Neurotechnologies and Artificial Intelligence from the Perspective of Personal Data Protection— On the Need for Regulations That Keep Pace with New Technological Developments p. 65-93

Abstract

In this paper, I have examined a series of ethical implications of recent developments in neurotechnology, to the extent they can be anticipated, such as threats to privacy, autonomy and the sense of personal identity. While for artificial intelligence there are initiatives to regulate and mitigate possible risks, in the field of neurotechnology there is still much to be debated in an attempt to find a balance between the need to stimulate scientific progress, on one hand, and the need to defend the rights of citizens and the interests of society in the face of the potential risks that technologies such as brain-computer interfaces, cranial stimulators or neuroprosthetics bring, on the other. The new ethical questions that arise are analyzed mainly by researchers in neuroethics, a sub-field of bioethics. Given the new elements brought by technological progress, which shed new light on many of the great questions that humanity has always asked itself, I have mainly analyzed recent specialized literature, from which it can be concluded without reservations that we are in the presence of a field in which what not long ago seemed to belong to the sphere of science fiction, today already, or, metaphorically speaking, tomorrow at the latest, will be part of everyday reality. Ethicists, doctors, lawyers and, of course, researchers in neurology, neurobiology and other neurosciences draw attention to the need to have a unified guide of ethical principles in order to not to be caught unprepared by the speed with which neurotechnology evolves. The issue of a new category of human rights, the so-called "neurorights" aimed at guaranteeing the inviolability of mental life, is also raised. Therefore, at a societal level, a discussion on neurotechnology must be started and proper communication must be ensured, avoiding both excessive enthusiasm and alarmism, in which all stakeholders understand the risks and benefits. In this way, unrealistic expectations that only erode public trust might be set aside.