Ethical considerations for an imminent irruption of neurotechnologies in the public sphere
Abstract
This article aims to collect a series of considerations in the field of neurosciences that could conflict with the Habermas’ procedural ethics of discourse in the context of its realization of his deliberative democracy. They are related mainly to the influence and inevitability of cognitive biases and emotions in the breakdown of dialogue. This will serve the purpose of introducing the question of to what extent it is legitimate to intervene the functioning of the mind and with this that of the communicative rationalities of citizens through procedures and devices that institutionalize communication. The question acquires special relevance today, when there are already companies that, encouraged by the advances achieved by neurotechnologies, aspire to the design of brain-computer interfaces that suppress orality between deliberative agents and solve their discrepancies beforehand through robotic processes that put in questioning the continuity of personal autonomy and democratic deliberation and rationality as we know them.
Keywords:
democracia deliberativa, ética, neurociencia, sesgo cognitivo, técnicaReferences
Anderson, M., Fitz, N., y Howlader, D. (2012). “Neurotechnology research and the world stage: ethics, biopower, and policy”. En Giordano, J. (ed.), Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential, and Problems. CRC Press. pp. 287-300.
Bostrom, N. (2005). “Transhumanist Values”. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 4: 3-14.
Bostrom, N. (2016). Superinteligencia: Caminos, peligros, estrategias. Teell.
Churchland, P. (1998). Toward a cognitive neurobiology of the moral virtues. Topoi 17: 83-96.
Damásio, A. (2013). El error de Descartes: la emoción, la razón y el cerebro humano. Booket.
Edmans, A., García, D., y Norli, O. (2007). “Sports sentiment and stock returns”. Journal of Finance, 62 (4): 1967-1998.
Garvan, S. (26 de julio de 2019). Cambridge Analytica: cómo Netflix retrata el mayor escándalo de privacidad en las redes sociales en ‘Nada es privado’. BBC News Mundo. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-49122905.
Gazzaniga, M. (2003). Perspectives in Memory Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gazzaniga, M. (2010). ¿Qué nos hace humanos? La explicación científica de nuestra singularidad como especie. Paidós.
Gazzaniga, M. (2012). ¿Quién manda aquí? El libre albedrío y la ciencia del cerebro. Paidós.
Gazzaniga, M. (2015). El cerebro ético. Paidós.
Gil, F. (2005). “Tecnología y esfera pública en Jürgen Habermas”. Revista CTS, 5 (2): 141-152.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., y Kahneman, D. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press.
Guerra, M. (2019). Habermas. La apuesta por la democracia. EMSE EDAPP.
Habermas, J. (2005). “Tres modelos de democracia. Sobre el concepto de una política deliberativa”. Polis, 10. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=30541007.
Habermas, J. (2008). Facticidad y validez. Trotta.
Jaimovich, D. (29 de agosto de 2020). Neuralink: Elon Musk presentó su plan para implantar chips en el cerebro. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/america/tecno/2020/08/29/neuralink-elon-musk-presento-su-plan-para-implantar-chips-en-el-cerebro/.
Jotterand F, y Giordano J. (2011). “Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation and personal identity: ethical questions, and neuroethical approaches for medical practice”. International Review of Psychiatry, 23 (5): 476-485.
Kalbfleisch, M. (2012). “Is the use of neurotechnology in education an enablement, treatment or enhancement?”. En Giordano, J. (Ed.), Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems. CRC Press. pp. 37-46.
Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., y Fehr, E. (2006). “Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex”. Science, 314 (5800): 829-832.
Koenigs, M., y Tranel, D. (2007). “Irrational economic decisión-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game”. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27 (4): 951-956.
Lanni, C., Lenzken, S., Pascale, A., et al. (2008). “Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind”. Pharmacol, 57 (3): 196-213.
Levy, D., y Glimcher, P. (2011). “Comparing Apples and Oranges: Using Reward-Specific and Reward-General Subjective Value Representation in the Brain”. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31 (41):14693–14707.
Levy, D., y Glimcher, P. (2012). “The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice”. Current opinion in neurobiology, 22: 1027-1038.
Mill, J.S. (2000). Essays on some unsettled questions of political economy. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Morey, M. (2019). Foucault y Derrida: Pensamiento francés contemporáneo. EMSE EDAPP.
Ortiz, E., y López, J. (2018). Neuroeconomía. Neurociencia, psicología y economía: tres disciplinas en colaboración. Barcelona: EMSE EDAPP.
Pereda, I. (2018). El mapa del cerebro: Un paseo anatómico por la máquina del pensar. EMSE EDAPP.
Sadin, E. (2018). La humanidad aumentada: La administración digital del mundo. Caja Negra.
Sadin, E. (2020). La inteligencia artificial o el desafío del siglo: Anatomía de un antihumanismo radical. Caja Negra.
Santamaría, G. (4 de septiembre de 2007). Michael Gazzaniga: ‘Trabajamos en aumentar la memoria, y también en borrarla’. Muy interesante. https://www.muyinteresante.es/salud/articulo/michael-gazzaniga.
Smith, A. (2014). La riqueza de las naciones. Alianza.
Varela, A. (17 de junio de 2020). DHL se anticipa a Amazon con el uso de los primeros drones autónomos en sus centros logísticos de España. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.es/dhl-anticipa-amazon-uso-drones-autonomos-espana-661373.
