Seite - 225 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

Neuronal Interfaces and Policy • 225 – The manner in which new neuronal interfaces are used for individual applications; because the way in which such applications may be used may challenge social values relating to the self, privacy, discovery, justice, health and rights, care is required when they are being considered in political settings. – The manner in which the combined consequences resulting from neuro- nal interfaces may affect a population. This should, for example, examine the way in which neuronal imaging may be used to categorise personalities and how this could affect legal responsibility or equality of opportunity, such as in employment.34 A whole new structure addressing cybercrimes may also become necessary, though this will most likely be based on already-existing principles. As the report from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission concerning the ethical aspects of information and communication technologies implants in the human body indicated in 2005: [T]he legal background should be derived from general principles underlying national legislation and international instruments. Such general principles can provide the guidance required to outline the legal standards necessary for the regulation of a technology that modifies the body and its relationship with the environment and thereby impacts deeply on personal identity and life.35 These legal principles should be sourced from texts relating to the different relevant subject matters, such as international legal instruments on bioeth- ics, data processing, privacy, the limitations on consent and the definition of medical devices.36 Of course, it is also important that the role of ethics in the context of policy and regulation should not only be reactive and restrictive, by address- ing any misuses and harmful consequences, but also proactive, while looking to future possibilities. Ethical examination would then assist in the imple- mentation of neuronal interfaces in society so that they can support benefi- cial outcomes, while improving the lives and welfare of citizens.37 As Blank concludes: ‘Brain policy, then can be permissive, affirmative, regulatory, or prohibitive.’38 However, new regulations may still be very different depending on whether neuronal interfaces are used in either medical or nonmedical con- texts. Indeed, the manner in which the risks and advantages will be consid- ered for appliances which do, or do not, have any medical purposes will be different.39 This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.