Display options
Cite
Gaudry KS, Ayaz H, Bedows A, et al. Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:658930doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.658930.
Gaudry, K. S., Ayaz, H., Bedows, A., Celnik, P., Eagleman, D., Grover, P., Illes, J., Rao, R. P. N., Robinson, J. T., Thyagarajan, K. (2021). Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies. Frontiers in neuroscience, 15658930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.658930
Gaudry, Kate S, et al. "Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies." Frontiers in neuroscience vol. 15 (2021): 658930. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.658930
Gaudry KS, Ayaz H, Bedows A, Celnik P, Eagleman D, Grover P, Illes J, Rao RPN, Robinson JT, Thyagarajan K. Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies. Front Neurosci. 2021 Nov 15;15:658930. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.658930. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34867139; PMCID: PMC8634831.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Neurosci. 2021 Nov 15;15:658930. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.658930. eCollection 2021.

Projections and the Potential Societal Impact of the Future of Neurotechnologies.

Frontiers in neuroscience

Kate S Gaudry, Hasan Ayaz, Avery Bedows, Pablo Celnik, David Eagleman, Pulkit Grover, Judy Illes, Rajesh P N Rao, Jacob T Robinson, Krishnan Thyagarajan,

Affiliations

  1. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC, United States.
  2. School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  3. Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  4. Drexel Solutions Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  5. Department of Family and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  6. Center for Injury Research and Prevention, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  7. Substrate Group, New York, NY, United States.
  8. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
  9. Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
  10. Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
  11. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
  12. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  13. Neuroethics Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  14. Center for Neurotechnology, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, DC, United States.
  15. Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
  16. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
  17. Applied Physics Program, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
  18. Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
  19. Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), A Xerox Company, Palo Alto, CA, United States.

PMID: 34867139 PMCID: PMC8634831 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.658930

Abstract

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.

Copyright © 2021 Gaudry, Ayaz, Bedows, Celnik, Eagleman, Grover, Illes, Rao, Robinson, Thyagarajan and The Working Group on Brain-Interfacing Devices in 2040.

Keywords: brain interfacing; brain recording; brain stimulation; ethics; minutely invasive; neuroethics; non-invasive; policy

Conflict of interest statement

DE was employed by Neurosensory, Inc. and Braincheck. KG was employed by Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP. AB was employed by The Substrate Group. KT was employed by Palo Alto Research Center (PAR

References

  1. Front Neurosci. 2018 Dec 04;12:905 - PubMed
  2. Nat Neurosci. 2020 Apr;23(4):575-582 - PubMed
  3. Exp Brain Res. 2015 Oct;233(10):2777-88 - PubMed
  4. Nat Neurosci. 2019 May;22(5):820-827 - PubMed
  5. Neuron. 2005 Mar 3;45(5):651-60 - PubMed
  6. Neuron. 2018 Oct 10;100(1):19-36 - PubMed
  7. iScience. 2020 Jun 26;23(6):101134 - PubMed
  8. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 22;14(3):e0213707 - PubMed
  9. Neuron. 2015 Apr 22;86(2):356-9 - PubMed
  10. Brain Stimul. 2020 Jul - Aug;13(4):1124-1149 - PubMed
  11. Front Neurosci. 2020 Aug 12;14:849 - PubMed
  12. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016 Jan;63(1):4-14 - PubMed
  13. Neuroethics. 2018;11(3):309-322 - PubMed
  14. Science. 2019 Jan 18;363(6424):234-235 - PubMed
  15. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2019 Apr;55:142-151 - PubMed
  16. Physiol Rev. 2017 Apr;97(2):767-837 - PubMed
  17. Brain Neurosci Adv. 2019 Feb 15;3:2398212818816018 - PubMed
  18. J Neural Eng. 2020 Jan 31;17(1):012001 - PubMed
  19. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Jan;33(2):368-77 - PubMed
  20. Front Neuroeng. 2014 Feb 12;7:4 - PubMed
  21. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Dec 18;8:953 - PubMed
  22. Nature. 2008 Mar 20;452(7185):352-5 - PubMed
  23. Neuroimage. 2019 Sep;198:73-82 - PubMed
  24. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Sep 6;36(9):805-810 - PubMed
  25. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Sep 19;370(1677):20140214 - PubMed
  26. Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):65-71 - PubMed
  27. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Feb;14(2):139-42 - PubMed
  28. Front Neuroinform. 2019 Dec 03;13:74 - PubMed
  29. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Oct 17;: - PubMed
  30. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018 Jun;50:64-71 - PubMed
  31. Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 6;9(1):365 - PubMed
  32. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Jan 31;13:13 - PubMed
  33. Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 16;9(1):6115 - PubMed
  34. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):479-504 - PubMed
  35. J Neural Eng. 2018 Jun;15(3):036014 - PubMed
  36. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Dec;22(12):1091-1102 - PubMed
  37. Mov Disord. 2020 Jan;35(1):82-90 - PubMed
  38. J Neural Eng. 2020 Jan 28;17(1):016039 - PubMed
  39. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jul;22(7):598-610 - PubMed
  40. Trends Neurosci. 2020 Jan;43(1):24-41 - PubMed
  41. Neuron. 2020 Mar 4;105(5):771-775 - PubMed
  42. Front Neurosci. 2018 Oct 09;12:695 - PubMed
  43. Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 27;7:43293 - PubMed
  44. Neuron. 2019 May 22;102(4):728-731 - PubMed
  45. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Nov;36(10):954-961 - PubMed
  46. Cereb Cortex. 2017 Jul 1;27(7):3675-3682 - PubMed
  47. Nat Neurosci. 2019 Oct;22(10):1554-1564 - PubMed
  48. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 May 17;12:187 - PubMed

Publication Types