Allan McCay (Deputy Director of The Sydney Institute of Criminology and an Academic Fellow at the University of Sydney's Law School) and Michelle Sharpe (Solicitor and Tenured Lecturer at the University of Melbourne) have published What is neurotechnology and why are lawyers getting involved? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
A series of developments in the field of neurotechnology holds wonderful potential, but also brings challenges for lawyers and might even threaten our capacity to choose freely.
So, what has been happening? In November of last year, Elon Musk’s Neuralink, a neurotechnology company which had earlier demonstrated that a monkey with one of its brain-implants could play a computer game by thought alone (rather than using its body), announced that it hopes to begin human trials on their device in 2023. Shortly before Christmas, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates invested in one of Musk’s rivals, Synchron, a company that already has devices implanted in the brains of some humans with neurological conditions, enabling them to interact with a computer and even to tweet to Musk’s own social media platform by thought alone. Arguably Synchron has now increased its lead over Musk’s company given that it has this year published the results of long-term safety studies for its brain-implants. On the legal front, in August the Law Society of England and Wales released a report on the implications of neurotechnology for lawyers. Shortly after this, the UN’s Human Rights Council resolved that it needed to find out about the implications of this technology. Meanwhile, the Chilean Neuroprotection Bill continues to make its way through the legislative process, and earlier this year UNESCO released its neurotech human rights report. At the time of writing, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office is just about to release its report on issues that concern it. There’s clearly a ramping up of neurotech-related activity which shows no sign of abating.
Comments