans are used as evidence of “My brain made me do it”, or even the suggestion of pre-crime incarceration of those diagnosed with the ‘wrong brain’.
8	Closed-loop modulation	The potential for the brain to be increasingly placed under the control of the technology that can responsively alter mood, and with many other potential applications.
9	Brain enhancement	An area many of the project reports treat both vaguely and uncritically. What genuine applications are truly being considered under the broad term “enhancement”? What specifically is being developed as feasible? What are the timeframes for such developments and what related frameworks are in place to guide or limit such developments?
10	Brain big-data	A massive amount of brain data is now emerging bringing questions of data security and privacy as well as the potential for data bias and issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity.
11	AI and discrimination	The use and development of AI, as it relates to discrimination, diversity, inclusion, and equity.
12	Stigmatization	Issues of stigmatization, characterization, and prejudice, particularly relating to new frameworks of mental health diagnosis i.e. “at risk mental state” (Japan) – rejection/stigmatization of Children with a diagnosis of autism (China), and general stigmatization (Korea).
13	Neural feedback, fMRI studies	Leading to questions of autonomy and agency.
14	Weaponizable dual-technologies	How do we define, identify, ethically assess, and regulate such technologies?
15	Complication versus benefit	For invasive procedures or those with other ‘costs’ such as off-target side-effects, is the cost vs utility properly addressed, or are corners being cut in the push to advance the field and its technologies?
16	The “Neuro” of ethics	That distilling everything down to ‘neuro’ could represent a reductionist view of humanity that may be not an appropriate or sufficient explanation of the human person or consciousness. Could this lead to reduced rather than increased levels of ethical consideration relating to human life?

A Brief Description of the Respective Focus Areas of the Seven Initiatives

Common focus areas exist among the seven initiatives including the treatment of brain diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, depression, and autism; artificial intelligence (AI) and brain-computer interface (BCI) system development; and multi-scale brain mapping. Other areas represent more unique foci:

1. From the USA NIH BRAIN Initiative has come to the completion and launch of the first closed-loop stimulation neuromodulation systems [3], (also under current development in China). A generally cautious approach to the movement of neuroscience tools and technologies from the laboratory into medical/non-medical use is expressed, in contrast to the ‘fast-track to clinical’ approach taken by Canada and Japan, among others.

2. The Canadian Brain Research Strategy has a strong focus on early education, with many school-based trials and a clear focus on ‘peak human performance’. A strong emphasis on biomarkers for disease detection and on public engagement is also notable [5].

3. Most of the teams in the Japan Brain/MINDS Project are working with marmoset models of brain disease [6]. Clinically, fMRI is not simply used for observation but also therapy. Stigmatization and prejudice relating to mental health diagnosis are noted as significant issues (also in the Chinese and Korean reports).

4. The Korean Brain Initiative notes strong cultural Confucian components, such as whether the brain or the body is central to the concept of ‘personhood’ [7], which colors public attitudes to neuroscience and brain donation. Data-security and moving BCI into more universal usage are clear focus areas.

5. Given its large population, the China Brain Project is establishing databases of clinical cohorts for brain diseases. The development and utilization of highly advanced brain mapping technology and the promotion of AI are notable foci including the ability to isolate and manipulate specific brain areas. China’s large-scale brain-like computing initiative [8] rivals that of the US. A reductionist “neuro” definition of humanity and human consciousness is notably resisted [9].

6. The European Human Brain Project devotes 4.5% of its total budget (1.2 billion USD/10 years) specifically to neuroethics. Neuroethical and philosophical reflections such as the nature of consciousness, human versus artificial intelligence, “what makes us human?” and “could AI cross the line into moral significance?”, are notable inclusions [10]. Neurotechnological applications that could have dual-use, and be repurposed or “weaponized”, are discussed, noting inadequacies of current related legislation.

7. The Australian Brain Initiative report begins with an openly commercial focus. Non-invasive wearable devices are promoted, linked to advances in AI and machine learning [11]. Enhanced cognition and performance improvement are notable inclusions, both for civilian and military applications. Criminal application is uniquely highlighted to “better understand the causes and correlates of criminal behavior” including the opportunity for interventions “to modify or prevent criminal behavior” potentially making it safer to release offenders. Neuroscientific evidence relating to blame and culpability is also discussed. Big data issues and issues of diversity and inclusion are included, particularly related to the Australian indigenous population.

Sufficiency of the Existing Approach

Neuroethical considerations have been rightly built into the framework of the global brain initiatives to ensure that the “practice and products of neuroscience have the most fruitful and beneficial impacts for a global society” [12, 13]. However, the neuroethics components within the brain initiatives could more skeptically be represented as somewhat of a box-ticking exercise. A strong conflict of interest could also be argued. Neuroethical considerations are being largely disseminated by the neuroscientists linked to and funded by the initiatives themselves. The greenlighting of developmental directions and minimization of the negatives of identified ethical issues could be suggested.

Correspondingly, a minimally critical approach to ethical consideration seems to characterize the seven Neuron neuroethics reports. Although general categorical commitments abound, relating to respect, equity, equality, autonomy, rights, safety, responsibility, minimizing animal suffering, and concern for data privacy/security, only 3 of the 7 more specifically include any discussion of the potential dangers that could result from the misuse of neurotechnologies. Beyond the issue of data security, only two were able to expressly consider that such technologies, if mishandled, could lead to potential harm to humanity/human society [9, 11]. No technologies or developmental areas were highlighted as especially problematic or noted as unwise to be pursued. The interesting, but often highly abstract, philosophical discussions presented (for Europe), seem unlikely to lead to a strong consensus or practical recommendations, nor are neurotechnological developments likely to be put on hold until their completion.

Beyond 2019, global coordination of neuroethics themes has continued under the International Brain Initiative 2020 [4]. “Global neuroethics” is one of its 6 proposed working groups with “of ethical neuroscience practice” as the final inclusion of its aspirational goal subpoints. However, with the 5 listed stakeholders in short-form as (1) brain projects; (2) neuroscience societies and organizations; (3) neuroscience initiatives; (4) industry partners; and (5) affiliates, much of these clearly remain internal to the brain initiatives or linked to their industrial/financial funding partners. The likelihood of rigorous critical consideration of the potentially negative implications of the technologies under their development seems rather optimistic.

Examples of Focus Areas from Emerging Technologies

We have initially considered 16 categories (Table 1B) representing some of the most significant areas holding transformational potential for human life and society and that link to the current focal areas for emerging neurotechniques and neurotechnologies.

Taking the first, brain switches, as an example, advances in multi-scale brain mapping and decoding, often linked to optogenetic manipulation, are leading to the increasing ability to identify, target, and manipulate brain areas for enhancement or repression. However, in a key early example, studies on the suppression of the brain areas relating to Parkinson’s disease like shaking conditions, while demonstrating this suppression to be successful also highlighted many off-target compulsive behaviors such as mania, aggression, and marital difficulties notably linked to this treatment [14]. More recently, the potential for direct manipulations of murine aggression [15], depression [16], social conflict [17, 18], or happiness [19], shows rising potential. Could such technology soon be translatable? Could such suppression of the posterior substantia innominata, largely blocking diverse aggressive behaviors in mice [15], be applied to the Australian stated desire to treat and release violent criminals? [11]. Could the regulation of the medial prefrontal cortex microcircuit that can induce subordinate mice to win against previously dominant opponents [17], be potentially applied militarily to a troop of enhanced ultra-confident soldiers? What potential realistic feasibilities and timeframes could there be for such mouse-to-human translations? Have the ethical principles, analysis, and legal provisions guiding and limiting such scenarios been fleshed out? A focused investigation seems warranted.

Regarding another key example, BCI, Gaudry et al. [19] highlight the strong implications of the development of less invasive and non-invasive neuro-interfacing technology (Table 1B). The team predicts unprecedented growth and demand for such technology, with widespread applications in areas such as multi-person communication, mood regulation, and memory recall. A technological leap to rival the smartphone may result. What preparatory steps are required for human society to address and prepare for such a potential or to limit negative applications?

Overall, a dramatic, perhaps almost exponential, the flood of such technologies could be on the horizon. The tendency for such interventions to become harmful, unnecessary, recreational, too many, too common, too early, weaponized, unequal, and compromise diversity and inclusion require clear prior consideration. Off-target or undesired effects resulting from brain area suppression, excitation, or enhancement will surely require major focus prior to any such translational/clinical implementation. The legal and practical frameworks that guide, control, and limit such developmental directions require clarification and coordinated attention. This should be conducted prior to and during the development of such technologies, rather than awaiting significant negative issues that may emerge beyond their launch and implementation.

Suggested Strategic Response

We therefore propose that consultancy and oversight committees be established both regionally and globally that exist outside the potential conflict of interest and positive bias of the brain projects themselves and their industry or funding partners.

Three stages are proposed.

1. Identification stage: Reaching consensus on what are the most significant emerging neurotechnologies and techniques of likely transformative impact on human life, culture, society, or other stakeholders, (resulting in a definitive list such as that of Table 1).

2. Consideration stage: Beyond discussions of positive benefit, full exploration, discussion, and prediction, relating to any likely, potential or possible, harm, negative consequence, danger, or detriment, that may arise to human life, culture, society, or other stakeholders, from the development and/or use of those aspects identified in stage 1.

3. Dissemination/recommendation stage: Dissemination of these findings and corresponding recommendations would then be presented in publications, and conferences, to the brain institutes themselves, and the relevant legislative governing bodies.

Such recommendations need to be generated in a sufficiently short timeframe to either address and prepare for such potentially transformative change or to limit or prevent potentially negative applications that could otherwise arise. Improvements to pre-existing legal frameworks; recommendations for more adequate ethical training of neuroscientists; identification of potential dual-use or weaponizable technologies; suggestions for restrictions in developmental areas/directions/uses within the military, criminal, recreational, communication, computational, medical, or other spheres; consideration of social/cultural implications and equity, bias, and stigmatization; are all likely notable inclusions.

The overall aim is to safeguard the field of neuroscience and prevent a potential crash resulting from a major mistake, misuse, or misapplication of an aspect of neurotechnology that could have strong negative consequences for human life and society, erode public trust, and negatively impact the field of neuroscience and the neuroscientific community.

While we hope this report stimulates the development of such committees, the specific sources of funding, the recruitment and qualifications of such a team, and the specific timeframes, all require further exploration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.