CESAGen at Lancaster University was involved in organising a conference in Brussels last November, titled “ICT that makes the difference”.  We organised sessions on state-of-the-art robotics and on issues surrounding what we decided to call the disappearing interface between humans and machines, ie., body and brain implants or direct brain-computer interface. None of us are roboticists, engineers or bio-scientists of any sort. It was therefore particularly interesting for us (and hopefully the audience too) to invite researchers who actually have a direct stake in the latest cutting edge developments, and mix them with others who are concerned with ethical, legal and social implications (ELSi) of new and emerging technologies. For example, we had a session on “Medial access to the brain” and one of the things we learned is how information and communications technologies are used to impact on brain performance or respond directly to brain signals. The authors who presented in this sessions (Rolando Meloni and Elisabeth Hildt) explained to the audience how some of the micro-implants work that now are used in therapeutic approaches to hearing loss, loss of vision and to manage neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson's disease. We learned about direct brain-computer interfaces that allow for brain signals to be captured and used for communication and control of movement—a technology which has been tried on people who suffer from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), stroke, spinal cord injury or cerebral palsy. We also learned that brain-implants are advocated for correcting behavioural traits, to enhance the cognitive abilities of otherwise “normal” people or simply for entertainment.

Cutting edge developments tend to be very intriguing indeed but, at the same time, harrowing. A lot is known about deep brain stimulation for people who suffer from Parkinson's disease. The technology has been around already for two or so decades and is typically used when medication does not work very well to control tremors, rigidity or bradykinesias. A brain implant will relieve at least the tremors in most cases (see eg. a review by Benabid, et al. 2005). But there can be adverse effects as well, due to incorrect implantation, to hardware failure or to the actual stimulation in the sub-thalamus—in 3% of cases leading to permanent neurological impairment. So, one is inclined to ask, what about other purposes for using such an invasive procedure as to actually implant devices in people's brains—purposes that are not to relieve serious conditions but, rather, to enhance or alter dramatically what the brain/mind is capable of?

Both talks given in this session touched upon issues of human enhancement and what perhaps we ought to be concerned about in that respect. As Elisabeth Hildt put it in her abstract, “concerns regarding a technicalization of the human body, the encouragement of a reductionist or functionalist view on persons and their brains, and speculations relating to cybernetic organisms, cyborgs.” (from the conference abstract).

We listed the implicated ELS issues that might need to be explored in relation to the talks in this session:
      Promissory technologies
      Technicalisation of the body
      Advanced therapies
      Brain-device interdependence
      Risk management
      Reversibility
      Human self-understanding
      The idea of “man”
      Quality of Life
      Autonomy and independent living
      Dignity and privacy
      Data protection
      Social participation
      Who pays? inclusion/exclusion
      Implants in selected social groups
      Implants for security
      Implants for tracking
      Technology governance

Most likely there are more ELSi issues to consider when looking to accessing the brain for medical purposes as well as other purposes for which neurotechnologies could be used. On the top of this list, however, is the question of promise—one which I think is often missed. When scientists articulate the possibilities they see in the technologies they are developing, they are also promising those who often suffer severely that they will have relief very soon, to some extent at least. While it may seem like a philanthropic gesture to give people hope, the risk is to give false hopes. Scientists do have a way of promising more than they can actually deliver and, as we know from the experience with the deep brain stimulator, things can go wrong, they do not work according to plan or not as well as initially was “promised”. I believe that our invited commentator really brought that message home. As someone who happens to be disabled, suffering from one of the non-progressive conditions the speakers were talking about, he stood up, walked into the centre of the room, leaned on his walking cane and spoke of the promises made to him personally when learning about these new and emerging technologies. The obvious question for him would be, when will I get my relief? And, the obvious answer, probably not in my lifetime. It was a sobering remark to make right there and then, reminding the audience of a very real condition of a very real person, while learning about grandiose future possibilities. As he also pointed out, the NHS sponsors the walking cane and thereby considers him able-bodied.

References
Benabid, A. L , Chabardes, S., Mitrofanis, J., and Pollak, P. (2009). Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. The LANCET Neurology  8(1): 67-81.
Kevin Warwick, "I, Cyborg", website at http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ICyborg.htm
TOBI : Tools for Brain-Computer Interaction, website at http://www.tobi-project.org/

Downloads

	The disappearing interface between humans and machines pdf