Today, technology is advancing rapidly, and innovations like brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) could transform our lives by directly connecting the human brain to machines. BCIs can read and interpret brain signals, enabling paralyzed patients to move or treating mental illnesses. However, these technologies pose threats to psychological freedoms. Neurorights—new rights concerning the privacy and autonomy of brain data—are proposed to counter these threats. This article explores the psychological benefits, risks, and ethical recommendations of BCIs (Ienca & Andorno, 2017). Our aim is to safeguard individual rights while preserving the benefits of technology.
The Psychological Potential of BCI Technologies
BCIs enable the control of external devices by detecting brain signals. For instance, companies like Neuralink use brain-implanted chips to translate thoughts into actions. This could revolutionize psychology. In disorders like depression or anxiety, BCIs could provide real-time brain feedback to regulate emotions. For individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), memory restructuring could accelerate recovery (Farahany, 2023).
Psychological benefits include personalized treatment. In Alzheimer’s patients, BCIs could reduce memory loss by providing cognitive support. By 2025, the commercialization of BCIs is expected to expand mental health applications, enhancing self-efficacy and independence. However, alongside these benefits, risks exist, such as potential dependency from overuse.
Neurorights and Psychological Threats
Neurorights are emerging concepts aimed at protecting brain data. Scientists like Rafael Yuste propose rights such as cognitive liberty, mental privacy, and integrity (Yuste et al., 2017). When BCIs collect brain data, it could be exploited for commercial purposes. For example, advertising companies could manipulate thoughts, leading to paranoia or stress.
Psychological risks include identity confusion. Emotion manipulation via BCIs undermines individual autonomy. Emerging trends in 2025, such as memory trading, could lead to the sale of memories, increasing the risk of psychological trauma. Chile’s inclusion of neurorights in its 2021 constitution is a pioneering response to these threats (Bublitz, 2022). Constant monitoring could induce feelings of loneliness and increase cognitive load through neuropsychological effects. In a hypothetical scenario, an employee’s BCI data shared with an employer could erode trust. Beyond these, darker scenarios—once considered science fiction but increasingly plausible—could involve BCIs controlling all emotions, thoughts, and actions.
Ethical and Clinical Recommendations
Ethical frameworks are essential for the responsible use of BCIs. Measures like data encryption and user consent can protect neurorights. International laws, such as the EU’s data protection models, should integrate neurorights (Ienca & Andorno, 2017). Psychologists using BCI-assisted therapies must prioritize patient data protection and receive technology training.
Public education is crucial for societal awareness. As BCIs evolve in mental health applications, risk management will be necessary. Psychologists, technology developers, and policymakers must collaborate. For instance, ethical committees could oversee BCI research to protect individual freedoms.
While BCIs offer therapeutic benefits, they threaten psychological freedoms without neurorights. Mental privacy and autonomy must be core components of this technology. Through collaboration between psychologists and policymakers, future research should be standardized. This balance will serve humanity’s best interests.
References
Bublitz, J. C. (2022). Novel neurorights: From nonsense to substance. Neuroethics, 15(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09481-3
Farahany, N. A. (2023). The battle for your brain: Defending the right to think freely in the age of neurotechnology. St. Martin’s Press.
Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
Yuste, R., Goering, S., Arcas, B. A. Y., Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Carter, A., … Wolpaw, J. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, 551(7679), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24465