Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy.


Journal

Science and engineering ethics
ISSN: 1471-5546
Titre abrégé: Sci Eng Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516228

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 07 07 2017
accepted: 03 11 2017
pubmed: 17 12 2017
medline: 26 11 2019
entrez: 17 12 2017
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Contemporary brain reading technologies promise to provide the possibility to decode and interpret mental states and processes. Brain reading could have numerous societally relevant implications. In particular, the private character of mind might be affected, generating ethical and legal concerns. This paper aims at equipping ethicists and policy makers with conceptual tools to support an evaluation of the potential applicability and the implications of current and near future brain reading technology. We start with clarifying the concepts of mind reading and brain reading, and the different kinds of mental states that could in principle be read. Subsequently, we devise an evaluative framework that is composed of five criteria-accuracy, reliability, informativity, concealability and enforceability-aimed at enabling a clearer estimation of the degree to which brain reading might be realistically deployed in contexts where mental privacy could be at stake. While accuracy and reliability capture how well a certain method can access mental content, informativity indicates the relevance the obtainable data have for practical purposes. Concealability and enforceability are particularly important for the evaluation of concerns about potential violations of mental privacy and civil rights. The former concerns the degree with which a brain reading method can be concealed from an individual's perception or awareness. The latter regards the extent to which a method can be used against somebody's will. With the help of these criteria, stakeholders can orient themselves in the rapidly developing field of brain reading.

Identifiants

pubmed: 29247306
doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0003-3
pii: 10.1007/s11948-017-0003-3
pmc: PMC6450833
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

443-461

Références

Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S59-65
pubmed: 16030340
Am J Bioeth. 2005 Spring;5(2):5-18
pubmed: 16036688
Science. 2006 Feb 10;311(5762):783-4
pubmed: 16469905
Curr Biol. 2007 Feb 20;17(4):323-8
pubmed: 17291759
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jan 22;105(3):1050-4
pubmed: 18195362
Nature. 2008 Mar 20;452(7185):352-5
pubmed: 18322462
Nat Neurosci. 2008 May;11(5):543-5
pubmed: 18408715
J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jan;21(1):119-27
pubmed: 18476762
Science. 2008 May 30;320(5880):1191-5
pubmed: 18511683
Front Behav Neurosci. 2010 Oct 13;4:160
pubmed: 21031162
Neuroimage. 2012 Jan 16;59(2):1924-31
pubmed: 21933719
Curr Biol. 2011 Oct 11;21(19):1641-6
pubmed: 21945275
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;69(2):187-94
pubmed: 21969422
J Neurosci. 2011 Nov 30;31(48):17348-57
pubmed: 22131397
Neurology. 2011 Dec 13;77(24):2123-7
pubmed: 22131543
Neuroimage. 2013 Jan 15;65:456-65
pubmed: 23041528
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990 Mar;61(3):266-71
pubmed: 2317183
Neuron. 2012 Dec 20;76(6):1210-24
pubmed: 23259955
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Mar 07;7:70
pubmed: 23470924
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 9;110(15):6217-22
pubmed: 23509300
BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Mar 19;13:88
pubmed: 23510246
Science. 2013 May 3;340(6132):639-42
pubmed: 23558170
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 11;368(15):1388-97
pubmed: 23574118
Nat Neurosci. 2013 Jun;16(6):763-70
pubmed: 23603707
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Aug;9(8):1185-92
pubmed: 23784074
Neuroimage. 2013 Dec;83:951-61
pubmed: 23886984
J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 Jan;26(1):120-31
pubmed: 23915056
Neuron. 2013 Sep 4;79(5):1025-34
pubmed: 23932491
Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Sep;1(3):232-40
pubmed: 24168346
Neuroimage Clin. 2013 May 13;2:675-83
pubmed: 24179819
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Nov 11;8:888
pubmed: 25426045
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Jun;36(6):2338-51
pubmed: 25716010
Nature. 2015 Feb 26;518(7540):474-6
pubmed: 25719648
Hum Brain Mapp. 2015 Jun;36(6):2374-86
pubmed: 25733379
Anaesthesia. 2015 Jul;70(7):828-47
pubmed: 25772783
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Mar 10;9:105
pubmed: 25805982
Neuroimage. 2015 Jun;113:164-74
pubmed: 25819306
Neuron. 2015 Aug 5;87(3):621-31
pubmed: 26247866
Neuropsychobiology. 2015;72(1):37-45
pubmed: 26314945
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Feb;24:128-34
pubmed: 26455546
Nature. 2015 Oct 15;526(7573):371-9
pubmed: 26469048
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Oct;22(5):1299-1317
pubmed: 26497727
Nature. 2016 Apr 28;532(7600):453-8
pubmed: 27121839
Eur J Psychol. 2015 Aug 20;11(3):522-34
pubmed: 27247675
Radiology. 2016 Nov;281(2):507-515
pubmed: 27337027
Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 28;7:933
pubmed: 27445902
J Law Biosci. 2015 Feb 04;2(1):139-148
pubmed: 27774191
J Law Biosci. 2016 Jan 14;2(3):485-509
pubmed: 27774210

Auteurs

Giulio Mecacci (G)

Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. g.mecacci@donders.ru.nl.

Pim Haselager (P)

Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH