Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) technologies

Leave a comment

Martin-Sanchez, F., & Maojo, V.. (2009). Biomedical Informatics and the Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) Technologies. Yearbook of Medical Informatics

, 18(01), 134–142.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638652
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

Abstract

Objectives: To analyze the role that biomedical informatics could play in the application of the NBIC Converging Technologies in the medical field and raise awareness of these new areas throughout the Biomedical Informatics community.

Methods: Review of the literature and analysis of the reference documents in this domain from the biomedical informatics perspective. Detailing existing developments showing that partial convergence of technologies have already yielded relevant results in biomedicine (such as bioinformatics or biochips). Input from current projects in which the authors are involved is also used.

Results: Information processing is a key issue in enabling the convergence of NBIC technologies. Researchers in biomedical informatics are in a privileged position to participate and actively develop this new scientific direction. The experience of biomedical informaticians in five decades of research in the medical area and their involvement in the completion of the Human and other genome projects will help them participate in a similar role for the development of applications of converging technologies -particularly in nanomedicine.

Conclusions: The proposed convergence will bring bridges between traditional disciplines. Particular attention should be placed on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by the NBIC convergence. These technologies provide new directions for research and education in Biomedical Informatics placing a greater emphasis in multidisciplinary approaches.

A brief definition of “cognitive liberty” (Sententia, 2004)

Leave a comment

Wrye Sententia (2004, p. 227) defined cognitive liberty as concisely as

the right and freedom to control one’s own consciousness and electrochemical thought process.

SENTENTIA, W.. (2006). Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

, 1013(1), 221–228.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1196/annals.1305.014
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Developers of nbic (nano-bio-info-cogno) technologies face a multitude of obstacles, not the least of which is navigating the public ethics of their applied research. biotechnologies have received widespread media attention and spawned heated interest in their perceived social implications. now, in view of the rapidly expanding purview of neuroscience and the growing array of technologic developments capable of affecting or monitoring cognition, the emerging field of neuroethics calls for a consideration of the social and ethical implications of neuroscientific discoveries and trends. to negotiate the complex ethical issues at stake in new and emerging kinds of technologies for improving human cognition, we need to overcome political, disciplinary, and religious sectarianism. we need analytical models that protect values of personhood at the heart of a functional democracy – values that allow, as much as possible, for individual decision-making, despite transformations in our understanding and ability to manipulate cognitive processes. addressing cognitive enhancement from the legal and ethical notion of ‘cognitive liberty’ provides a powerful tool for assessing and encouraging nbic developments.”

Further References

Cited by 9 articles

On Neurorights.

Ienca M. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Sep 24;15:701258. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34630057 Free PMC article. Review.
Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology: Ethical Issues from Consumer Devices to Brain-Based Speech Decoding.

Rainey S, Martin S, Christen A, Mégevand P, Fourneret E. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2295-2311. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00218-0. Epub 2020 Apr 30. PMID: 32356091 Free PMC article.
Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis.

Lavazza A. Front Neurosci. 2018 Feb 19;12:82. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00082. eCollection 2018. PMID: 29515355 Free PMC article.
Noninvasive Brain Stimulation and Personal Identity: Ethical Considerations.

Iwry J, Yaden DB, Newberg AB. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Jun 7;11:281. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00281. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28638327 Free PMC article.
Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology.

Ienca M, Andorno R. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1. Epub 2017 Apr 26. PMID: 28444626 Free PMC article.

See all “Cited by” articles

A History of Freedom of Thought (Bury, 1923)

Leave a comment

URL: archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.90642

Cognitive Liberty, Freedom of Thought, Neurorights, Neuroethics, Neurolaw, Neuropolitics, References

Alston, P. (1984). Conjuring up new human rights: a proposal for quality control. Am. J. Int. Law 78, 607–621. doi: 10.2307/2202599

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, L. R. (2000). Persons And Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Boire, R. G. (2001). On cognitive liberty. J. Cogn. Liberties 2, 7–22.

Google Scholar

Brandeis, L., and Warren, S. (1890). The right to privacy. Harv. Law Rev. 4, 193–220.

Google Scholar

Brimacombe, P. (2000). All the Queen’s Men: The World of Elizabeth I. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Google Scholar

Bublitz, C. (2015). “Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of Thought,” in Handbook of Neuroethics, eds J. Clausen and N. Levy (Dordrecht: Springer), 1309–1333. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_166

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bublitz, C. (2016). Moral Enhancement and Mental Freedom. J. Appl. Phil. 33, 88–106. doi: 10.1111/japp.12108

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bublitz, J.-C. (2013). “My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept,” in Cognitive Enhancement, ed. H. Franke (Berlin: Springer), 233–264. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_19

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bury, J. (1913). A History of Freedom of Thought, 1913. Alburgh: Facsimile Publisher.

Google Scholar

Cascio, J. (2017). Do brains need rights? New Scientist 234, 24–25. doi: 10.1016/s0262-4079(17)31163-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Collins, R. F., and Harrington, D. J. (1999). First Corinthians. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.

Google Scholar

Farah, M. J. (2002). Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 1123–1129. doi: 10.1038/nn1102-1123

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Farah, M. J., Illes, J., Cook-Deegan, R., Gardner, H., Kandel, E., King, P., et al. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 421–425.

Google Scholar

Farahany, N. A. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Rev. 64:351.

Google Scholar

Favaretto, M., De Clercq, E., Gaab, J., and Elger, B. S. (2020). First do no harm: an exploration of researchers’ ethics of conduct in Big Data behavioral studies. PLoS One 15:e0241865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.024186

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fins, J. J. (2004). Neuromodulation, free will and determinism: lessons from the psychosurgery debate. Clin. Neurosci. Res. 4, 113–118. doi: 10.1016/j.cnr.2004.06.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Garcia, M. (2016). Racist in the machine: the disturbing implications of algorithmic bias. World Pol. J. 33, 111–117. doi: 10.1215/07402775-3813015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaustad, E. S. (2001). Roger Williams: Prophet of Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Goering, S., Klein, E., Sullivan, L. S., Wexler, A., y Arcas, B. A., Bi, J., et al. (2021). Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 2021, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hallinan, D., Schütz, P., Friedewald, M., and De Hert, P. (2014). Neurodata and neuroprivacy: data protection outdated? Surveillance Soc. 12, 55–72. doi: 10.24908/ss.v12i1.4500

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hayes, B. (2017). Migration and data protection: doing no harm in an age of mass displacement, mass surveillance and “big data”. Int. Rev. Red Cross 99, 179–209. doi: 10.1017/s1816383117000637

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ienca, M. (2015). Neuroprivacy, neurosecurity and brain-hacking: emerging issues in neural engineering. Bioethica Forum 8, 51–53.

Google Scholar

Ienca, M., and Andorno, R. (2017a). A New Category of Human Rights: Neurorights. Research in Progress [Online]. Available Online at: from: blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2017/04/26/new-category-human-rights-neurorights/ [Accessed April 26, 2017].

Google Scholar

Ienca, M., and Andorno, R. (2017b). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci. Soc. Pol. 13:5.

Google Scholar

Ienca, M., and Ignatiadis, K. (2020). Artificial intelligence in clinical neuroscience: methodological and ethical challenges. AJOB Neurosci. 11, 77–87. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2020.1740352

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ienca, M., and Vayena, E. (2018). Cambridge Analytica and Online Manipulation. Scientific American. Basingstoke: Springer Nature.

Google Scholar

Illes, J., Kirschen, M. P., and Gabrieli, J. D. (2003). From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 205–205.

Google Scholar

Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R., Raffin, T. A., Swan, G., et al. (2004). Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology 62, 888–890. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000118531.90418.89

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Inman, T. (1861). Foundation for A New Theory and Practice of Medicine. Churchill.

Google Scholar

Koh, H. H. (1998). How is international human rights law enforced. Indiana Law J. 74:1397.

Google Scholar

Lavazza, A. (2018). Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: the Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis. Front. Neurosci. 12:82. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00082

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Google Scholar

Luzzatti, L. (2006). God in Freedom: Studies in the Relations Between Church and State. New York: Cosimo, Inc.

Google Scholar

Machado, C. (2007). The concept of brain death did not evolve to benefit organ transplants. Brain Death 7, 1–20.

Google Scholar

Meslin, E. M. (1990). Protecting human subjects from harm through improved risk judgments. IRB Ethics Hum. Res. 12, 7–10. doi: 10.2307/3563683

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1859). Essay on Liberty. London: John W Parker and Son.

Google Scholar

Milton, J. (1791). Comus: A Mask. Proprietors, Under the Direction of John Bell. Oxford: Oxford University.

Google Scholar

Moreno, J. D. (2003). Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience and society. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 149–153. doi: 10.1038/nrn1031

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moscrop, H. (2014). Enforcing International Human Rights Law: Problems and Prospects. E-International Relations. Available online at: www.e-ir.info/2014/04/29/enforcing-international-human-rights-law-problems-and-prospects/

Google Scholar

Munoz, J. M. (2019). Chile–right to free will needs definition. Nature 574, 634–635. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03295-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nawrot, O. (2019). What about the interior castle? Response to Ienca’s and Andorno’s new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Roczniki Teologiczne 66, 69–85. doi: 10.18290/rt.2019.66.3-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nickel, J., Pogge, T., Smith, M., and Wenar, L. (2013). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Human Rights. Stanford: Stanford University.

Google Scholar

OECD-Council. (2019). OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Google Scholar

Pereboom, D., and Caruso, G. (2002). “Hard-incompatibilist existentialism: Neuroscience, punishment, and meaning in life,” in Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience, eds G. D. Caruso and O. Flanagan (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Pizzetti, F. (2017). ‘A Proposal for a: “Universal Declaration on Neuroscience and Human Rights”. Bioethical 6, 3–6. doi: 10.4000/books.ifra.440

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Polenberg, R. (1996). Cardozo and the Criminal Law: Palko v. Connecticut Reconsidered. J. Supr. Court Hist. 21, 92–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5818.1996.tb00051.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reider, L. (1998). Toward a new test for the insanity defense: incorporating the discoveries of neuroscience into moral and legal theories. UCLA Law Rev. 46:289.

Google Scholar

Repetti, R. (2018). Buddhism, Meditation, and Free Will: A Theory of Mental Freedom. Oxforshire: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Safire, W. (2002). “Visions for a new field of neuroethics,” in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proceedings, May 13-14, 2002, (San Francisco: The Dana Press), 4–9.

Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. (2015). What not to multiply without necessity. Australas. J. Philos. 93, 644–664. doi: 10.1080/00048402.2014.992447

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sententia, W. (2004). Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1013, 221–228. doi: 10.1196/annals.1305.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, F. X. (2013). Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harv. J. Law Public Pol. 36, 653–173.

Google Scholar

Shen, F. X. (2016). The overlooked history of neurolaw. Fordham L. Rev. 85:667.

Google Scholar

Smith, C. M. (2005). Origin and Uses of Primum Non Nocere—Above All. Do No Harm! J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45, 371–377. doi: 10.1177/0091270004273680

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sommaggio, P., and Mazzocca, M. (2020). “Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights,” in Neuroscience and Law, eds A. D’Aloia and M. Errigo. (Cham: Springer), 95–111.

Google Scholar

Taylor, J. S., Harp, J. A., and Elliott, T. (1991). Neuropsychologists and neurolawyers. Neuropsychology 5:293. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.5.4.293

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Turner, D. C., and Sahakian, B. J. (2006). Neuroethics of cognitive enhancement. BioSocieties 1, 113–123.

Google Scholar

United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) (1993). ”General Comment No. 22: The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Article 18), UN Doc. No”. CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 4). Available Online at: www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html [accessed July 31 2021].

Google Scholar

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948). United Nations General Assembly, Palais de Chaillot, Paris. Paris: UDHR.

Google Scholar

Van Inwagen, P. (1997). Materialism and the psychological-continuity account of personal identity. Philos. Perspect. 11, 305–319. doi: 10.1111/0029-4624.31.s11.14

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Welford, A. T. (1970). Mental Integrity and the Nature of Life. Med. J. Australia 1, 1135–1138. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1970.tb84477.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Westin, A. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 25:166.

Google Scholar

Wolpe, P. R. (2017). “Neuroprivacy and Cognitive Liberty,” in The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics, eds L. S. M. Johnson and K. S. Rommelfanger (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group), 214–224. doi: 10.4324/9781315708652-16

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Woolf, V. (1929). A Room of One’s Own and Three Guineas. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Google Scholar

Yuste, R., Genser, J., and Herrmann, S. (2021). It’s Time for Neuro-Rights. Horizons J. Int. Relat. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 154–165.

Google Scholar

Yuste, R., Goering, S., Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Carter, A., Fins, J. J., et al. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nat. News 551, 159–163. doi: 10.1038/551159a

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zeki, S., Goodenough, O., and O’hara, E. A. (2004). How neuroscience might advance the law. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 359, 1677–1684. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1541

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Understanding Coercive Gradualism

Leave a comment

Pierce, W. G., Douds, D. G., & Marra, M. A.. (2015). Understanding Coercive Gradualism. Parameters

Show/hide publication abstract

See article 7, p.51 seq.
publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/3710.pdf

The Mind Has No Firewall

Leave a comment

The Mind Has No Firewall

NATO & Cognitive Warfare

Leave a comment

20210122_CW Final

Sir Graham Wilson: The Hazards of Immunization (1967)

Leave a comment

Sir Graham Wilson The Hazards of Immunization (1967)

Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology

Leave a comment

Further References

Akbari, H., Khalighinejad, B., Herrero, J., Mehta, A., & Mesgarani, N. (2018). Towards reconstructing intelligible speech from the human auditory cortex. BioRxiv. doi.org/10.1101/350124.

Article Google Scholar
Akst, J. (2013). Decoding dreams. The Scientist Magazine. www.the-scientist.com/notebook/decoding-dreams-39990. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.
Allison, B. Z., Wolpaw, E. W., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2007). Brain–computer interface systems: Progress and prospects. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 4(4), 463–474.

Article Google Scholar
Amodei, D., Ananthanarayanan, S., Anubhai, R., Bai, J., Battenberg, E., Case, C., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Cheng, Q., Chen, G., Chen, J., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Chrzanowski, M., Coates, A., Diamos, G., Ding, K., Du, N., Elsen, E., et al. (2016). Deep speech 2: End-to-end speech recognition in English and Mandarin. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 173–182). proceedings.mlr.press/v48/amodei16.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.
Bashashati, A., Fatourechi, M., Ward, R. K., & Birch, G. E. (2007). A survey of signal processing algorithms in brain–computer interfaces based on electrical brain signals. Journal of Neural Engineering, 4(2), R32. doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/4/2/R03.

Article Google Scholar
Bocquelet, F., Hueber, T., Girin, L., Savariaux, C., & Yvert, B. (2016). Real-time control of an articulatory-based speech synthesizer for brain computer interfaces. PLoS Computational Biology, 12(11), e1005119. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005119.

Article Google Scholar
Boire, R. G. (2001). On cognitive liberty. The Journal of Cognitive Liberties, 2(1), 7–22.

Google Scholar
Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. M. (2010). The promise and peril of big data (pp. 1–66). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, Communications and Society Program.
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878.

Article Google Scholar
Brumberg, J. S., et al. (2011). Classification of intended phoneme production from chronic intracortical microelectrode recordings in speech-motor cortex. Frontiers in Neuroscience. doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2011.00065.

Article Google Scholar
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). The Cambridge analytica files. The Guardian, 6–7. davelevy.info/Downloads/cabridgeananalyticafiles%20-theguardian_20180318.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
Chakrabarti, S., Sandberg, H. M., Brumberg, J. S., & Krusienski, D. J. (2015). Progress in speech decoding from the electrocorticogram. Biomedical Engineering Letters, 5(1), 10–21. doi.org/10.1007/s13534-015-0175-1.

Article Google Scholar
Chang, L., & Tsao, D. Y. (2017). The code for facial identity in the primate brain. Cell, 169(6), 1013–1028.e14. doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.011.

Article Google Scholar
Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (2016). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1989). Neurophilosophy toward a unified science of the mind brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Google Scholar
Collins, D., Efford, C., Elliot, J., Farrelly, P., Hart, S., Knight, J., et al. (2019). Disinformation and ‘fake news’ (Vol. 8, p. 111). London: The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Google Scholar
Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate. Social Networks, 50, 6–16. doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002.

Article Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1993). Consciousness explained (New Ed ed.). London: Penguin.

Google Scholar
Eickhoff, S. B., & Langner, R. (2019). Neuroimaging-based prediction of mental traits: Road to utopia or Orwell? PLoS Biology, 17(11), e3000497. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000497.

Article Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Smith, M. E., Gawuga, C., Lindsell, D., & Foster, D. (2009). Brain imaging and brain privacy: A Realistic Concern? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 119–127. doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21010.

Article Google Scholar
Farahany, N. (2018). When technology can read minds, how will we protect our privacy? www.ted.com/talks/nita_farahany_when_technology_can_read_minds_how_will_we_protect_our_privacy. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.
Forrest, C. (2017). Facebook planning brain–to–text interface so you can type with your thoughts. TechRepublic. www.techrepublic.com/article/facebook-planning-brain-to-text-interface-so-you-can-type-with-your-thoughts/.
Glannon, W. (2016). Ethical issues in neuroprosthetics. Journal of Neural Engineering, 13(2), 021002. doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/2/021002.

Article Google Scholar
Gnanayutham, P., & Good, A. (2011). Disabled users accessing off-the-shelf software using a button interface. In Paper presented at computer science and information systems, 7th annual international conference. Athens.
Haynes, J.-D., Sakai, K., Rees, G., Gilbert, S., Frith, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Current Biology, 17(4), 323–328.

Article Google Scholar
Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, A., Jaitly, N., et al. (2012). Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(6), 82–97. doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.2205597.

Article Google Scholar
Howard, P. N., & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #Strongerin, and #Brexit: Computational propaganda during the UK–EU referendum (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2798311). Social Science Research Network. papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2798311. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
Ienca, M., Haselager, P., & Emanuel, E. J. (2018). Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 36, 805–810. doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4240.

Article Google Scholar
Ikeda, S., Shibata, T., Nakano, N., Okada, R., Tsuyuguchi, N., Ikeda, K., et al. (2014). Neural decoding of single vowels during covert articulation using electrocorticography. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00125.

Article Google Scholar
Kapur, A., Kapur, S., & Maes, P. (2018). AlterEgo: A personalized wearable silent speech interface. In 23rd International conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 43–53).
Kay, K. N., Naselaris, T., Prenger, R. J., & Gallant, J. L. (2008). Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature, 452(7185), 352–355. doi.org/10.1038/nature06713.

Article Google Scholar
Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big brain data: On the responsible use of brain data from clinical and consumer-directed neurotechnological devices. Neuroethics. doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-x.

Article Google Scholar
Martin, S., Brunner, P., Holdgraf, C., Heinze, H.-J., Crone, N. E., Rieger, J., et al. (2014). Decoding spectrotemporal features of overt and covert speech from the human cortex. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 7, 14. doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00014/full.

Article Google Scholar
Martin, S., Brunner, P., Iturrate, I., Millán, J. R., Schalk, G., Knight, R. T., et al. (2016). Word pair classification during imagined speech using direct brain recordings. Scientific Reports, 6, srep25803. doi.org/10.1038/srep25803.

Article Google Scholar
McStay, A., & Urquhart, L. (2019). ‘This time with feeling?’ Assessing EU data governance implications of out of home appraisal based emotional AI. First Monday. doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i10.9457.

Article Google Scholar
Mecacci, G., & Haselager, P. (2019). Identifying criteria for the evaluation of the implications of brain reading for mental privacy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 443–461. doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0003-3.

Article Google Scholar
Meegan, D. V. (2008). Neuroimaging techniques for memory detection: Scientific, ethical, and legal issues. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(1), 9–20. doi.org/10.1080/15265160701842007.

Article Google Scholar
Mégevand, P. (2014). Telepathy or a painstaking conversation in morse code? Pierre Mégevand goes beyond the media hype. PLOS Neuroscience Community. blogs.plos.org/neuro/2014/09/08/telepathy-or-a-painstaking-conversation-in-morse-code-pierre-megevand-goes-beyond-the-media-hype/. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
Pei, X., Barbour, D., Leuthardt, E. C., & Schalk, G. (2011). Decoding vowels and consonants in spoken and imagined words using electrocorticographic signals in humans. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8(4), 046028. doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/8/4/046028.

Article Google Scholar
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J.-P., Baciu, M., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2014). What is that little voice inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 220–239. doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.034.

Article Google Scholar
Rainey, S. (2018). A steadying hand”: Ascribing speech acts to users of predictive speech assistive technologies. Journal of Law and Medicine, 26(1), 44–53.

Google Scholar
Rainey, S., Bublitz, J. C., Maslen, H., & Thornton, H. (2019). Data as a cross-cutting dimension of ethical importance in direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies. AJOB Neuroscience, 10(4), 180–182. doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1665134.

Article Google Scholar
Revell, T. (2018). Mind-reading devices can now access your thoughts and dreams using AI. New Scientist. www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931972-500-mind-reading-devices-can-now-access-your-thoughts-and-dreams-using-ai/. Accessed 16 Oct 2018.
Robertson, A. (2019). Facebook just published an update on its futuristic brain–typing project. The Verge. www.theverge.com/2019/7/30/20747483/facebook-ucsf-brain-computer-interface-typing-speech-recognition-experiment. Accessed 13 Aug 2019.
Roelfsema, P. R., Denys, D., & Klink, P. C. (2018). Mind reading and writing: The future of neurotechnology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 598–610.

Article Google Scholar
Sani, O. G., Yang, Y., Lee, M. B., Dawes, H. E., Chang, E. F., & Shanechi, M. M. (2018). Mood variations decoded from multi-site intracranial human brain activity. Nature Biotechnology, 36(10), 954–961. doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4200.

Article Google Scholar
Sententia, W. (2006). Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1), 221–228. doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.014.

Article Google Scholar
Solon, O. (2017). Facebook has 60 people working on how to read your mind. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/facebook-mind-reading-technology-f8. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.
Steinert, S., Bublitz, C., Jox, R., & Friedrich, O. (2018). Doing things with thoughts: Brain–computer interfaces and disembodied agency. Philosophy & Technology. doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0308-4.

Article Google Scholar
Steinert, S., & Friedrich, O. (2019). Wired emotions: Ethical issues of affective brain–computer interfaces. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00087-2.

Article Google Scholar
Sulleyman, A. (2018). Mind-reading headset allowing people to control computers with their thoughts described in Microsoft patent. The Independent. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/mind-reading-headset-computer-control-thoughts-microsoft-patent-a8163976.html. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.
Véliz, C. (2019). Privacy is a collective concern. www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/privacy/2019/10/privacy-collective-concern. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Wexler, A., & Thibault, R. (2018). Mind-reading or misleading? Assessing direct-to-consumer electroencephalography (EEG) devices marketed for wellness and their ethical and regulatory implications. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0091-2.

Article Google Scholar
Whyte, C. (2018). Mind-reading headset lets you Google just with your thoughts. New Scientist. www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731723-300-mind-reading-headset-lets-you-google-just-with-your-thoughts/. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.

Magnetic control of the nervous system (vs. Optogenetics & Chemogenetics)

Leave a comment

Christiansen, M. G., Senko, A. W., & Anikeeva, P.. (2019). Magnetic Strategies for Nervous System Control. Annual Review of Neuroscience

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-070918-050241
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Magnetic fields pass through tissue undiminished and without producing harmful effects, motivating their use as a wireless, minimally invasive means to control neural activity. here, we review mechanisms and techniques coupling magnetic fields to changes in electrochemical potentials across neuronal membranes. biological magnetoreception, although incompletely understood, is discussed as a potential source of inspiration. the emergence of magnetic properties in materials is reviewed to clarify the distinction between biomolecules containing transition metals and ferrite nanoparticles that exhibit significant net moments. we describe recent developments in the use of magnetic nanomaterials as transducers converting magnetic stimuli to forms readily perceived by neurons and discuss opportunities for multiplexed and bidirectional control as well as the challenges posed by delivery to the brain. the variety of magnetic field conditions and mechanisms by which they can be coupled to neuronal signaling cascades highlights the desirability of continued interchange between magnetism physics and neurobiology.”

Wheeler, M. A., Smith, C. J., Ottolini, M., Barker, B. S., Purohit, A. M., Grippo, R. M., … Güler, A. D.. (2016). Genetically targeted magnetic control of the nervous system. Nature Neuroscience

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1038/nn.4265
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Optogenetic and chemogenetic actuators are critical for deconstructing the neural correlates of behavior. however, these tools have several limitations, including invasive modes of stimulation or slow on/off kinetics. we have overcome these disadvantages by synthesizing a single-component, magnetically sensitive actuator,magneto,comprising the cation channel trpv4 fused to the paramagnetic protein ferritin. we validated noninvasive magnetic control over neuronal activity by demonstrating remote stimulation of cells using in vitro calcium imaging assays, electrophysiological recordings in brain slices, in vivo electrophysiological recordings in the brains of freely moving mice, and behavioral outputs in zebrafish and mice. as proof of concept, we used magneto to delineate a causal role of striatal dopamine receptor 1 neurons in mediating reward behavior in mice. together our results present magneto as an actuator capable of remotely controlling circuits associated with complex animal behaviors.”

Adamczyk, A. K., & Zawadzki, P.. (2020). The Memory-Modifying Potential of Optogenetics and the Need for Neuroethics. NanoEthics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s11569-020-00377-1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Optogenetics is an invasive neuromodulation technology involving the use of light to control the activity of individual neurons. even though optogenetics is a relatively new neuromodulation tool whose various implications have not yet been scrutinized, it has already been approved for its first clinical trials in humans. as optogenetics is being intensively investigated in animal models with the aim of developing novel brain stimulation treatments for various neurological and psychiatric disorders, it appears crucial to consider both the opportunities and dangers such therapies may offer. in this review, we focus on the memory-modifying potential of optogenetics, investigating what it is capable of and how it differs from other memory modification technologies (mmts). we then outline the safety challenges that need to be addressed before optogenetics can be used in humans. finally, we re-examine crucial neuroethical concerns expressed in regard to other mmts in the light of optogenetics and address those that appear to be unique to the memory-modifying potential of optogenetic technology.”

Kole, K., Zhang, Y., Jansen, E. J. R., Brouns, T., Bijlsma, A., Calcini, N., … Celikel, T.. (2020). Assessing the utility of Magneto to control neuronal excitability in the somatosensory cortex. Nature Neuroscience

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0474-4
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Keifer, O., Kambara, K., Lau, A., Makinson, S., & Bertrand, D.. (2020). Chemogenetics a robust approach to pharmacology and gene therapy. Biochemical Pharmacology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113889
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Modern developments in organic chemistry, molecular biology, virology, and genetics have opened new, exciting possibilities to better understand physiology and to create innovative, robust therapeutics. one such possibility is the burgeoning field of chemogenetics, a sub-field of chemical genetics that encompasses engineering macromolecules (particularly proteins) to modify how they interact with endogenous and exogenous ligands (particularly small molecules). early efforts in chemogenetics were focused on parsing the function of a specific enzyme within a closely-related family by creating orthogonal enzyme-ligand pairs (e.g. kinases paired with antagonists). this powerful concept quickly expanded into engineered g-protein-coupled receptors (e.g. dreadds/rassl), and more recently into engineered ligand-gated ion channels (elgic). the modifications to the receptor focused on eliminating their activation by endogenous ligands, while preserving or enhancing their interaction with pharmacological agents (e.g. small molecule agonist). creation of such an engineered receptor and delivering it selectively to specific cell types opens new possibilities of accurately and precisely controlling cellular activity. control of this activity then increases our understanding of the cells function in normal physiology, while also creating the possibility of using it as a therapeutic to address pathophysiology. the dreadds/rassl and elgic approaches have been particularly impactful in neurosciences but have applications in multiple fields. in this work we introduce the history of the chemogenetic approach, review the seminal work with dreadds/rassls and elgic, highlight the breadth of applications, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses associated with this technology, especially in the context of its development into a therapeutic.”

Magnus, C. J., Lee, P. H., Bonaventura, J., Zemla, R., Gomez, J. L., Ramirez, M. H., … Sternson, S. M.. (2019). Ultrapotent chemogenetics for research and potential clinical applications. Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1126/science.aav5282
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Chemogenetics enables noninvasive chemical control over cell populations in behaving animals. however, existing small-molecule agonists show insufficient potency or selectivity. there is also a need for chemogenetic systems compatible with both research and human therapeutic applications. we developed a new ion channel–based platform for cell activation and silencing that is controlled by low doses of the smoking cessation drug varenicline. we then synthesized subnanomolar-potency agonists, called upsems, with high selectivity for the chemogenetic receptors. upsems and their receptors were characterized in brains of mice and a rhesus monkey by in vivo electrophysiology, calcium imaging, positron emission tomography, behavioral efficacy testing, and receptor counterscreening. this platform of receptors and selective ultrapotent agonists enables potential research and clinical applications of chemogenetics.”

Poth, K. M., Texakalidis, P., & Boulis, N. M.. (2021). Chemogenetics: Beyond Lesions and Electrodes. Neurosurgery

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyab147
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“The field of chemogenetics has rapidly expanded over the last decade, and engineered receptors are currently utilized in the lab to better understand molecular interactions in the nervous system. we propose that chemogenetic receptors can be used for far more than investigational purposes. the potential benefit of adding chemogenetic neuromodulation to the current neurosurgical toolkit is substantial. there are several conditions currently treated surgically, electrically, and pharmacologically in clinic, and this review highlights how chemogenetic neuromodulation could improve patient outcomes over current neurosurgical techniques. we aim to emphasize the need to take these techniques from bench to bedside.”

Vlasov, K., Van Dort, C. J., & Solt, K.. (2018). Optogenetics and Chemogenetics. In Methods in Enzymology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/bs.mie.2018.01.022
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Optogenetics and chemogenetics provide the ability to modulate neurons in a type- and region-specific manner. these powerful techniques are useful to test hypotheses regarding the neural circuit mechanisms of general anesthetic end points such as hypnosis and analgesia. with both techniques, a genetic strategy is used to target expression of light-sensitive ion channels (opsins) or designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs in specific neurons. optogenetics provides precise temporal control of neuronal firing with light pulses, whereas chemogenetics provides the ability to modulate neuronal firing for several hours with the single administration of a designer drug. this chapter provides an overview of neuronal targeting and experimental strategies and highlights the important advantages and disadvantages of each technique.”

Aldous Huxley (Moksha, 1977): No more thinking – Everybody’s Happy Now

Leave a comment

No more thinking – just obey and conform

Everybody’s Happy Now
No more Mammy, no more Pappy:
Ain’t we lucky, ain’t we happy?
Everybody’s oh so happy,
Everybody’s happy now!
Sex galore, but no more marriages;
No more pushing baby carriages;
No one has to change a nappy
Ain’t we lucky, ain’t we happy:
Everybody’s happy now.
Dope for tea and dope for dinner,
Fun all night, and love and laughter;
No remorse, no morning after.
Where’s the sin, and who’s the sinner?
Everybody’s happy now!
Girls pneumatic, girls exotic,
Girls ecstatic, girls erotic
Hug me, Baby; make it snappy.
Everybody’s oh so happy,
Everybody’s happy now!
Lots to eat and hours for drinking
Soma cocktails–no more thinking.
NO MORE THINKING, NO MORE THINKING!
~ Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley – a Fabian socialist advocating mind-control (a wolf in sheep’s clothing)

Random Quote

Intelligent search funtion (autocompletion)

Categories

Author: Admin

Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) technologies

Show/hide publication abstract

Abstract

Similar articles

A brief definition of “cognitive liberty” (Sententia, 2004)

Show/hide publication abstract

Similar articles

Cited by 9 articles

A History of Freedom of Thought (Bury, 1923)

Understanding Coercive Gradualism

Show/hide publication abstract

The Mind Has No Firewall

NATO & Cognitive Warfare

Sir Graham Wilson: The Hazards of Immunization (1967)

Brain Recording, Mind-Reading, and Neurotechnology

Further References

Magnetic control of the nervous system (vs. Optogenetics & Chemogenetics)

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Aldous Huxley (Moksha, 1977): No more thinking – Everybody’s Happy Now

Random Quote

Suggested Keywords

Intelligent search funtion (autocompletion)

Categories

Author: Admin

Show/hide publication abstract

Abstract

Similar articles

Show/hide publication abstract

Similar articles

Cited by 9 articles

Show/hide publication abstract

Further References

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract

Show/hide publication abstract