China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Future Is Not What It Used to Be
Published in Tom Lawry, Hacking Healthcare, 2022
New technologies are being developed that blur the lines between computers and biology. The emerging field of neurotechnology involves brain-machine interfaces, neuroprosthetics, neurostimulation, and implantable devices that not only augment nervous system activity but expand its capabilities.
Advances in Neuroprosthetics
Published in Chang S. Nam, Anton Nijholt, Fabien Lotte, Brain–Computer Interfaces Handbook, 2018
After implanting microelectrode arrays into the somatosensory cortex of an individual paralyzed by spinal cord trauma (Flesher et al. 2016), the electrodes generated microstimulation that was shown to generate tactile sensations reported by subject as taking place on his hand. Moreover, the patient experienced varying levels of pressure in relation to stimulus amplitude, suggesting the possibility that the neurotechnology reported could allow those with paralysis, amputations, or stroke could interact with objects through a system comprising a robotic hand and intracortical microstimulation neuroprosthesis (see Chapter 14 [by Melissa M. Smith et al., “Utilizing Subdermal Electrodes as a Noninvasive Alternative for Motor-Based BCIs”] and Chapter 15 [by Philip R. Kennedy et al., “Validation of Neurotrophic Electrode Long-Term Recordings in Human Cortex”]).
Neuroethics in Context
Published in L. Syd M Johnson, Karen S. Rommelfanger, The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics, 2017
At present, the impact of scientific research and the effects of neurotechnology on human beings not only as biological beings but also as moral beings are increasingly felt in medicine and the humanities. It is reasonable to think that the future will bring even more ways of knowing, modifying, healing, and possibly enhancing the brain, thus challenging our intuitions about who we are and how we act (or should act). Neuroethics attempts to both offer a collective response to the ethical issues raised by rapidly developing science and find new answers to age-old philosophical questions. As yet, the discipline is not as established in Argentina as it is in the United States and some European nations, but the unique historic-cultural and academic landscape of Argentina promises to deliver original results as neuroethics develops.
“They Are Invasive in Different Ways.”: Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Invasiveness of Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions
Published in AJOB Neuroscience, 2023
Robyn Bluhm, Marissa Cortright, Eric D. Achtyes, Laura Y. Cabrera
Ethical evaluations of emerging medical neurotechnologies routinely distinguish between invasive and noninvasive interventions, noting that technologies in the former category present risks not posed by those in the latter (Bianchi et al. 2018; Emerging Issues Taskforce, International Neuroethics Society 2019; Hendriks et al. 2019). Invasive neurotechnologies include deep brain stimulation (DBS), which involves the surgical implantation of an electrode in the brain to stimulate neural activity in a target area. An example of a neurotechnology regarded as noninvasive is transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which uses a device that remains external to the body (specifically, one that is placed on the head) and that uses an electromagnetic field to alter brain activity. These examples illustrate that the neuroethics literature is following the “traditional” medical definition of invasiveness, which counts interventions as invasive if they involve surgically cutting into the body or inserting something into the body (Davis and van Koningsbruggen 2013; National Cancer Institute 2020; PubMed 1966; Rudnick 2011).
Continuums of Capacity, Binaries of Guilt: The Sociopolitical Role of Neuroethics in Criminal Justice
Published in AJOB Neuroscience, 2022
Stacy S. Chen, Liam G. McCoy, Samuel Forster, Connor T. A. Brenna, Nir Lipsman, Sunit Das
The nature of the interconnection between the brain and human agency provides neuroethics with an expansive scope interacting, alongside neuroscience, with numerous domains of human activity (McCoy et al. 2020). As Dubljević and colleagues describe, neuroethics has a critical role to play in situating neurotechnology in its social and political context, and in guiding the ways in which neurotechnology is both developed and deployed. In the context of neurocriminology, this role is clearly manifest in the task of identifying the value judgments inherent in translating between data and labels of capacity. Neuroethics must act to ensure that neurotechnology does not mischaracterize such judgments as “objective,” and in doing so reduce complex and subjective moral decisions to mere data-driven thresholds.
Ethical Challenges in the Commercialization of Neurotechnology: Contending with Competing Priorities
Published in AJOB Neuroscience, 2022
Tristan McIntosh, James M. DuBois, Joel S. Perlmutter
Survey responses from industry partners indicate a commitment to uphold ethical values in the conduct of their work and the development of neurotechnologies. At the same time, prevailing contextual and situational factors exist that can shape decision-making in a manner that does not guarantee these scientific ethical principles are executed in practice. A capitalist economic system drives strong fiscal incentives in the neurotechnology industry that can undermine scientific values and unduly shape scientific neurotechnology development. We now turn to the six scientific values from the NASEM report and contrast them with fiscal and market-based motives that the neurotechnology industry faces. We also note opportunities for the neurotechnology industry to balance these competing goals to more effectively uphold scientific values.