Institute of Neuroethics (IoNx)

It was a pleasure to work with The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG to help raise awareness of the neurotechnology and governance landscape in the EU. A great summary on that panel can be found here. https://lnkd.in/ejuqUnDS Quote from IoNx's Arleen Salles “Creating neurotechnology governance that can navigate the ethical and regulatory grey areas — between medical and non-medical uses, empowerment and vulnerability, among others — requires a strong commitment to anticipation, meaningful engagement, and responsible conceptualisation and framing.”

Last week, IoNx had the privilege of participating in two important events focused on the future of neurotechnology governance in Europe: a?Roundtable Discussion on Neurotechnology Governance organized by The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG and the?Euractiv Hybrid Conference "Neurotechnology's Rapid Evolution – What Consequences for the EU Regulatory Landscape?" Both gatherings brought together a diverse group of experts and stakeholders to address the ethical and regulatory challenges of this rapidly evolving field, as well as to discuss recent research papers and reports that shed light on these issues. One key takeaway: the importance of advancing ethical neurotechnology practices through meaningful inclusive engagement and by promoting conceptually sound, forward-looking regulation. Jan Alhadeff, Lisa Berger, Antonia Mochan, Guilherme Maia de Oliveira Wood, Javier Castillo, Ricardo Chavarriaga, Arleen Salles, Virginia Mahieu, Karen Rommelfanger, Lucy Tournas, J.D., Darrell Porcello, Pawe? ?wieboda,

Delighted to have shared insights from our recent ICFG-IoNx discussion paper, "Towards Inclusive EU Governance of Neurotechnologies" in this event. We addressed the importance of foresight and anticipatory policymaking, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and the need for clear, harmonized concepts to guide the future of neurotechnology. I am inspired by the comments and perspectives of the participants who joined the panel: Antonia Mochan, Guilherme Maia de Oliveira Wood, Javier Castillo, Ricardo Chavarriaga, and Virginia Mahieu. Looking ahead, Europe has the opportunity to foster a responsible, participatory governance. Let’s continue working towards a trusted neurotech future that empowers all. Special thanks to my wonderful colleagues at the Institute of Neuroethics (IoNx) - Karen Rommelfanger,Darrell Porcello, Lucy Tournas, J.D.- and to our partners at the The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG Virginia Mahieu and Pawe? ?wieboda. Your commitment to creatively shaping a responsible neurotechnology future is inspiring!

As the governance conversation around brain data (e.g., neural data, neurodata, mental data) continues to evolve, there's another term to add to the list "cognitive biometric data". The term was noted in the UNESCO AHEG Report on neurotechnology and can be further understood in this recent paper: https://lnkd.in/eCbPvZ3Y One of the most valuable parts of the paper is a prelim exploration of global privacy laws that could apply to brain data, so governance-curious readers should be sure to check out the Supplementary Materials.

In case you haven't seen it yet, uncorrected proofs of the NASEM report: Exploring the Bidirectional Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience is out! The report is the culmination of workshops, research and analysis led by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Congrats to the Sheena Posey Norris and the NASEM team, Magali Haas and her co-chair, and the full working group. There's some great nuggets of info including some opportunities and areas of urgency for researchers and policy makers to make important connections between AI and neuroscience. One great point by Advisory Council Member Jennifer French and workshop participant was to integrate those with lived experiences at the earliest stages of design and development of AI-enabled neurotechnologies. She also emphasizes the pitfalls of approaching neurotech development from a medical model that "...frames patients as a cluster of limitations and treatment needs, but we should also think about a social model, which shifts focus away from the individual deficiencies and toward structural and systemic barriers that people with disabilities face. These changes could help new technologies move past initial market approval to acceptance and adoption." Once again, we also see a call in the report for public engagement for not only trust building but also for translation of discoveries into more impactful products. We hope readers and participants in the event will take that call to heart. IoNx is onboard! IoNx has engaged in designing innovative public engagement experiences including recent NeuroAI Hackathon in Vienna (preliminary report link: https://lnkd.in/epNN-XP2) We're looking forward to offering more experiences on the most pressing topics in neuroethics. More soon as we're already cooking up plan for 2025.

California has modified its Consumer Privacy act, designating brain data a biometric data. This offers some important protections for brain data. It's an important step and is especially impactful given that the law comes from California. “California is really a technology leader for the world,” [California Senator] Mr. Becker said. “And so for California to step forward and say, ‘Hey, this is important, we are going to protect this information,’ I think it is really important.” That said, there are some additional protections needed for inferences made from brain data related to individual and groups that warrant more context specific regs. IoNx advisory council member Marcello Ienca says “What matters is that you are doing a type of inference that is extremely infringing upon my privacy rights,” said Marcello Ienca, a professor of ethics of artificial intelligence and neuroscience at the Technical University of Munich, in Germany, who was not involved in crafting the bill. Whether that inference involves facial recognition, neurotechnology, biosensors or other technology is unimportant, he said. A better approach, he added, would be to regulate the algorithms underpinning these predictions, rather than targeting neural data and neurotechnology companies specifically.

The The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Human Rights Advisory Committee on Neurotechnology has released its report, Impact, opportunities and challenges of Neurotechnology with regard to the promotion and protection of al human rights https://lnkd.in/eX89FHgJ. You can also want the comments from member countries (starting at 1.21) from the UN HRC 57th session here: https://lnkd.in/ea3-VPrt In short, the representatives highlight the commitment to pursuing the development of neurotechnologies and their belief that neurotechnologies offer great promise for human health and well-being. They also agreed that delivering that promise must address potential for misuse, gaps in regulation for neurotech companies, and the need for specific international and national-level guidance related to neurotechnology. Primary findings from the report are (a) Neurotechnologies affect human rights in a unique manner. Connecting human brains directly to digital networks has significant ethical implications for values underlying the human rights system (dignity, privacy, autonomy and agency) and may offer tools to alter human essence; (b) Integrating a human rights approach into all national and international policies is a priority. Developing an actionable human rights approach is of the utmost importance. Further support and guidance is needed to foster understanding among States and the private sector and ensure that a human rights approach is effectively embedded throughout all policies and practices; (c) Although human rights provide an adequate and flexible principle-based framework to face new challenges, enforcing implementation is a must. To avoid the development of technologies that are not human rights-compliant, it is essential that the scope of applicable human rights standards be clarified and adapted to address the inherent and anticipated risks; (d) Context-tailored human rights standards should be developed and expressly declared in authoritative documents. That is extremely important with a view to clarifying the scope of State obligations related to the protection of the forum internum; (e) An international document bringing together relevant human rights standards and interpretative principles should be elaborated. That document would offer important guidance for national policies and would allow a concerted and coherent approach throughout the world. We hope that Human Rights Council is provided the resources to further develop these policies and that the HRC and Member States commit to inclusive, participatory processes to do so. We'll be speaking with our partners The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG in Brussels on October 29th about just that: https://lnkd.in/eR3S_y-f Stay tuned!

Holding true to the notion that “the best audience members will stay to engage in the last session on a Friday afternoon.” Thanks for joining us for the interactive examination - happening now! - of how we feel in our societies about emerging neurotechnologies. Joining together on this “Neurotechnology for Good” panel cohosted by The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG and IoNx are Darrell Porcello, Pawe? ?wieboda, Virginia Mahieu, Lucy Tournas, J.D., Arleen Salles, PhD, and Karen Rommelfanger.

IoNx and The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG will be participating at UNGA 2024 on Sept 20th on Neurotechnology for Good: Moving Forward Together. Hope to see you there. Please say hello if you’re in NYC next week Agnes McMahon Stephens Darrell Porcello Karen Rommelfanger Arleen Salles, PhD Lucy Tournas, J.D. Amanda Zwarenstein Pawe? ?wieboda Virginia Mahieu

Excited to spotlight NEBA's panel "Neuroethics is Africa", addressing the ethical dimensions and promises of neurotechnology in the African context.