Search results

AbstractImplantable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are being developed to restore speech capacity for those who are unable to speak. Patients with locked-in syndrome or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis could be able to use covert speech – vividly imagining saying something without actual vocalisation – to trigger neural controlled systems capable of synthesising speech. User control has been identified as particularly pressing for this type of BCI. The incorporation of machine learning and statistical language models into the decoding process introduces a contribution to (or 'shaping of') the output that is beyond the user's control. Whilst this type of 'shared control' of BCI action is not unique to speech BCIs, the automated shaping of what a user 'says' has a particularly acute ethical dimension, which may differ from parallel concerns surrounding automation in movement BCIs. This paper provides an analysis of the control afforded to the user of a speech BCI of the sort under development, as well as the relationships between accuracy, control, and the user's ownership of the speech produced. Through comparing speech BCIs with BCIs for movement, we argue that, whilst goal selection is the more significant locus of control for the user of a movement BCI, control over process will be more significant for the user of the speech BCI. The design of the speech BCI may therefore have to trade off some possible efficiency gains afforded by automation in order to preserve sufficient guidance control necessary for users to express themselves in ways they prefer. We consider the implications for the speech BCI user's responsibility for produced outputs and their ownership of token outputs. We argue that these are distinct assessments. Ownership of synthetic speech concerns whether the content of the output sufficiently represents the user, rather than their morally relevant, causal role in producing that output.

AbstractThe ongoing COVID-19 emergency clearly presents novel challenges, both in terms of difficulties for maintaining public health and in assuring that governmental responses are ethically sound. Centrally, responses must respect, as best as possible, fundamental human rights and human values. Conflicts among values arise in response to the crisis, and public officials have no choice but to prioritize some while sacrificing others. Utilizing the concepts of effectiveness and legitimacy within the framework of post-normal science (PNS), we investigate and recommend processes and measures to address COVID-19 that support increased public health, while upholding established rights and values. The effectiveness and legitimacy of science-led policymaking requires investigation of how that policy ought to be made (e.g. concepts of policymaking and PNS), as well as how it ought to interact with diversely-constituted publics (e.g. public inclusion in policymaking and policy communication).

"This book combines multiple perspectives on ethical backgrounds, theories, and management approaches when implementing new technologies into an environment"--Provided by publisher

A fuller understanding of the human brain, better diagnoses and treatment of brain disorders, as well as the development of new brain-like technologies are all goals of the Human Brain Project. Realizing these goals requires the collection, storage, curation, and analysis of data of various sorts over extended periods of time. Securing privacy interests and advancing data protection measures are key concerns of the Human Brain Project. Their importance was recognized during the proposal development, taken up by the Ethics and Society Subproject (SP12) and reinforced by the Ethics Review in Jan 2015. The HBP needs to comply with national and European data protection legislation. But it is clear that the HBP must go beyond existing legal protections and show not only that it is ethically sensitive to privacy concerns even when such concerns fall outside regulatory frameworks, but also that it makes appropriate use of data and is able to identify and respond to new, unanticipated threats to privacy as they emerge. This document expresses the opinion concerning data protection and privacy by those involved in the Ethics and Society section of the HBP. This includes the members of the sub-project on Ethics and Society (SP12), members of the Ethics Advisory Board and the Ethics Rapporteurs. We identify some of the main privacy-related concerns within HBP, articulate the basic ethical principles that should guide examination of the issues, and present a brief review of the history of data protection and regulation in Europe, focusing on the current state of such regulation. While aware that misuse of the information must be prevented, we are mindful that a form of privacy protection that would prohibit use of any medical or other records for research would stifle medical and scientific progress making it impossible to achieve expected benefits to health that are in the public interest. Therefore, we offer final recommendations that are intended to minimize potential risks while securing the public benefit anticipated from HBP research. Finally, it is worth noting that there is a more general context to current debates on data protection and privacy. A variety of well publicised events have revealed the extent to which the security apparatuses of different national states acquire covert access to data stored on the internet and mine it in various ways in the course of their work. These revelations influence how citizens think about and how policymakers legislate data protection. The structure of the the Opinion is as follows: it starts with a description of some of the key privacy challenges and concerns raised by the HBP. The Opinion then describes conceptual and empirical research on privacy and data protection undertaken in the context of the HBP. It outlines technical options and the regulatory environment within which the HBP operates. The Opinion concludes with a set of recommendations to the HBP.