Untitled

Abstract

Background:Our new knowledge has begun to spill into the community as neuroscience raises new ethical, legal, and social concerns.The brains of "normal" people in some imaging studies yield clinically significant findings disconcertingly.What kind of information and follow-up do we owe those people?Some studies may have military implications; such as that, brain stimulation created an indefinitely awake and alert soldier or pilot.A new fascinating research area studying "Ethics of neuroscience" as neuroscientists explore how brains make decisions when confronted with moral dilemmas.The implications are unclear.Researchers point to three categories of existing consumer technology braincomputer interfaces for device control or self-monitoring, devices for noninvasive neuro-stimulation, and neuro-marketing applications of imaging technology and argue that the brain data collected pose significant privacy and information security risks.Although the topic of Direct to Consumer (DTC) neuro-technology certainly warrants attention, the commentary contains factual and conceptual errors that not only distort the reality of current DTC neuro-technology and its regulatory oversight but also misrepresent the state of the science.These misrepresentations, combined with unbridled speculation about the inevitability of widespread, highly accurate, DTC neuro-monitoring devices that can collect revealing personal information, prompt the authors to suggest impractical solutions to privacy and security concerns. Conclusion:Researchers have a responsibility to prevent misuse of neuroscience new technology, they need to point out when unproven new technologies are being used recklessly and to explore the social consequences of effective new technologies.There is urgent need to maximize the benefits of the applications of neuroscience and minimize their risks with implementation of Nero-ethics guidelines.