Ethicists create framework to regulate brain technology

Ethicists from the University of Basel have developed a biosecurity framework specific to neurotechnology while calling for a ban on dual-use technology with the aim of regulating mental privacy and integrity of humans. Findings were published in Neuron.

This study responded to the recent military investments in neuroscience and neurotechnology research for dual use—meaning a technology that can be used for "good" medical uses or "harmful" military aims. The increasing growth in brain technology prototypes meant to alter emotions, cognition and behavior in soldiers has lead to the development of a biosecurity framework described in the study.

“Our framework postulates the development of regulations and ethical guidelines aimed at protecting the mental dimension of individuals and groups, especially their mental privacy and integrity,” said first author Marcello Ienca from the Institute for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

Military research into neuroscience has increased concerns of weaponization of neurotechnology. In response, three bioethicists from the University of Basel recommended a ban on ethically unjustified military neurotechnology. The ban could delay the developed of technology for patients with Alzheimer’s or spinal injuries, but could also stop any additional military experimentation.

As the population ages, the need for these technologies is increasing. To push the creation process forward, researchers developed a framework concept for biosafety for neurotechnology. The framework proposes a “code of conduct” for military research, neuro-specific regulations and increased awareness within the scientific community.

""
Cara Livernois, News Writer

Cara joined TriMed Media in 2016 and is currently a Senior Writer for Clinical Innovation & Technology. Originating from Detroit, Michigan, she holds a Bachelors in Health Communications from Grand Valley State University.

Around the web

Given the precarious excitement of the moment—or is it exciting precarity?—policymakers and healthcare leaders must set directives guiding not only what to do with AI but also when to do it. 

The final list also included diabetes drugs sold by Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck. The first round of drug price negotiations reduced the Medicare prices for 10 popular drugs by up to 79%. 

HHS has thought through the ways AI can and should become an integral part of healthcare, human services and public health. Last Friday—possibly just days ahead of seating a new secretary—the agency released a detailed plan for getting there from here.