Brain Matters Vol. 8 No. 2 The Ethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) Written by Ruchi Prakash such as robotic arms, wheelchairs, and speech neuroprosthetics. Speech neuroprosthetics, a specialized type of BCI, translate brain activity into text or synthesized speech. This technology enables users to bypass the peripheral nervous system and muscles entirely, restoring their ability to communicate and interact with their environment. Beyond simply replacing lost motor function, BCIs can also serve as rehabilitation tools. Feedback from BCI systems can help rewire or strengthen brain circuits, promoting the restoration of native motor functions over time (Daly & Wolpaw, 2008). Although originally limited to restoring motor functions, the scope of BCIs is expanding into exciting new frontiers. Today, BCIs can be used for everything from controlling smart devices to cognitive enhancement and interacting with virtual worlds. Leading companies in the field like Neuralink and Synchron are developing BCIs that could allow people to interact with technology in ways that were previously only seen in science fiction. With the immense potential of this technology comes important ethical questions: Who owns and controls the data from our minds? Could cognitive enhancement through BCIs deepen social divides? How do we protect our privacy and autonomy over which thoughts are converted into digital signals? As BCIs become more integrated into daily life, addressing these ethical concerns will be essential in shaping the future of human agency. 69 Fifteen years after a stroke left Cathy Hutchinson paralyzed, she discovered a surprising path to independence. Using nothing but her thoughts, she can now control a robotic arm to feed herself and perform everyday tasks, something that was once thought impossible (Image 1). This life-changing feat is made possible by brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), an upcoming technology that establishes a direct link between the brain and an external device (Orenstein, 2012). Image 1. Cathy controls a robotic arm with her thoughts, despite being paralyzed. BCIs capture and translate brain signals into computer commands, which are then interpreted by external devices such Privacy and Data Security As BCIs become more widespread, concerns over privacy and data security are growing. BCIs generate highly sensitive neural data that could reveal a person’s thoughts, intentions, and emotions. Without proper safeguards, this information could be hacked, misused, or even sold without consent. Martinovic first introduced the term “brain spyware” to describe Identity and Agency BCIs raise important concerns regarding identity and agency. Many of these technologies are considered invasive because they require electrodes to be implanted directly onto or into brain tissue to record and stimulate neural activity with high precision. Unlike electroencephalography (EEG), which uses electrodes placed on the scalp to passively measure general brain activity, invasive BCIs bypass the skull to achieve greater accuracy and control. This procedure, however, carries several risks, including infection, tissue damage, and gradual electrode degradation (Burwell et al., 2017). While many BCIs used in clinical and research settings today are non-invasive and rely on EEG, they offer lower resolution compared to invasive systems that require surgical implantation. These medical risks are compounded by ethical dilemmas, particularly when BCIs are used by patients with motor disabilities or neurodegenerative disorders. One major issue is the difficulty in ensuring ongoing informed consent, especially in patients with cognitive impairment. Conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s can impair decision-making, making it difficult for patients to understand and assess the risks involved. Similarly, individuals with conditions like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which affect speech and communication, may struggle to provide clear and consistent consent (Klein & Ojemann, 2016). On the other hand, using this technology may empower individuals and provide a sense of autonomy not previously possible as seen in the case of Cathy Hutchinson. Mood disorders, such as depression, further complicate the consent process. Research has shown that depression can impair decision-making, potentially influencing a patient's willingness to continue participation in BCI studies or treatment (Dunn et al., 2011). These factors highlight the importance of continuously assessing a patient’s capacity to consent to ensure their autonomy is respected. Alongside these concerns, BCIs raise questions about control. A common fear is that these devices are capable of “mind reading” and can extract any information from the user's brain. As such, many worry that this technology could alter an individual’s sense of self and free will. It is crucial to understand that BCIs do not operate autonomously but instead work together with the user to initiate actions (Shih et al., 2012). This joint action ensures that the user’s agency and intentionality are not compromised. describe the security risks involved with collecting EEG data through BCIs. Using a low-cost gaming headset, Martinovic and his team created an application capable of secretly collecting brain data while showing the user different images. For example, to infer a bank PIN, the system would flash digits on the screen while monitoring brain signals. When a familiar number appeared, the user’s brain would produce a P300 brain wave, revealing recognition without any conscious input (Martinovic et al., 2012). Future experiments concluded that it took less than 13.3 milliseconds of presenting specific visual stimuli to extract this sensitive information (Takabi et al., 2016). This research highlights the ease with which BCIs can be misused. With the growing commercialization of BCIs and their integration into games and mobile apps (Image 2.), the threat of data breaches is increasing. Brain Matters Vol. 8 2025 70 Image 2. New generation of BCIs are being used to improve the gaming experience. Currently, there is no unified framework for regulating the ownership of neural data, creating uncertainty about whether the neural data belongs to the user, the company, or healthcare provider? As BCIs continue to collect personal information, experts argue for stronger collaboration between manufacturers and governments to address these privacy issues. Xia et al. (2023) recommend enhancing encryption, adding noise to the data, and separating relevant from irrelevant data to better protect user privacy. While these solutions are a step in the right direction, much more work remains to be done. Equity and Cognitive Enhancement Given the novelty of this technology, BCIs are currently expensive and not widely available. This limited affordability of BCIs can enlarge social inequities as only privileged hospitals or institutions with access to such technology would be able to offer these treatments to patients. Moreover, some BCIs aim to enhance cognitive and physical abilities in healthy individuals, a concept known as neuroenhancement. 71 neuroenhancement. While some fear that advancing this technology could deepen social divides and disrupt human nature, others view it as a potential way to integrate man and machine and enhance human capabilities. Through this, they believe humankind can move closer to perfection and improve moral judgement, emotional perception, and reasoning (Khan & Aziz, 2019). Regardless of the rationale, this debate emphasizes the need for better regulations to ensure equitable access to this life-changing technology. While brain-computer interfaces offer remarkable potential to transform healthcare, enhance cognitive abilities, and the quality of life, they also raise significant ethical and privacy concerns. As the technology continues to evolve, ethical guidelines and safeguards must be established to protect individual autonomy, safety, and access. By addressing these challenges thoughtfully, we can harness the full potential of BCIs while minimizing risks and inequalities. References 1. Burwell, S., Sample, M., & Racine, E. (2017). Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC medical ethics, 18, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y 2. Daly, J. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2008). Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. The Lancet. Neurology, 7(11), 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474- 4422(08)70223-0 3. Dunn, L. B., Holtzheimer, P. E., Hoop, J. G., Mayberg, H. S., Roberts, L. W., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2011). Ethical Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Focus on Risk and Consent. AJOB Neuroscience, 2(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2010.533638 4. Klein, E., & Ojemann, J. (2016). Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices. Journal of neural engineering, 13(4), 043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/043001 5. Khan, S., & Aziz, T. (2019). Transcending the brain: is there a cost to hacking the nervous system?. Brain communications, 1(1), fcz015. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcz015 The Ethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) 6. Martinovic, I., Davies, D., Frank, M., Perito, D., Ros, T., & Song, D. (2012). On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, 34. Presented at the Bellevue, WA. USA: USENIX Association. 7. Orenstein, D. (2012, May 16). People with paralysis control robotic arms using brain-computer interface. Brown University. https://news.brown.edu/articles/2012/05/braingate2 8. Shih, J. J., Krusienski, D. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2012). Brain- computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 87(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008 9. Takabi, H., Bhalotiya, A., & Alohaly, M. (2016). Brain Computer Interface (BCI) Applications: Privacy Threats and Countermeasures. 2016 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), 102-111. 10. Xia, K., Duch, W., Sun, Y., Xu, K., Fang, W., Luo, H., Zhang, Y., Sang, D., Xu, X., Wang, F., & Wu, D. (2023). Privacy- Preserving Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Systematic Review. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 10, 2312-2324. About the Author Ruchi is a junior at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign majoring in Neuroscience and Psychology. She joined Brain Matters to explore her passion for the brain and stay connected to cutting- edge research in the field. In addition to writing for Brain Matters, Ruchi serves as the Vice President of NeuroTech@UIUC, a project- based organization focused on the intersection of neuroscience and technology. She looks forward to pursuing graduate studies and expanding her experience in research and innovation. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70223-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70223-0 https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2010.533638 https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/043001 https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcz015 https://news.brown.edu/articles/2012/05/braingate2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008 72