Dr. Joe Vukov is a phenomenal philosopher and professor at Loyola University Chicago. His work focuses on understanding how ethics, neuroscience, and philosophy intersect to answer questions related to science and religion. In late March, Dr. Vukov was the guest lecturer for our neuroscience seminar.
During his talk Dr. Vukov discussed brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), concentrating on closed-loop BCIs which he had introduced to us previously with the article, “Brain-Responsive Neurostimulation for Loss of Control Eating: Early Feasibility Study”, written by Wu et al. (2020). BCIs use electrical signs of brain activity to control an external device, allowing humans to exchange information with their environment. Closed-loop BCIs provide external or self-regulation of brain activity through various forms of real-time, adaptive feedback (Belkacem et al., 2023). Dr. Vukov utilized his perspective as a philosopher to discuss the potential ethical implications and concerns of closed-loop BCIs, arguing that the two most common concerns are not actually what we should be worried about and proposing what he believes to be the main ethical concerns.
The two most common ethical concerns with closed-loop BCIs, as proposed by Dr. Vukov, are that (a) BCIs operate outside the conscious awareness and (b) BCIs violate or endanger privacy. Regarding (a) Dr. Vukov argues that conscious awareness is not as ethically important as we think it is, he supports this claim by asserting that ethical decisions do not require consciousness and that many can be made unconsciously, therefore, consciousness does not reliably indicate how ethical a decision is. Concerning (b) Dr. Vukov references Levy’s parity principle which proposes that our ethical responses to interventions in the cognitive environment ought to be consistent with our ethical responses to interventions in the brain. Furthermore, Dr. Vukov claims that the brain is not that special and privacy should not be a central concern because it is possible to opt out of BCIs at the entry level.
In contrast, Dr. Vukov proposes the main ethical concerns the public should have with closed-loop BCIs are (a) their potential to undermine agency and (b) the creation of new spaces for surveillance. For (a), Dr. Vukov asserts that closed-loop BCIs short circuit one’s ability to fully endorse their actions. Additionally, BCI’s also have the potential to prompt certain behaviors and therefore can have direct influence on one’s behavior which in turn creates an uneasy and complex relationship with agency. Relating to (b), Dr. Vukov states that BCIs open a new market for surveillance by making thought profitable as is currently happening with experiences. Companies are able to use “surplus data” in a behavioral future market which allows them to predict and change behaviors. This same approach could be applied to data collected by BCIs to influence and potentially control consumer behaviors.
The article “Ethical imperatives in the commercialization of brain-computer interfaces” by Boonstra (2025) begins to approach the issues of commercial claims, technical limitations of current BCI systems, BCIs accuracy and biocompatibility, neural data commodification, procedural risks, and lack of regulations. Similarly to the issue of surveillance proposed by Vukov, Boonstra (2025) describes this concern utilizing the term of neural commodification which describes the process of one’s neural data being transformed into an economic good to be bought, sold, and leveraged for profit, resulting in market value being prioritized over individual autonomy and mental privacy. Furthermore, Boonstra (2025) is also concerned with agency while broadening the potential impact. Coercive optimism, as described by Boonstra (2025), is the phenomenon where truly autonomous and ethically informed consent is undermined by intense consumer hype and the promise of transformative medical benefits, especially to vulnerable populations.
While BCIs have the potential to provide transformative care, especially for those suffering from neurological disorders, it is important to consider and evaluate the ethical risk and implications. As BCIs become rapidly commercialized, robust ethical, legal, and ethical frameworks need to be developed (Boonstra, 2025) to protect individuals from their agency being undermined and the expansion of surveillance . Furthermore, the fear of neural commodification and coercive optimism need to be addressed at the national and international level to increase public trust and put patient welfare first instead of marked interest.
References
Belkacem, A. N., Jamil, N., Khalid, S., & Alnajjar, F. (2023). On closed-loop brain stimulation systems for improving the quality of life of patients with neurological disorders. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 17, 1085173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1085173
Boonstra J. T. (2025). Ethical imperatives in the commercialization of brain-computer interfaces. IBRO neuroscience reports, 19, 718–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibneur.2025.10.004
Wu, H., Adler, S., Azagury, D. E., Bohon, C., Safer, D. L., Barbosa, D. A. N., Bhati, M. T., Williams, N. R., Dunn, L. B., Tass, P. A., Knutson, B. D., Yutsis, M., Fraser, A., Cunningham, T., Richardson, K., Skarpaas, T. L., Tcheng, T. K., Morrell, M. J., Roberts, L. W., Malenka, R. C., … Halpern, C. H. (2020). Brain-Responsive Neurostimulation for Loss of Control Eating: Early Feasibility Study. Neurosurgery, 87(6), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyaa300
No comments:
Post a Comment