‘What sounded like science fiction is actually here’: why it’s important to talk (seriously) about nerves | technology

Restore the ability to communicate after losing it due to a degenerative disease. Turn things on or off with the mind. Typing on a computer just thinking about it and even deciphering the subconscious mind. It sounds like science fiction, but they are realities with which the human race has been living for several years now thanks to brain implants. Scientists, government representatives and senior United Nations officials met Thursday in Paris to address the ethical problems arising from these advances in neurotechnology (the branch of engineering they identify with), and to try to create a roadmap for regulating its use as quickly as possible.

“UNESCO’s concern is to build the foundation for understanding the challenges of neurotechnology from an ethical perspective,” says Gabriela Ramos, Deputy Director-General for Social and Human Sciences at UNESCO, the entity that organized the meeting. The biggest debate of all, according to the experts who intervened throughout the day, is the disconnect between development and respect for human rights. Thus, it seeks to ensure respect for freedom of thought and privacy without stopping scientific research that can greatly benefit humanity.

“What seemed at the beginning of science fiction has already arrived. If we do not act quickly, the same will happen with the Internet, social networks or artificial intelligence. In addition to being an expert when it comes to Commanding the deciphering of all the secrets of the brain, Yuste is also a pioneer when it comes to protecting human rights that are being compromised by this technology.In 2017, years before rats could be manipulated by directly interfering with their brains, the Spaniard created The Neurorights Foundation Foundation) to promote five core principles: mental privacy, personal identity, free will, and equal access to technologies to improve and protect biases.

The danger, Yosti explains, is that the same tools that are in medicine that can help improve people’s lives end up disrupting the information stored in the brain. “Although the roadmap is useful, these techniques are neutral and can be used for better or worse,” he says. It is no longer just about personal data and information such as home address, shopping habits or political parties followed on social networks, but also something as intimate as memories, thoughts and, even in the not too distant future, the subconscious. The same thing happens with foreign languages, at first it is easier to read them than to speak them. We have been reading the brain for a long time, and there are only five or 10 years left until we can also manipulate it, ”adds Yosti.

Nerve protection regulation

Chile will become the spearhead of the world’s nervous systems in 2021, after introducing an amendment to protect brain activity in its constitution. The reform, which was voted unanimously, recognizes that any kind of scientific and technological development should be carried out “with respect for life and the physical and mental integrity of the people”. On the other hand, the Chilean Congress continues to work on a bill that includes neurological elements in accordance with the developments made by the Morningside Group. Coordinated by Yuste and made up of 25 international professionals in neuroscience, law and ethics.

“We are aware that the regulation of these technologies cannot be based on fear of technological development, but rather on a firm commitment to human rights. It is a complex task because legislation must leave enough room for innovation,” recalls the Chilean Government’s Undersecretary for Science and Technology, Carolina Ginza, in Paris . This is why it is important to promote an evidence-informed discussion and moral awareness. You have an open mind to be able to imagine new possibilities that we haven’t even imagined yet.”

Gabriela Ramos, who recently moderated the discussion between the main international players in the field, acknowledges that the Chilean model is working; Because it starts from a very basic concept: the idea that neurological information should not be marketed. “If we have a strong regulatory framework, transparency and accountability, then there are no reasons to fear this revolution,” explains the Deputy Director of UNESCO.

Currently, the Yuste group is working in Brazil, the second country that has chosen to introduce a constitutional amendment similar to the Chilean one that will be voted on in the coming months in the Senate. For its part, Spain published the Charter of Digital Rights, which is the first document of its kind in Europe, which came to light after more than a year of work. Several experts took part in this project, coordinated by the Secretary of State for Digitization and Artificial Intelligence, Carme Artigas. There are two aspects that concern me the most in this area. First, I think it is important that we do not make the same mistake as with artificial intelligence, when we allow ourselves to be guided by industry rather than the academic world,” the minister admitted during her speech. “Secondly, the potential benefits of this research must be made available, so that everyone can benefit from it,” he adds. These advances when it comes to health.”

The Spanish document, which lacks legal value, outlines some preliminary rules that will guide future technology policies. “The Guidelines are a good place to start talking about, and there are many countries and international organizations that do that. However, they don’t solve the problem. What you have to do is get your hands on them and change the constitution to protect citizens,” says Yoste.

Market in private hands

In fact, one of the factors that experts are most concerned about is the strong component of private investment in this type of technology. A market analysis by Yuste neurorights has shown that there is more than $33,000 million invested in private neurotechnology projects, which is an exorbitant figure compared to the rare $10,000 million that is invested in all public brain research projects in the world.

Melina Costas, who leads the United Nations’ human rights group, is instrumental in this area. He works with his team to study the impact, opportunities and challenges of neurotechnology, based on a survey that is made available to various governments and international organizations. “The opportunities are endless. Especially in the medical field, when we talk about applications for making diagnoses and identifying treatments for neurological diseases,” Costa explains. “What may be more problematic is the rapid commercialization of these technologies that are already on the market.”

The scenario is even more alarming if we look at the results of another study that Yuste presented this Thursday during the UNESCO conference and which will be published in September. After analyzing the consumer contracts of the 24 largest neurotechnology companies in the world – most of which are located in the United States and Canada – they were able to verify that all companies, without exception, control all user neurological data. “They not only have them, but they can do whatever they want with them. They can be destroyed, decrypted and sold. And half of the companies make users pay to consult their private data to celebrate them,” says Yuste, who did not want to provide the name of these companies.

Another concern for scientists is the difficulty of monitoring non-invasive technology, such as video game glasses or wristbands that already have access to so much information about their users’ lives. “From the patients’ point of view, this is probably the most relevant revolution. But the fact that they are external implants makes their regulation less urgent, and this is a mistake,” Yuste warns. Indeed, progress on more daring projects that plan to implant brain chips — such as the case of Elon Musk’s company Neuralink, which has been waiting years to test its implants in humans — is slow, dependent on permissions from regulatory agencies.

With these assumptions, Costa insists on the need to regulate this technology thinking above all about the rights of the most vulnerable, such as children, people with disabilities and the elderly. “We must never forget that, despite the fact that progress may be beneficial, it cannot be accepted without further ado. Sacrificing mental privacy or freedom of thought. Trying to define red lines more precisely is not a way to limit the growth of this technology, but it is Support for its development in the most beneficial way for humanity, ”emphasizes the expert.

You can follow The Country Technology in Facebook And Twitter Or sign up here to receive The weekly newsletter.