Click to unveil the complete transcript of the episode

Ways of Knowing

The World According to Sound

Season 2, Episode 8

The Ethics of Technology

[sound of car starting]

Chris Hoff: Approximately one in 50 Americans experiences some type of paralysis. The majority of these cases arise from spinal cord injuries, which are most often caused by automobile accidents.

[sound of car horns]

[instrumental music plays]

CH: Paralysis can range from complete loss of bodily control to the impairment of specific limbs. However, emerging technologies are providing hope — including methods that might eventually restore motor function of a person’s arms or legs, and can presently enable individuals to control a robotic arm simply by using their thoughts. These are known as brain-machine interfaces.

[instrumental music plays]

Sara Goering: And they’re about the size of a dime, perhaps? Quite small. Typically, they are implanted on the surface of someone’s brain.

CH: Sara Goering, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington, specializes in disability and bioethics.

SG: That necessitates surgery, right? It requires a burr hole in the skull to gain access to the brain’s surface. From there, it can monitor the electrical activity occurring in a specific cortical area.

CH: Individuals with severe injuries or disabilities –– often those who have suffered strokes or are paralyzed –– stand to gain the most from these brain-machine interfaces, or BMIs. BMIs can assist those who have lost their ability to articulate, enabling them to communicate once more, or help those who cannot move their arms or legs to learn to operate robotic substitutes.

SG: BCI devices reside on or within the brain, reading neural activity, and then translating it to control something external to the body. Essentially, it’s a method of interpreting signals from the brain.

CH: Picture squeezing your fist. When that thought arises, a particular pattern of brain activity occurs. BMIs can capture that pattern and convert it into action. Therefore, if you have a robotic arm connected to a BMI, by simply imagining the act of squeezing your fist, you can make the robotic arm replicate that motion.

SG: It introduces a completely new method of engaging with the world — rather than utilizing your own muscles to manipulate something, you rely on your brain and focus to control the robotic arm.

[instrumental music plays]

CH: The prospective advantages of brain-machine interfaces in medical science are immense. Those who are entirely or partially paralyzed could potentially regain function in their affected limbs and even walk again. For individuals suffering from neurodegenerative diseases like ALS who have lost their speech faculties, BMIs can be beneficial. By merely imagining the words, a BMI can be trained to interpret them and subsequently express these words using a computer-generated voice.

The ethical dilemmas posed by brain-machine interfaces are equally significant — and they revolve around notions of agency.

SG: These issues of agency-related responsibility are profoundly intertwined with our understanding of agency in the world, and now we’re crafting devices that mediate that agency. Unlike visible tools such as smartphones, it becomes an embodied component of our existence.

[instrumental music ends]

[sound of a group of people conversing simultaneously]

CH: If I’m at a bar and I strike someone in the face with my own hand, it’s evident that I’m accountable for that. I have control over my arm and hand. I possess agency over my body. But if I had an accident and lost the use of my arms, and instead, I hit someone in the face with a robotic arm that I’m controlling via a chip implanted in my brain, how do we determine if I truly intended to hit him, or if something malfunctioned instead? The robotic arm isn’t even integrated into my body — it’s separate from me. How accountable do I feel now?

SG: People quickly begin to internalize that sense of ownership. They perceive themselves as having the robotic arm as a part of them, taking responsibility for its actions when it succeeds. Conversely, when it fails, they are less inclined to accept accountability for that.

CH: In other words, I accept responsibility when my robotic arm achieves something I approve of, but I’m less eager to do so when it produces an outcome I disapprove of.

[instrumental music plays]

CH: Controlling a robotic limb with your thoughts is one aspect. However, having a computer interpret those thoughts and potentially share them with others is an entirely different concern.

SG: When considering agency, we often reflect on how we fulfill intentions in the world and how we maneuver our bodies. Part of being an agent involves maintaining an inner private space. This becomes much more publicly accessible with such devices. Generally, the thoughts in my mind are mine to share at my discretion.

CH: With implanted computer chips within our brains, this could become increasingly complicated. For Sara, it’s critical that the researchers and companies developing BMIs ensure that users’ privacy remains intact — that unauthorized individuals cannot access their thoughts.

SG: We engage online, sharing our banking information, social media, and intimate thoughts. These can be corrupted or hacked, and private information can become public. If even your unexpressed thoughts or the underlying neural processes you conduct are hackable, that raises serious concerns. If someone else could access that, the movements you believe you’re making become susceptible to manipulation as well. That is terrifying to me.

CH: With proprietary chips implanted within a person’s head, the potential for misuse is evident. Without even discussing practical issues, what occurs if there is a software bug or a malfunction?

SG: Furthermore, let’s consider the implications of having hardware inserted…

“““html

in your mind that necessitates a procedure to implant it, necessitates a procedure to extricate it. Moreover, the hardware can fail, leads can deteriorate, electrodes — there’s tissue damage surrounding them that becomes ineffective. And what occurs if the enterprise collapses? There are numerous examples of individuals receiving substantial advantages while the company, lacking profitability, ultimately shuts down.

 

[instrumental music plays]

 

SG: These innovations are truly fascinating and exhilarating but have the potential to fundamentally change our existence in the world, and we ought to deliberate thoroughly about those and their implications. I believe there’s merit in contemplating this from a very abstract standpoint, as a philosopher or a scholar in STS or such. However, I think much value also lies in closely engaging with those who are creating them and the initial users to gain insight into the real-world experience. We can influence the direction it takes by participating in that process.

 

[instrumental music plays]

 

CH: To consider any emerging technology or innovation as an instance of progress is evidently mistaken. Brain-computer interfaces are not inherently advantageous. Certain facets of them are profoundly beneficial, while others appear potentially dystopian. The ethics surrounding technology seeks to reveal all potential impacts of a novel technology on individuals and society, primarily aiming to safeguard against its misuse.

 

[instrumental music plays]

 

CH: Here are five texts that will enhance your understanding of technology and ethics as a means of knowledge acquisition.

 

“The Battle for Your Brain,” by Nita Farahany

 

CH: A publication that navigates the intricate legal and ethical challenges posed by contemporary neurotechnology.

 

“Bionic Pioneers,” by Jennifer French and James Cavuoto

 

CH: This narrates the experiences of ten individuals with neurological impairments who opted to use a neurotechnology device for their treatment.

“Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology,” edited by Veljko Dubljević and Allen Coin

 

CH: A collection that examines the history, current state, and future potential of brain-computer interfaces.

 

“What is it like to use a BCI? – insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users”

 

CH: A scholarly article investigating the social and ethical dimensions of BCIs.

 

“Doing Things with Thoughts: Brain-Computer Interfaces and Disembodied Agency”

 

An essay that tackles the philosophical and legal implications of BCIs on our understanding of agency and the essence of human “action.”

 

CREDITS

 

Ways of Knowing is a project produced by The World According to Sound. This season focuses on various interpretative and analytical approaches within the humanities. It was created in collaboration with the University of Washington and its College of Arts & Sciences. All interviews with UW faculty were conducted on-site in Seattle. Music contributed by Ketsa, Human Gazpacho, Graffiti Mechanism, Serge Quadrado, Bio Unit, and our associates, Matmos.

 

The World According to Sound is crafted by Chris Hoff and Sam Harnett.

 

END