2025 SNFBA Course Materials

1. NIH ACD Working Group on BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Subgroup. (2019). BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society, Ch. 4: Neuroethics and Research with Animals.

Session 1: ETHICS OF NON-HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE: Animals, Organoids, and Computational Models

• The “Mini-Brain” Dilemma – Researchers developed cerebral organoids with spontaneous neural activity resembling brain waves seen in preterm infants. Ethical concerns arose regarding whether these organoids could develop a form of sentience or consciousness, raising questions about moral status and the limits of experimentation.
• AI-Simulated Animal Testing – Some researchers propose replacing animal models with computational neuroscience simulations. While this could reduce animal suffering, concerns remain about the validity of AI-based models for complex biological processes and the ethical implications of phasing out traditional research methodologies.

1. Galpern, W.R. et al. (2012). Sham neurosurgical procedures in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases: scientific and ethical considerations. Lancet Neurology. 11(7):643-650.
2. Hendriks S, Grady C, Ramos KM, Chiong W, Fins JJ, Ford P, Goering S, Greely HT, Hutchison K, Kelly ML, Kim SYH, Klein E, Lisanby SH, Mayberg H, Maslen H, Miller FG, Rommelfanger K, Sheth SA, Wexler A. Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Dec 1;76(12):1506-1514. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3523.

1. Farahany, N. A., Greely, H. T., Hyman, S., Koch, C., Grady, C., Pașca, S. P., … & Song, H. (2018). The ethics of experimenting with human brain tissue. Nature.
2. Sample, M., Aunos, M., Blain-Moraes, S., Bublitz, C., Chandler, J. A., Falk, T. H., … & Racine, E. (2019). Brain–computer interfaces and personhood: interdisciplinary deliberations on neural technology. Journal of neural engineering, 16(6), 063001.
3. Young, M. J., Bodien, Y. G., Giacino, J. T., Fins, J. J., Truog, R. D., Hochberg, L. R., & Edlow, B. L. (2021). The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas. Brain, 144(11), 3291-33

Session 3: PERSONHOOD, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND BRAIN-CHANGING INTERVENTIONS

• Neurotechnology to Read Intentions in Patients with Disorders of Consciousness – Advances in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow researchers to decode neural signals from patients in minimally conscious or vegetative states, enabling rudimentary communication. This offers hope for patient autonomy, but also raises questions about the reliability of neural intent decoding, the ethical status of these responses, and the risk of misinterpretation.
• Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Personality Changes – Patients receiving DBS for Parkinson’s or depression sometimes report profound personality shifts, changes in decision-making, or feelings of a “loss of self.” This case exemplifies the ethical dilemma of balancing therapeutic benefits with potential alterations in personal identity.

1. Ienca, M., Valle, G., & Raspopovic, S. (2025). Clinical trials for implantable neural prostheses: understanding the ethical and technical requirements. The Lancet Digital Health.
2. 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.
3. Ienca, M. (2021). On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 701258.

Session 4: NEUROSCIENCE, NEUROTECHNOLOGY, AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

• AI-Driven Brain Decoding and “Mind Reading” – AI models (esp. deep learning) trained on fMRI data have been used to reconstruct thoughts and images directly from brain activity. Ethical concerns arise around mental privacy, consent, and potential misuse in surveillance or criminal justice.
• Neuroadaptive Closed-Loop BCIs – Emerging BCIs use AI to monitor brain activity and automatically adjust neural stimulation in real-time to enhance cognition or regulate emotions. While promising for neuropsychiatric disorders, these systems raise ethical concerns about autonomy, the unpredictability of AI-driven neural modulation, and potential long-term dependency on external algorithms.

1. Chandler, J. A. (2025). Inferring Mental States from Brain Data: Ethico‐legal Questions about Social Uses of Brain Data. Hastings Center Report, 55(1), 22-32.
2. Ienca, M., Fins, J. J., Jox, R. J., Jotterand, F., Voeneky, S., Andorno, R., … & Kellmeyer, P. (2022). Towards a governance framework for brain data. Neuroethics, 15(2), 20.

Session 5: PRIVACY-BY-DESIGN AND HUMAN-CENTERED NEUROENGINEERING

1. “This Brain-Tracking Device Wants to Help You Work Smarter”, Neurable’s MW75 Neuro Headphones: Neurable, a neurotechnology startup, released EEG-enabled headphones designed to monitor focus and attention in real time by collecting users’ brainwave data. While the company pinpoints its commitment to data privacy, highlighting measures such as encryption, anonymization, and secure storage, some experts have raised concerns. Brainwave data are highly personal, and such developments raise pressing questions about how user data is stored, protected, and possibly repurposed. While Neurable states, “At no point in time do we want to sell your data. This is not our business model,” wearable neurotechnology still generates sensitive health information that could be used in ways that aren’t always transparent, and potentially even against the user’s interests. Further concerns rise as the company intends to seek medical device status for the headphones, aiming to monitor brain health and diagnose neurological conditions. The continuous collection of neurophysiological data through such devices opens up new ethical concerns about privacy and long-term data interpretation.
2. The case of Emotiv and the Chilean Supreme Court Ruling (2023) – In 2023, Emotiv, a neurotech company known for its consumer EEG headsets, came under legal scrutiny in Chile for collecting and using users’ brain data without proper consent. The Chilean Supreme Court ruled that Emotiv violated users’ rights by failing to provide clear, informed consent and by restricting user access to their own neural data, especially for those using the free version of their software. End-users were not adequately informed about the emotional and cognitive inferences being drawn from their EEG signals, raising serious concerns about autonomy and trust. The disparity in data rights between paying and non-paying users also underscored ethical concerns about equity and exploitation in consumer neurotechnology.

1. Ienca and Andorno, Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology, Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2017) 13:5, DOI 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
2. Common Human Rights Challenges Raised by Different Applications of Neurotechnologies in the Biomedical Field, Report commissioned by Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) of the Council of Europe, October 2021.