Society must consider the legal consequences of neurotechnology, according to a world-first report from the University of Sydney.
Neurotechnologies interact directly with the brain or nervous system by monitoring and recording neural activity, and/or acting to influence it. Sometimes neurotechnology is implanted in the brain but may also be worn in the form of a headset, wristband or helmet.
The Neurotechnology, law and the legal profession report, developed by Sydney law school, scrutinised advances in neurotechnology and what they might mean for the law and the legal profession. The paper calls for urgent consideration of how the new technology is to be regulated.
The report seeks to address concerns associated with the rapidly advancing field, such as “Could a brain bracelet be worn externally to their skull by criminal offenders to track their thoughts?”, or “Do we have a right to brain privacy?”
Neurotechnologies are already being used in health settings for the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s and epilepsy and could be used in the future to monitor and treat schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.
Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) have been a particular area of growth over the past decade, with the use of neuroprosthetics becoming more commonplace, and applications for entertainment, and augmentation areas of expected future growth.
Complex technological advances like these often leave legal scholars and practitioners scratching their heads over what is to be done in cases that have no clear precedent, and have not been addressed by statutory law. Reviews and studies have suggested for decades that law-makers are ill-equipped to make laws that govern technologies they don’t understand.
The same technology used to allow the immobile to walk could potentially be used for brain monitoring of criminal offenders, for cognitive or physical enhancements, or even create cyborg super soldiers.
“This tech is coming, and we need to think about regulation now,” said the report’s author, Dr Allan McCay.
“Action is needed now as there are significant neurotech investors such as Elon Musk and Meta (Facebook). We need law reform bodies, policymakers and academics to be scrutinising these technological advances rather than waiting for problems to emerge.”
The world-first report was commissioned by the Law Society of England and Wales.
:
Why you could be genetically predisposed to your coffee habit
Any feedback or news tips? Here’s where to contact the relevant team.