The Development of Neurotechnology in All Societies

By: Emmanuel Isaías Guízar Bayardo

Imagine waking up one day and being able to use technology with your mind. As Kaylee R. Davis (2022) explains, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) may one day allow people to control their home lighting, respond to messages, and engage with entertainment; simply by thinking.¹ What was once considered a dream for many people of all ages, is now within reach and ready to transform our lives. However, in the accelerated race towards a neurotechnological future, an essential ethical question emerges: who will have access to these technologies, and who will truly benefit from them?

Neurotechnology offers the promise of radically improving the quality of human life in ways that seem unreal.² From restoring mobility to people with paralysis to optimizing our cognitive abilities, these tools could redefine what it means to be human, as we will have a crucial tool for human advancement.¹⁻³ But at the same time, if not properly regulated, they could deepen existing social divides, creating a world in which brain enhancements and neurotechnological rights become an exclusive luxury.⁴ This concern is corroborated by Hain et al. (2023) who showed that “Over 80% of high-impact neuroscience publications are produced by only 10 countries” out of the 195 countries.⁵ By prioritizing this, we will be too focused on understanding the functionality of these new technologies, forgetting to understand old issues such as inequality that should be addressed with newer ideas.

Let's consider for a moment the recent history of artificial intelligence (AI). Initially seen as a democratization of knowledge by facilitating access to it, it quickly became a tool of great economic benefit for large technology corporations.⁶ This led to significant inequalities in access to advanced knowledge, employment, and, more recently, accurate and unbiased information. AI made it clear that any powerful technology must be accompanied by robust ethical regulation to ensure that its benefits are widely accessible and fair. Just because it is the most striking technological advance does not mean that it should be exempt from ethical considerations and critical thinking by society.

This pattern raises an important question, how can we prevent BCIs from following the same path? In Latin America, from a critical point of view, is a region characterized by significant economic, social, and educational inequalities, neurotechnologies risk dramatically increasing these divisions.⁷ While more developed countries are already exploring advanced neurotechnological treatments, in countries such as Mexico, the majority of the population does not even have equitable access to basic mental health services, let alone neurological treatments, which are a privilege in many areas of the country.⁸⁻¹⁰ This reality, which is not unique to the Americas, forces us to question how to ensure that the neurotechnological revolution does not exclude entire populations for discriminatory social reasons.

For example, in rural areas of Chiapas, Mexico, mental health services are limited or non-existent. Here, people have to travel between six and nine hours to access specialists, facing barriers such as extreme poverty and a lack of adequate health infrastructure.⁹ Integrating advanced technologies such as BCIs into these contexts will require significant adaptations and a firm political and economic commitment to ensure universal accessibility.

The answer could lie in an emerging framework known as neuro-rights.¹¹⁻¹² Continuing with the Latin American theme, Chile was a pioneer in this area, becoming the first country to legislate specifically on the protection of its citizens' neural rights, including mental privacy, personal autonomy, and equal access to technologies that directly affect the brain.¹³ This model, although still in development, presents a concrete way to protect individuals from potential abuse and prevent the creation of a society divided by unequal access to advanced neural technologies. Above all, it provides a framework of security for those who need to be aware that this is an issue that concerns them.¹⁴

The need for global regulation is also crucial.¹⁵⁻¹⁶ The international community must ensure that neurotechnologies are developed with justice and equity as guiding principles. It is not enough to innovate technologically; it is also essential to innovate in terms of ethics, policy, and governance. BCIs should be considered global public goods, technologies capable of benefiting everyone, regardless of their location or status, with a special focus on closing the gaps between developed and developing countries. This implies international cooperation, knowledge and technology transfer, as well as investment in educational and medical infrastructure.

Ethics in neurotechnology development must also consider the dignity and autonomy of individuals. How do we ensure that the use of BCIs is voluntary and informed, especially in vulnerable contexts? How do we prevent abuse in the workplace, education, or the military? The possibility of BCIs being used coercively or manipulatively is real and must be anticipated with clear and strict regulations that protect the mental autonomy and cognitive privacy of all individuals.¹⁷

A practical example can be found in the use of BCIs for neuroeducation.¹⁸ While this technology promises to revolutionize the way we learn and process information, there is a risk that only some private schools or universities will have access to it, further widening existing educational gaps. Guaranteeing universal access to these tools is not only an ethical issue, but also a social necessity that would enable progress toward more equitable and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, ethical and equitable implementation of BCIs would not only prevent the creation of additional social divides, as seen in Mexico, but could also contribute to reducing existing inequalities like Chile is actively working to do. By improving the quality of life, autonomy, and opportunities of all people regardless of their social, economic, or geographical situation, neurotechnology could become a powerful social equalizer, offering opportunities for social development that were previously unimaginable. 

Finally, brain-computer interfaces and the development of neurotechnology pose a shared responsibility. Scientists, governments, and society at large must commit to ensuring that these technological advances do not become sources of profit and inequality, but rather tools for social justice. Ethically regulating neurotechnology is essential so that progress in the 21st century is measured not only in scientific or economic terms, but in how well it improves the lives of all people, without exception.

References

1. Davis, K. R. (2022). Brain-Computer Interfaces: The Technology of Our Future. UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal, 14(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/M414157331 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/85p587nc

2. Hanslmayr, S. (2024). The promises and challenges of neurotechnology to improve human health and cognition. PLOS Biology, 22(10), e3002903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002903

3. Rubin, D. B., & Hochberg, L. R. (2023). BrainGate: An Intracortical Brain-Computer Interface for the Restoration of Communication and Functional Independence for People with Paralysis. 2023 11th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/bci57258.2023.10078547

4. Bardon, A. (2024). The Ways BCIs can be Abused and The Necessary Preventative Actions. Journal of Student Research, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v13i2.6341

5. Hain, D. S., Jurowetzki, R., Squicciarini, M., & Xu, L. (2023). Unveiling the neurotechnology landscape: Scientific advancements, innovations and major trends. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54678/OCBM4164

6. Ahmed, N., & Wahed, M. (2020). The De-democratization of AI: Deep Learning and the Compute Divide in Artificial Intelligence Research. ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.15581

7. Eslava, F., & Valencia Caicedo, F. (2023). Origins of Latin American Inequality. https://doi.org/10.18235/0005041

8. ‌Hain, D. S., Jurowetzki, R., Squicciarini, M., & Xu, L. (2023). Unveiling the neurotechnology landscape. Scientific advancements innovations and major trends. In UNESCO eBooks. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54678/ocbm4164

9. Carmona-Huerta, J., Durand-Arias, S., Rodriguez, A., Guarner-Catalá, C., Cardona-Muller, D., Madrigal-de-León, E., & Alvarado, R. (2021). Community mental health care in Mexico: a regional perspective from a mid-income country. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-020-00429-9

‌10. Rodriguez-Cuevas, F., Valtierra-Gutiérrez, E., Roblero-Castro, J., & Guzmán-Roblero, C. (2021). Living Six Hours Away from Mental Health Specialists: Enabling Access to Psychosocial Mental Health Services Through the Implementation of Problem Management Plus Delivered by Community Health Workers in Rural Chiapas, Mexico. Intervention, 19(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.4103/intv.intv_28_20

11. Ligthart, S., Ienca, M., Meynen, G., Molnar-Gabor, F., Andorno, R., Bublitz, C., Catley, P., Claydon, L., Douglas, T., Farahany, N., Fins, J. J., Goering, S., Haselager, P., Jotterand, F., Lavazza, A., McCay, A., Paz, A. W., Rainey, S., Ryberg, J., & Kellmeyer, P. (2023). Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of “neurorights.” ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06281

12. Marcello Ienca, & Andorno, R. (2021). Hacia nuevos derechos humanos en la era de la neurociencia y la neurotecnología. Análisis Filosófico, 41(1), 141–185. https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2021.386

13. Gúzman, L. (2022). El Correo de La UNESCO, 2022(1), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.18356/22202315-2022-1-4

14. Emiram Kablo, & Arias-Cabarcos, P. (2023). Privacy in the Age of Neurotechnology: Investigating Public Attitudes towards Brain Data Collection and Use. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1145/3576915.3623164

15. Bioculture and the global regulatory gap in neuroscience, neurotechnology, and neuroethics. (2021). Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics, 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.dnb.2021.08.001

16. Jeong-Yeon Park. (2024). Advances in Neurotechnology and International Standardization of Medical Device Regulations. Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute, 32, 97-133. 10.22397/bml.2024.32.97

17. ‌Maria, W. (2022). Brain Computer Interfaces and Human Rights: Brave new rights for a brave new world. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1154–1161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533176

18. Belkacem, A. N., & Lakas, A. (2021). A Case Study on Teaching a Brain–Computer Interface Interdisciplinary Course to Undergraduates. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2834-4_18