Banner by Amy Zhang

Further than Ever Before: An Ethical Analysis of the US DoD's Brain Computer Interface

By Joseph Dacanay

What is the point of technology? According to biomedical ethicist Christopher Imes, the development of technology is “based on surpassing the constraint of human capability.” In his words during an interview with me, “Someone couldn’t get to point A to B fast enough, so they made the wheel.” History would agree, as the development of inventions such as duct tape, microwave ovens, and the Internet provide simple, and sometimes complex, answers to problems we face. But these inventions have one thing in common: they are all byproducts of United States military research. 

The United States, the nation with the highest military spending on the planet, is no stranger to researching and developing products for military use. Today, our armed forces’ commitment to being on the cutting edge of technology has led us to the brain-computer interface (BCI), a sensor that can monitor and affect brain signals in partnership with other devices. The BCI seeks to exceed the constraints of the human body through the cooperation of a human operator and a computer implanted in the brain to do anything from communication to direct control of other machines. Imagine sending an email using your thoughts, or controlling an RC car without a remote! Because the U.S. Department of Defense has invested millions of dollars into BCI technology, an ethical analysis is owed to the public to prepare the world for what could be the future of our armed forces.   

The foundation of BCI technology starts at the insertion of the device. Two methods of implantation have been researched; the first is a less invasive procedure, where the interface is placed outside the skull. The second is a surgery to insert it inside the brain . Although the less invasive method is associated with fewer health risks, the device has been found to communicate more effectively with neurons in the brain when surgically inserted due to the closer proximity of the technology with brain tissue. The sensors can last up to eight years in monkey test subjects; however, the energy emitted by the device has been found to damage healthy tissue. The research branch of the Department of Defense, DARPA, has identified this damage to be due to the corrosive internals of the technology, and is seeking to develop safer parts that can last for years in humans. Assuming these issues are resolved, then the technology can begin to be used. Based on research and predictions from security projects, the central capabilities and goals of BCI technology are available to the public. These capabilities range from brain-to-brain communication, data transfer from the brain to other sources, and prosthetic use.  

Recently, BCI technology has seen the most publicity regarding its prosthetic abilities, such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink to assist in the treatment of brain disorders like Alzheimer's. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have applied BCI technology to let a quadriplegic woman maneuver a flight simulator of an F-35 jet. In a similar context, these interfaces could be used to control swarms of drones for military purposes such as reconnaissance or rescue of personnel. In combat, information could be transmitted to a soldier, helping them stay aware of the battlefield. Medics would be able to allocate resources for injured troops accurately and, with hands-free instruction from a remote doctor, provide life-saving surgery in the field. Diplomats could provide the same instruction to overcome language barriers in other countries. As of now, the practical implementation of BCI seems limitless. 

However, some benefits of BCI technology have the potential to be exploited. Linkage from an officer’s brain to their unit enables them to assess who may be experiencing combat fatigue and give them an opportunity to rest, but could also give excessive insight into someone’s psychological state. Think of a more advanced polygraph, where you can directly detect whether someone is concealing information from you. Electric stimulation of brain tissue may increase focus and memory, but it may also be used to artificially reduce feelings of fear, suppressing a biologically protective mechanism. In short, BCI can allow others to access and therefore control aspects of your mind. And, of course, the potential for exploitation by hackers and foreign threats is always a concern.  

 Weighing in on the future of neural technology is bioethicist Doctor Christopher Imes. Dr. Imes has spent seven years in active service in the U.S Army as a nurse, deployed during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has worked in supporting, as well as disaster response, roles. Today, Imes has taught ethics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing for eight years and has spent six years as an Institutional Review Board member to rule on ethical research practices. When it comes to BCI, Imes contends that it is an idea straight out of science fiction. However, in the context of reality, he views the civilian application of the BCI more favorably. The potential in BCI for first responders, in particular, sticks out to him. He poses the question, “What if this technology was available during Hurricane Katrina?” The seamless collaboration between computers and providers on the ground may mean the difference in search and rescue situations where time is of the essence, especially in rural health settings. But he remains wary of the coerciveness of this technology—in particular, if service members who accept the technology will be seen as better soldiers by their leadership, and thus could receive promotions more easily over those more hesitant. He also reflects on how this novel invention could impact military personnel after they finish their time of service, physically and psychologically. If BCI technology became faulty, it could result in life-changing damage that could leave the government liable for injuries and disabilities. In his closing words, Dr. Imes also asks how this technology will affect the quality of life for our veterans: “What are the implications of giving someone complete control over technology and endless information, and then taking it away? Will it cause you to doubt the capabilities of yourself? At the least, it would be a mental shock.”  

So, what is to be done with the concept of BCI? As of now, it is too soon to tell. The practicality of the technology appears to only exist in research boardrooms and think tanks, so its application is many years off. Despite this, it doesn’t hurt to consider the possibilities. In his closing comments on the subject, Dr. Imes proposes a middle ground. A hybrid system, balancing the control of the human operator and information provided by BCI could be optimal. Still, he stresses the importance of accountability and hopes that, although technology can be used to help make better decisions, it does not discount the possibility of human error. Perhaps BCI is under attack due to its novelty, but that does not exclude it from criticism. With time, improvements will be made, and BCI may even be implemented into the rest of society. But now, as much as we can debate on what uncertain roads BCI technology will take us, only one thing remains true: it will take us further than we ever have been before.