Neurotechnologies: Development, practical application and regulation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.302Abstract
Neurotechnology is one of the groups of technologies called disruptive or cross-cutting digital technologies. The spread of these technologies in many sectors of the economy can radically change human society. The state contributes to the development of technology when it implements strategic development programs and creates special legislation. The lack of regulation is an obstacle to the development and dissemination of this technology in practice. Therefore, the regulation of artificial intelligence technologies is actively created in the modern world. The law practically does not regulate other cross-cutting technologies, including neurotechnologies. The uncertainty of the further development of technologies and the impossibility of accurate forecasting of development explain the lack of regulation. At the same time, neurotechnologies are increasingly used in practice (neural implants, neural interfaces). According to experts, the pace of development of neurotechnologies in the next decade will lead to an explosive increase in their distribution in society. The subject of research in this article is the study of the need for the creation of special regulation. The objectives of the study include the analysis of risks associated with the development of neurotechnologies and the substantiation of opportunities to eliminate risks through legal regulation. Methods of system analysis, abstraction, legal modelling, the formal-logical method and the comparativelegal method are used in this study. The result of the work includes a greater likelihood of the future integration of the human body and artificial intelligence into a single system due to the development of neurotechnologies, which will require a rethinking of some personal and socio-economic human rights.
Keywords:
neuroprosthetics, neural interface, neurochip, artificial intelligence, cyborgization, legal status, human rights
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Библиография
Гринин, Леонид Е., Антон Л. Гринин. 2016. «Приведет ли кибернетическая революция к киборгизации людей?» Философия и общество 3 (80): 5–26.
Емелин, Вадим А. 2013. «Киборгизация и инвалидизация технологически расширенного человека». Национальный психологический журнал 1 (9): 62–70.
Емелин, Вадим А. 2015. «Человек технологический. Трансформация идентичности в условиях развития информационного общества». Философские науки 2: 154–157.
Коротков, Николай В., Роман Ю. Фофанов. 2014. «Наше постчеловеческое будущее: перспективы и альтернатива». Вестник Вятского государственного гуманитарного университета 3: 15–22.
Луков, Валерий А. 2013. «Развитие человека в свете биосоциологии». Знание. Понимание. Умение 4: 25–33.
Нариньяни, Александр С. 2010. «Между эволюцией и сверхвысокими технологиями: новый человек ближайшего будущего». Информационные технологии 1: 65–77.
Поликарпов, Виталий С., Елена В. Поликарпова, Татьяна В. Чуприна. 2013. «Тензорная методология в теории систем и перспективы киборгизации человека». Социально-гуманитарные знания 7: 84–91.
Попова, Ольга В. 2015. «Этические проблемы биотехнологического конструирования человека». Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Сер. Философия 2: 107–114.
Столярова, Ольга Е. 2000. «Идентичность киборгов: обзор материалов конференции “Cyborg Identities” (October 21–22, 1999)». Социальные и гуманитарные науки. Отечественная и зарубежная литература. Сер. 3. Философия. Реферативный журнал 2: 57–81.
Тетиор, Александр Н. 2018. «Есть ли предел роста искусственности жизни». Sciences of Europe 3 (27): 56–70.
Шваб, Клаус. 2018. Технологии Четвертой промышленной революции. М.: Эксмо.
Barfield, Woodrow, Alexander Williams. 2017. “Law, Cyborgs, and Technologically Enhanced Brains”. Philosophies 2 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2010006.
Bublitz, Christoph. 2013. “My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept”. Cognitive enhancement. An interdisciplinary perspective, eds Elisabeth Hildt, Andreas G. Franke, 233–264. Dordrecht: Springer.
Charo, Robin Alta. 2015. “Yellow lights for emerging technologies”. Science 349 (6246): 384–385. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3885.
Chneiweiss, Hervé. 2020. “La bioéthique de nos cerveaux”. Accessed June 17, 2020. https://www.franceculture.fr/conferences/institut-detudes-avancees-de-paris/la-bioethique-de-nos-cerveaux.
Cinel, Caterina, Davide Valeriani, Riccardo Poli. 2019. “Neurotechnologies for human cognitive augmentation: Current state of the art and future prospects”. Frontiers in Human Neurosciences 13: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00013.
Clausen, Jens, Eberhard Fetz, John Donoghue, Junichi Ushiba, Ulrike Spörhase, Jennifer Chandler, Niels Birbaumer, Surjo R. Soekadar. 2017. “Help, hope, and hype: Ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics”. Science 356 (6345): 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7731.
Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Eagleman, David M. 2012. “Chapitre 2. Pourquoi les sciences du cerveau peuvent éclairer le droit”. Le cerveau et la loi: Analyse de l’émergence du neurodroit, ed. by Olivier Oullier, 33–52. Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique.
Goodenough, Oliver R., Micaela Tucker. 2010. “Law and cognitive neuroscience”. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.
Ienca, Marcello, Roberto Andorno. 2017. “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology”. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
Koops, Bert-Jaap, Angela Di Carlo, Luca Nocco, Vincenzo Casamassima, Elettra Stradella. 2013. “Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: Robotics challenging the European constitutional framework”. International Journal of Technoethics 3 (2): 1198–1219. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6433-3.ch065.
MacKellar, Calum. 2019. Cyborg mind. What brain-computer and mind-cyberspace interfaces mean for cyberneuroethics. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Nabavi, Sadegh, Rocky Fox, Christophe D. Proulx, John Y. Lin, Roger Y. Tsien, Roberto Malinow. 2014. “Engineering a memory with LTD and LTP”. Nature 511: 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13294.
Petoft, Arian. 2015. “Neurolaw: A brief introduction”. Iranian Journal of Neurology 14 (1): 53–58.
Small, Gary W., Susan Greenfield. 2015. “Current and future treatments for Alzheimer disease”. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 23 (11): 1101–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2015.08.006.
Smalley, Eric. 2019. “The business of brain-computer interfaces”. Nature Biotechnology 37: 978–982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0231-y.
Taylor, Sherrod J., Anderson Harp, Tyron Elliott. 1991. “Neuropsychologists and neurolawyers”. Neuropsychology 5 (4): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.5.4.293.
Vidal, Catherine. 2020. “Neurotechnologies: Une vigilance éthique s’impose pour préserver la liberté de penser”. Accessed June 17, 2020. http://www.genethique.org/fr/neurotechnologies-une-vigilanceethique-simpose-pour-preserver-la-liberte-de-penser-72945.html.
Wittes, Benjamin, Jane Chong. 2014. “Our cyborg future: Law and policy implications”. Accessed June 17, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/research/our-cyborg-future-law-and-policy-implications.
Wu, Timothy. 2013. “Is filtering censorship? The second free speech tradition”. Constitution 3.0 Freedom and Technological Change, eds Jeffrey Rosen, Benjamin Wittes, 83–99. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
References
Barfield, Woodrow, Alexander Williams. 2017. “Law, Cyborgs, and Technologically Enhanced Brains”. Philosophies 2 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2010006.
Bublitz, Christoph. 2013. “My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept”. Cognitive enhancement. An interdisciplinary perspective, eds Elisabeth Hildt, Andreas G. Franke, 233–264. Dordrecht: Springer.
Charo, Robin Alta. 2015. “Yellow lights for emerging technologies”. Science 349 (6246): 384–385. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3885.
Chneiweiss, Hervé. 2020. “La bioéthique de nos cerveaux”. Accessed June 17, 2020. https://www.franceculture.fr/conferences/institut-detudes-avancees-de-paris/la-bioethique-de-nos-cerveaux.
Cinel, Caterina, Davide Valeriani, Riccardo Poli. 2019. “Neurotechnologies for human cognitive augmentation: Current state of the art and future prospects”. Frontiers in Human Neurosciences 13: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00013.
Clausen, Jens, Eberhard Fetz, John Donoghue, Junichi Ushiba, Ulrike Spörhase, Jennifer Chandler, Niels Birbaumer, Surjo R. Soekadar. 2017. “Help, hope, and hype: Ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics”. Science 356 (6345): 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7731.
Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Eagleman, David M. 2012. “Chapitre 2. Pourquoi les sciences du cerveau peuvent éclairer le droit”. Le cerveau et la loi: Analyse de l’émergence du neurodroit, ed. by Olivier Oullier, 33–52. Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique.
Emelin, Vadim A. 2013. “Cyborgization and disability of technologically extended human”. Natsional’nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal 1 (9): 62–70. (In Russian)
Emelin, Vadim A. 2015. “Technological man. Transformation of identity in the development of the information society”. Filosofskie nauki 2: 154–157. (In Russian)
Goodenough, Oliver R., Micaela Tucker. 2010. “Law and cognitive neuroscience”. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131523.
Grinin, Leonid E., Anton L. Grinin. 2016. “Will the cybernetic revolution lead to the cyborgization of people?” Filosofiia i obshchestvo 3 (80): 5–26. (In Russian)
Ienca, Marcello, Roberto Andorno. 2017. “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology”. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
Koops, Bert-Jaap, Angela Di Carlo, Luca Nocco, Vincenzo Casamassima, Elettra Stradella. 2013. “Robotic technologies and fundamental rights: Robotics challenging the European constitutional framework”. International Journal of Technoethics 3 (2): 1198–1219. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6433-3.ch065.
Korotkov, Nikolai V., Roman Iu. Fofanov. 2014. “Our posthuman future: Perspectives and an alternative”. Vestnik Viatskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta 3: 15–22. (In Russian)
Lukov, Valerii A. 2013. “Human development in the light of biosociology”. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie 4: 25–33. (In Russian)
MacKellar, Calum. 2019. Cyborg mind. What brain-computer and mind-cyberspace interfaces mean for cyberneuroethics. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Nabavi, Sadegh, Rocky Fox, Christophe D. Proulx, John Y. Lin, Roger Y. Tsien, Roberto Malinow. 2014. “Engineering a memory with LTD and LTP”. Nature 511: 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13294.
Nariniani, Aleksandr S. 2010. “Between evolution and ultra-high technologies: The new man of the near future”. Informatsionnye tekhnologii 1: 65–77. (In Russian)
Petoft, Arian. 2015. “Neurolaw: A brief introduction”. Iranian Journal of Neurology 14 (1): 53–58.
Polikarpov, Vitalii S., Elena V. Polikarpova, Tat’iana V. Chuprina. 2013. “Tensor methodology in systems theory and the prospects of human cyborgization”. Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye znaniia 7: 84–91.(In Russian)
Popova, Olga V. 2015. “Ethical problems of human biotechnological design”. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Ser. Filosofiia 2: 107–114. (In Russian)
Schwab, Klaus. 2018. Technologies of the Fourth industrial revolution. Rus. ed. Мoscow, Eksmo Publ.(In Russian)
Small, Gary W., Susan Greenfield. 2015. “Current and future treatments for Alzheimer disease”. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 23 (11): 1101–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2015.08.006.
Smalley, Eric. 2019. “The business of brain-computer interfaces”. Nature Biotechnology 37: 978–982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0231-y.
Stolyarova, Olga Е. 2000. “Cyborg identity: A review of conference materials ‘Cyborg identities’ (October 21–22, 1999)”. Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Otechestvennaia i zarubezhnaia literatura. Ser. 3. Filosofiia. Referativnyi zhurnal 2: 57–81. (In Russian)
Taylor, Sherrod J., Anderson Harp, Tyron Elliott. 1991. “Neuropsychologists and neurolawyers”. Neuropsychology 5 (4): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.5.4.293.
Tetior, Aleksandr N. 2018. “Is there a limit of growth of life artificiality”. Sciences of Europe 3 (27): 56–70. (In Russian)
Vidal, Catherine. 2020. “Neurotechnologies: Une vigilance éthique s’impose pour préserver la liberté de penser”. Accessed June 17, 2020. http://www.genethique.org/fr/neurotechnologies-une-vigilanceethique-simpose-pour-preserver-la-liberte-de-penser-72945.html.
Wittes, Benjamin, Jane Chong. 2014. “Our cyborg future: Law and policy implications”. Accessed June 17, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/research/our-cyborg-future-law-and-policy-implications.
Wu, Timothy. 2013. “Is filtering censorship? The second free speech tradition”. Constitution 3.0 Freedom and Technological Change, eds Jeffrey Rosen, Benjamin Wittes, 83–99. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Downloads
Published
2021-10-08
How to Cite
Filipova, I. A. (2021). Neurotechnologies: Development, practical application and regulation. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 12(3), 502–521. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.302
Issue
Section
Public and Private Law: Applied Research
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
