It sounds like science fiction, even magic: the ability to communicate, control a computer, or move a robotic limb through the power of thought.
However, not only is it possible, it is already transforming the lives of severely disabled patients.
In 2024an audience at a UN conference in Geneva, I was amazed to find that a young Portuguese man with “locked-in syndrome” – a neurological disorder that left him unable to move any part of his body – was able to “talk” with them, using a brain-computer interface (BCI) that translated his thoughts into words, expressed with his voice, and answered their questions.
This is a striking example of the growing field of neurotechnology, which represents great hope for people living with disabilities and mental disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and treatment-resistant depression.
Mental privacy: a losing battle?
But while the use of neurotechnology in the medical sector is strictly regulated, there are concerns about its use in other areas.
Products such as headbands, watches and headphones that monitor heart rate, sleep patterns and other health indicators are becoming increasingly popular. The data they collect can provide deep insights into our private thoughts, reactions, and emotions, thereby improving quality of life.
This poses ethical and human rights issues, as manufacturers are currently free to sell or pass it on without restriction. Individuals risk seeing their most intimate mental privacy invaded, their thoughts exposed, monetized and even controlled.
“It’s about freedom of thought, action and mental privacy,” says Dafna Feinholz, interim head of research, ethics and inclusion at UNESCO.
She worries that the battle for mental privacy is being lost in the age of social media, where users happily upload their private lives to platforms owned by a handful of giant tech companies.
“People say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ but they don’t understand what they are revealing,” she adds.
Assistive technologies can allow a person to write or move objects in space using their brain waves.
“We are already profiled by AI, but now there is this possibility of entering thoughts, directly measuring brain activity and inferring mental states. These technologies could even change the structure of your nervous system, allowing it to be manipulated. People need to know that these tools are safe and that, if they want, they can stop using them.”
People need to know that these tools are safe and that if they want, they can stop using them.
The UN official insists that while we must accept that we have to live with technology, we can ensure that humans remain in charge.
“The more we submit to the power and superiority of these tools, the more we’re going to be taken over. We have to control what they do and what we want them to do, because we’re the ones producing them. It’s our responsibility for all the technology we create.”
It’s time to take an ethical approach
Ms. Feinholz spoke to UN News from the ancient Uzbek city of Samarkand where, on Wednesday, delegates from member states of UNESCO – the United Nations agency for education, science and culture – officially adopted a “Recommendation» (non-binding guidance on principles and best practices that can form the basis of national policies) on the ethics of neurotechnology, with an emphasis on the protection of human dignity, rights and freedoms.
The guidelines advocate the promotion of well-being and prevention of harm associated with technology, freedom of thought (ensuring that individuals retain control of their minds and bodies), and respect for ethical standards by developers, researchers and users and accountability for their actions.
Member States are advised to put in place several measures, including the implementation of legal and ethical frameworks to monitor the use of neurotechnologies, protect personal data and assess the impact on human rights and privacy.
“Humans need to know,” Feinholz says. “There needs to be transparency, redress and compensation, as there is in other industries. Let’s take restaurants for example. If you eat out, you don’t need to know how to cook. But if you order spaghetti carbonara and it makes you sick, you can complain to the owner. There is accountability. The same should apply to neurotechnology: even if you don’t understand how it works, there needs to be a chain of custody.”
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
