A Preparatory Neuroethical Approach to Assessing Developments in Neurotechnology

Evolving Applications, Technological Challenges and Future Opportunities in Neuromodulation: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank

“…This widening scope of capability and use fosters ethical and policy issues, which can be parsed into (1) those inherent to the characteristics of the technology and/or technique, and (2) those derived from the uses of such technologies in medicine and other applications in the social sphere (for complete address of specific neuroethico-legal and social issues, see: Buniak et al, 2014 ; Darragh et al, 2015 ; Giordano, 2017 ). These are not mutually exclusive: the relative novelty of technologies and techniques spawns questions about the intermediate and ongoing safety and effects in practical use (Giordano, 2015 ). The prompts questions of if and when these approaches will represent an accepted standard of care for certain disorders; where and under what conditions/contingencies DBS will be situated in the plan/algorithm of care for these pathologies, and if and to what extent medical and/or socio-economic and legal means of support will be provided to enable such care—in both the short and long term.…”

“…As well, questions persist as to whether and how implantable neuromodulation might affect aspects of neuropsychological function that are associated with identity, “free will” and autonomy, and what this incurs and infers for the ethically sound use of DBS both to treat defined medical conditions, as well as to potentially optimize/enhance particular aspects of cognition, emotion and/or behavior (Giordano, 2015 ). We have posited that any new developments in neurotechnology entail effort to define and address the neuroethico-legal and social issues that may, and are likely to be generated by such research and its trsanslation in medical and/or other applications (Shook and Giordano, 2015 ), and unapologetically reiterate that assertion here.…”

“…We have posited that any new developments in neurotechnology entail effort to define and address the neuroethico-legal and social issues that may, and are likely to be generated by such research and its trsanslation in medical and/or other applications (Shook and Giordano, 2015 ), and unapologetically reiterate that assertion here. To effect such effort, it will be therefore important—and necessary—to both employ extant ethical and policy constructs and to revisit, and in some cases revise these concepts and processes so as to better meet the exigencies borne of emerging technology and techniques, and of the social contingencies and concerns that affect and are affected by their use in international contexts (Shook and Giordano, 2014 ; Giordano, 2015 ). Our ongoing work remains dedicated to these tasks.…”

Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties

“…While United States v Scheffer ( 1997 ) set a precedent for excluding polygraphic evidence in federal courtrooms, the states have inconsistently followed its example: twenty-nine states have banned such evidence outright, but the remaining states do not exclude it per se , provided that both the prosecution and the defense consent to its use (Shniderman, 2012 ). However, despite recent calls for ongoing protection of individuals who consent to the use of novel neurotechnologies, and the information they may yield (Giordano, 2015a , b , c , 2017 ), at present there are no policies in place that would provide for such safeguarding (thereby fortifying the importance and need for some form of “NINA”; see above).…”

Proceedings of the Third Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: A Review of Emerging Issues and Technologies

“…First, an overall “6-R” stance was advocated, which encourages responsibility for: assessment of capabilities and limitations of DBS in treatment of particular neuropsychiatric conditions, research to evaluate DBS effects in practice, regulation, responsivity to incurred burdens and harms and revision of DBS technology and techniques, and regulatory process, as necessary. Meeting these responsibilities invokes a “6-W” set of questions that can be used to define the parameters of use, and “6-Cs” that must be addressed in order to establish ethical probity in use (Giordano, 2015 ). Details of the “6-R, 6-W, 6-C” model for the ethical development of DBS technology are presented in Figure 2 .…”