"You don't want to be surprised by these technologies."
In conversation with Gerben Meynen Professor of Ethics at VU Amsterdam
We know the images in which someone with Parkinson's disease has far fewer symptoms from one moment to the next thanks to deep brain stimulation. They show us what neurotechnology can do for us. But what if those techniques could ‘read’ our minds, or change our brains and maybe even our personality? Are our privacy and our human rights protected well enough?
"It seems like something from the future, but it may be closer than we think." Gerben Meynen is Professor of Bioethics and specialises in neuroethics, the field of research that deals with the ethical implications of neuroscientific research and the development of neurotechnologies. He focuses mainly on criminal law and forensic psychiatry.
Meynen gives an example: "In forensic psychiatry, brain scans are sometimes done on suspects because you want to know if there might be a tumor or other condition that may have influenced the suspect's actions. But imagine if you could perform a brain scan of a suspect who invokes their right to remain silent, a scan that can 'read' information in the brain and provide evidence that the person has knowledge of the perpetrator of the crime. Would you be allowed to make such a scan? Is that scan something physical, such as taking DNA – which is permitted in some cases – or does this scan violate someone's right to remain silent? That is an important question."
Next level
Neurotechnology now also has commercial applications. Meynen: "There are many companies active in the field of neurotechnology. If you use algorithms and think about what connections can possibly be made there... We are not there yet, but you don't want to be surprised by these technologies. With the internet, we were too late to think about issues such as privacy and influence by algorithms. And then this is the next level compared to the internet."
"With the internet, we were too late to think about issues such as privacy and influence by algorithms."
Fundamentals rights
Internationally, there is extensive discussion and research in both science and politics about whether current (constitutional) laws and human rights offer us sufficient protection against the adverse effects of emerging neurotechnologies.
"It's about our fundamental rights."
Meynen is the lead researcher of the LENC project, which ultimately aims to develop policy recommendations to guide the use of neurotechnology in criminal law and forensic psychiatry. "In the project, we seek to connect ethicists and legal scholars on fundamental rights, such as autonomy, human dignity and privacy. After all, in the judicial domain, interventions in someone's life can be profound. In such cases, you want to ensure the potential use of these far-reaching technologies is done responsibly. This also means asking whether we should even want certain applications."
He emphasises again why it is so important to ask questions about the advent of neurotechnology: "It's about our fundamental rights and how we relate to them in the context of technologies that could have truly positive aspects but also evoke a dark worldview -- both in the judicial and commercial domains."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/107bb/107bb4f512717787083cc36e279a041f185922e9" alt=""
About Gerben Meynen
Gerben Meynen studied medicine, philosophy and theology. He is a professor of Ethics, particularly Bioethics, at VU Amsterdam, a Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Utrecht University, and a psychiatrist in Amsterdam.
magazine for humanities alumni december 2024