Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30595661›Full record

ArticleEthics and information technology2018

Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy.

Jonathan Pugh, Laurie Pycroft, Anders Sandberg, Tipu Aziz, Julian Savulescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics and information technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The present and future of neural interfaces.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022
    Article
  8. [Cybersecurity of brain-computer interfaces].International cybersecurity law review · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Deep brain stimulation and electromagnetic interference.Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2021
    Review
  11. Injecting Information into the Mammalian Cortex: Progress, Challenges, and Promise.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Can self-validating neuroenhancement be autonomous?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonathan Pugh *1The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Laurie Pycroft *2Oxford Functional Neurosurgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anders Sandberg3Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tipu Aziz2Oxford Functional Neurosurgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julian Savulescu1The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848Wellcome Trust 203132Wellcome Trust 203195/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

'Brainjacking' refers to the exercise of unauthorized control of another's electronic brain implant. Whilst the possibility of hacking a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) has already been proven in both experimental and real-life settings, there is reason to believe that it will soon be possible to interfere with the software settings of the Implanted Pulse Generators (IPGs) that play a central role in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) systems. Whilst brainjacking raises ethical concerns pertaining to privacy and physical or psychological harm, we claim that the possibility of brainjacking DBS raises particularly profound concerns about individual autonomy, since the possibility of hacking such devices raises the prospect of third parties exerting influence over the neural circuits underpinning the subject's cognitive, emotional and motivational states. However, although it seems natural to assume that brainjacking represents a profound threat to individual autonomy, we suggest that the implications of brainjacking for individual autonomy are complicated by the fact that technologies targeted by brainjacking often serve to enhance certain aspects of the user's autonomy. The difficulty of ascertaining the implications of brainjacking DBS for individual autonomy is exacerbated by the varied understandings of autonomy in the neuroethical and philosophical literature. In this paper, we seek to bring some conceptual clarity to this area by mapping out some of the prominent views concerning the different dimension of autonomous agency, and the implications of brainjacking DBS for each dimension. Drawing on three hypothetical case studies, we show that there could plausibly be some circumstances in which brainjacking could potentially be carried out in ways that could serve to enhance certain dimensions of the target's autonomy. Our analysis raises further questions about the power, scope, and necessity of obtaining prior consent in seeking to protect patient autonomy when directly interfering with their neural states, in particular in the context of self-regulating closed-loop stimulation devices.

Indexed as

AutonomyBrainjackingDeep brain stimulationResponsibilitySecurity

Identifiers

PMID30595661
PMCPMC6290799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.