A neuroscientist studies brainwave technologies with the aim of developing brain-machine computer interfaces (BMCI) and biometric systems. In considering projects she might work on, such as developing a database system to identify individuals by EEG biosignatures or advancing the field of neuromarketing, she starts to wonder about the long-term social value of these emerging technologies.
Neuroscientist Samantha Anders works as a research scientist at the US government’s National Institutes of Health (NIH). Her job involves researching brainwave technologies with the aim of developing brain-machine computer interfaces (BMCI) and biometric systems. She has recently heard about an interesting job opportunity in the private sector, which would involve work with similar brainwave and neuro-technologies to the ones she is using currently at her NIH job. However, the ultimate goal of the research at the private firm would be to develop and sell goods and services to the general public.
Samantha’s current job involves gathering and analysing data from electroencephalograms (EEG). Electroencephalography is a method used by neurologists to detect electrical activity in the brain using small, flat metal discs, or electrodes, attached to the scalp (MayoClinic.org). It is commonly used in a medical context to detect brain abnormalities and diagnose disorders such as epilepsy. However, Samantha gathers data from many healthy individuals using EEG to create large databases of brain activity for scientists to analyse. The ultimate goal of her department’s research is to develop reliable methods to detect biometric signatures from the data, which could be used to identify individuals.
Samantha is somewhat bored in her current job, collecting and annotating data, and she is doubtful that EEG data will ever be robust enough to serve as biometric signatures. She is also slightly troubled with the thought that scientists might eventually develop methods to reliably detect biometric signatures to identify individuals, if not from EEG data, then perhaps from brain data gathered from other neurotechnologies. She thinks this might be problematic even if the research subjects who’ve volunteered for this research are informed of this possibility and still consent to participate. She thinks more should be done to protect information about individuals and safeguard their right to privacy, much like is being discussed in the context of individuals’ genetic information stored in genomic databases. She is therefore contemplating making a career move and leaving her government job for the new position in the private marketing firm.
The new position would also involve work gathering and analyzing data from EEG, as well as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), on individuals, but in the context of a new field of marketing, referred to as neuromarketing. Neuromarketing involves the application of neurotechnologies in which psychological (cognitive and affective) states of individuals are leveraged to improve marketing strategies, with the ultimate goal of increasing profits (Rodenburg 2014).
Samantha thinks this might be better use of her expertise and skill because it would not rely on using large data sets to identify particular individuals. However, her friend Kara thinks that using EEG and fMRI data for targeting consumers’ subconscious is just as problematic and has urged Samantha not to work at the neuromarketing firm. Should Samantha make her career move?
Choudhury, Suparna, Jennifer R. Fishman, Michelle L. McGowan, and Eric T. Juengst. "Big data, open science and the brain: lessons learned from genomics." Frontiers in human neuroscience 8 (2014): 239.
Farahany, Nita. “3 reasons brain science is terrific and terrifying” World Economic Forum. January 21, 2016. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-reasons-brain-science-is-terrific-and-terrifying/ Accessed October 13, 2016.
Flores, Jason, Arne Baruca, and Robert Saldivar. “Is neuromarketing ethical? Consumers say yes. consumers say no.” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 17, no. 2 (2014): 77.
Gutmann, Amy. “We need to unlock the brain’s secrets - ethically.” Scientific American. March 26, 2015. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-need-to-unlock-the-brain-s-secrets-ethically/ Accessed October 13, 2016.
Illes, Judy, and Sofia Lombera. "Identifiable neuro ethics challenges to the banking of neuro data." Minn. JL Sci. & Tech. 10 (2008): 71.
Oullier, Olivier. “Clear up this fuzzy thinking on brain scans: France has banned commercial applications of brain imaging.” Nature, World View. February 29 2012. http://www.nature.com/news/clear-up-this-fuzzy-thinking-on-brain-scans-1.10127 Accessed October 13, 2016.
Poldrack, Russell A., and Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski. 2014. "Making big data open: data sharing in neuroimaging." Nature Neuroscience 17 (11):1510-1517.
Rodenburg, Dirk. “The Ethics of Brain Wave Technology: Issues, Principles, and Guidelines.” CeReB: The Center for Responsible Brainwave Technologies (2014): 1-34.
Rose, Nikolas. "The Human Brain Project: social and ethical challenges." Neuron 82, no. 6 (2014): 1212-1215.
Ulman, Yesim Isil, Tuna Cakar, and Gokcen Yildiz. “Ethical issues in neuromarketing: ‘I consume, therefore I am!’.” Science and engineering ethics 21, no. 5 (2015): 1271-1284.
Human Brain Project: https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/
National Institutes of Health: https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/about/newg.htm
The Brain Mapping Initiatives: Foundational Issues: http://bioethics.as.nyu.edu/object/brain
Posted 1 year and 3 months ago