Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Separating neuroethics from neurohype

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 988–990 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Of the three types of DTC neurotechnologies the authors claim pose the greatest concerns—neuromarketing applications of imaging research, non-invasive neuromodulation devices, and brain–computer interfaces for control or self-monitoring—only the last two represent DTC neurotechnologies. The first category, neuroimaging, consists of companies using imaging techniques to attempt to discern consumer preferences and is not currently applied in the DTC context, as the authors acknowledge. Yet the authors speculate that expensive and unwieldy neuroimaging techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) will become DTC —even though they currently cost between $1 and $2 million2, require radio frequency and electromagnetically shielded rooms, and necessitate that the subject remain almost completely motionless during data collection.

In support of this view, they cite a 2018 study of a new MEG prototype3 that according to them “could lead, in the near future, to a new generation of lightweight, wearable neuroimaging headsets” (p. 807). However, the MEG prototype was only ‘wearable’ in the sense of not being tethered to the floor—the subject was required to limit head motion to within 10 cm and had to remain between two large panels of magnetic coils3. In addition, given that a full-brain prototype of this device would cost ~$1 million4, it is difficult to envisage how a consumer-grade MEG lies anywhere in the near future. Furthermore, the authors seem to assume that accurate, portable neuroimaging techniques will become ubiquitous (“... once DTC neuromonitoring becomes sufficiently widespread…”; p. 807). Should a consumer version of an fMRI or MEG ever be developed—which is speculation at present—there is no reason to assume that it will become widespread.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ienca, M., Haselager, P. & Emanuel, E. J. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 805–810 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ariely, D. & Berns, G. S. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 284–292 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boto, E. et al. Nature 555, 657–661 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Price, M. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6570 (2018).

  5. Bonaci, T., Herron, J., Libey, T., Mogen, B. & Chizeck, H. AJOB Neurosci. 6, 82–83 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martinovic, I. et al. On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. Security ’12 Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Conference on Security Symposium (USENIX Association, 2012); https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technicalsessions/presentation/martinovic

  7. Farwell, L. A. & Donchin, E. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 70, 510–523 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, Y., Li, T., Zhang, R., Zhang, Y. & Hedgpeth, T. EyeTell: video-assisted touchscreen keystroke inference from eye movements. in 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 144–160 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2018.00010

  9. Wang, C., Guo, X., Wang, Y., Chen, Y. & Liu, B. Friend or foe?: your wearable devices reveal your personal PIN. in ASIA CCS ’16 Proceedings of the 11th ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security 189–200 (ACM Press, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1145/2897845.2897847

  10. Cai, L. & Chen, H. TouchLogger: inferring keystrokes on touch screen from smartphone motion. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotsec11/tech/final_files/Cai.pdf (2011).

  11. Shukla, D., Kumar, R., Serwadda, A. & Phoha, V.V. Beware, your hands reveal your secrets! in CCS ’14 Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security 904–917 (ACM, 2014); https://doi.org/10.1145/2660267.2660360

  12. Lange, J., Massart, C., Mouraux, A. & Standaert, F.-X. in Constructive Side-Channel Analysis and Secure Design 10348, 171–189 (Springer, 2017).

  13. Widge, A. S. et al. Am. J. Psychiatry 176, 44–56 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sweeney, L. J. Law Med. Ethics 25, 98–110, 82 (1997).

  15. Wexler, A. & Thibault, R. J. Cogn. Enhanc. 3, 131–137 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Racine, E., Martin Rubio, T., Chandler, J., Forlini, C. & Lucke, J. Med. Health Care Philos. 17, 325–337 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Anna Wexler

Authors
  1. Anna Wexler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Wexler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wexler, A. Separating neuroethics from neurohype. Nat Biotechnol 37, 988–990 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0230-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0230-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing