The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders' Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 6 (3):541-578 (2013)
Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research and (future) applications raise important ethical issues that need to be addressed to promote societal acceptance and adequate policies. Here we report on a survey we conducted among 145 BCI researchers at the 4th International BCI conference, which took place in May–June 2010 in Asilomar, California. We assessed respondents’ opinions about a number of topics. First, we investigated preferences for terminology and definitions relating to BCIs. Second, we assessed respondents’ expectations on the marketability of different BCI applications (BCIs for healthy people, BCIs for assistive technology, BCIs-controlled neuroprostheses and BCIs as therapy tools). Third, we investigated opinions about ethical issues related to BCI research for the development of assistive technology: informed consent process with locked-in patients, risk-benefit analyses, team responsibility, consequences of BCI on patients’ and families’ lives, liability and personal identity and interaction with the media. Finally, we asked respondents which issues are urgent in BCI research
|Keywords||Brain-computer interfaces Brain-machine interfaces Neuroethics Neuroimaging Locked-in syndrome|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Heersmink (2009). Ghost in the Machine: A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship Between Brain-Computer Interface Applications and Their Users. Dissertation, University of Twente.
Guglielmo Tamburrini (2009). Brain to Computer Communication: Ethical Perspectives on Interaction Models. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 2 (3):137-149.
Gerd Grübler, Abdul Al-Khodairy, Robert Leeb, Iolanda Pisotta, Angela Riccio, Martin Rohm & Elisabeth Hildt (2014). Psychosocial and Ethical Aspects in Non-Invasive EEG-Based BCI Research—A Survey Among BCI Users and BCI Professionals. Neuroethics 7 (1):29-41.
Richard Heersmink (2011). Embodied Tools, Cognitive Tools and Brain-Computer Interfaces. Neuroethics. DOI 10.1007/S12152-011-9136-2 6 (1):207-219.
Richard Heersmink (2011). Epistemological and Phenomenological Issues in the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces. In C. Ess & R. Hagengruber (eds.), Proceedings of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy 2011 (pp. 98-102). MV-Wissenschaft.
Pim Haselager (2013). Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency. Minds and Machines 23 (3):405-418.
Sven Walter (2010). Locked-in Syndrome, Bci, and a Confusion About Embodied, Embedded, Extended, and Enacted Cognition. Neuroethics 3 (1):61-72.
Miriam Kyselo (2013). Locked-in Syndrome and BCI - Towards an Enactive Approach to the Self. Neuroethics 6 (3):579-591.
Andrew Fenton & Sheri Alpert (2008). Extending Our View on Using BCIs for Locked-in Syndrome. Neuroethics 1 (2):119-132.
Gerd Grübler (2011). Beyond the Responsibility Gap. Discussion Note on Responsibility and Liability in the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces. AI and Society 26 (4):377-382.
Sigrid Schmitz (2012). The Neurotechnological Cerebral Subject: Persistence of Implicit and Explicit Gender Norms in a Network of Change. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 5 (3):261-274.
William P. Cordeiro (1997). Suggested Management Responses to Ethical Issues Raised by Technological Change. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (12-13):1393-1400.
Cayce Hook & Martha Farah (2013). Neuroscience for Educators: What Are They Seeking, and What Are They Finding? Neuroethics 6 (2):331-341.
Philip Brey (2012). Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics 6 (1):1-13.
Added to index2011-08-22
Total downloads19 ( #73,619 of 1,017,939 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,012 of 1,017,939 )
How can I increase my downloads?