Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr;25(2):443-461.
doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-0003-3. Epub 2017 Dec 15.

Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy

Affiliations

Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy

Giulio Mecacci et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr.

Abstract

Contemporary brain reading technologies promise to provide the possibility to decode and interpret mental states and processes. Brain reading could have numerous societally relevant implications. In particular, the private character of mind might be affected, generating ethical and legal concerns. This paper aims at equipping ethicists and policy makers with conceptual tools to support an evaluation of the potential applicability and the implications of current and near future brain reading technology. We start with clarifying the concepts of mind reading and brain reading, and the different kinds of mental states that could in principle be read. Subsequently, we devise an evaluative framework that is composed of five criteria-accuracy, reliability, informativity, concealability and enforceability-aimed at enabling a clearer estimation of the degree to which brain reading might be realistically deployed in contexts where mental privacy could be at stake. While accuracy and reliability capture how well a certain method can access mental content, informativity indicates the relevance the obtainable data have for practical purposes. Concealability and enforceability are particularly important for the evaluation of concerns about potential violations of mental privacy and civil rights. The former concerns the degree with which a brain reading method can be concealed from an individual's perception or awareness. The latter regards the extent to which a method can be used against somebody's will. With the help of these criteria, stakeholders can orient themselves in the rapidly developing field of brain reading.

Keywords: Brain reading; Criteria; Mental privacy; Neuroethics; Neuroimaging; Societal implications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Different applications of brain measurement

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ayer AJ. The concept of a person. New York: St Martin’s Press; 1963.
    1. Berger MA. What has a decade of Daubert wrought? American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95(S1):S59–S65. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bernardi G, Cecchetti L, Handjaras G, Sani L, Gaglianese A, Ceccarelli R, et al. It’s not all in your car: Functional and structural correlates of exceptional driving skills in professional racers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8(November):888. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Black KR. Personality screening in employment. American Business Law Journal. 1994;32(1):69–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1994.tb00931.x. - DOI
    1. Blume C, del Giudice R, Wislowska M, Lechinger J, Schabus M. Across the consciousness continuum—From unresponsive wakefulness to sleep. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2015;9(March):1–14. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources