Neurotechnology is an area of technology that specifically applies to the monitoring, regulation, or enhancement of brain activity. As neurotechnologies advance, the once far-fetched idea that humans might leverage technology to augment their nervous system has become closer to fact than fiction. Mental augmentation encompasses any means by which people enhance their mental functions beyond what is necessary to maintain health. Although potentially useful, the application of mental augmentation technologies today presents challenges and controversy.
Applications of Mental Augmentation: Medical vs. Recreational
Neurotechnology devices serve either medical or recreational purposes. Medically, these devices treat mental health disorders, learning disabilities, and neurological conditions by stimulating the brain. Recreationally, they enhance learning and cognition or improve efficiency.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are both FDA-regulated medical treatments. Although their primary purpose is treatment, they have also been proven to improve brain functions. TMS, primarily used to treat depression, improves cognitive functions such as episodic and working memory, and motor learning, with treatment costs ranging from $6,000 to $12,000. DBS, used to treat Parkinson’s disease, enhances learning and long-term memory, with an average procedure cost of $39,152. Candidates for DBS must have severe symptoms, unmanageable by medications.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is currently unregulated by the FDA and is considered a non-medical device. tDCS devices can be sold for “wellness” purposes and recreational use. tDCS increases neuronal plasticity, encouraging the formation of connections that reinforce learning. Research suggests that tDCS enhances cognitive and behavioral performance, and potentially improves language acquisition, math ability, and memory. tDCS devices are available online and can cost as little as $40 to around $500.
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Given its easy accessibility for mental enhancement and recreational use, tDCS plays a central role in the debate on fair access to neurotechnologies. It is difficult to determine how many people use tDCS for mental enhancement rather than medical treatment, since the line between medical and recreational use is blurred. Users like Phil Doughan seek mental improvement exclusively, while others, like Kathie Kane-Willis, use the device to fix issues like brain fog, a medical symptom that is often subjective and difficult to measure.
tDCS is not widely used; however, one study suggests that brain stimulation could one day become mainstream, similar to the way people use caffeine to increase alertness. A study done by Pew Research found that nearly half of Americans (47%) say they would be at least somewhat excited about mental augmentation techniques that allow people to process information more quickly and accurately.
tDCS is not FDA approved, which means companies currently have the freedom to bring tDCS devices to the market with claims of treating medical conditions and enhancing brain function. Advertisements can be misleading as tDCS studies have not yet conclusively shown that the technique provides real benefits. One neuroscientist notes that the public adoption of tDCS is happening at a faster pace than related research. International organizations suggest that this under-researched and unregulated use of neurotechnologies entails unprecedented risks for human rights.
The NeuroRight to Fair Access to Mental Augmentation
Amidst ethical concerns about neurotechnology, Dr. Rafael Yuste founded The Neurorights Foundation to advocate for human rights directives and ethical guidance on neuro technological innovation. Concerned with the possible exacerbation of inequality between people who can and cannot afford neurotechnologies, professors have proposed a framework entitled The NeuroRight to Fair Access to Mental Augmentation. The framework states, “There should be established guidelines at both international and national levels regulating the use of mental enhancement neurotechnologies. These guidelines should be based on the principle of justice and guarantee equality of access.”
Brazil and Chile have both enacted legislation to ensure equitable access to neurotechnology. Brazil’s Article 13-E of bill No. 522/2022 states that “The State shall take measures to ensure equitable access to advances in neurotechnology”. Similarly, Chile passed the “Neuroprotection Bill”, which establishes that “The State will guarantee the promotion and equitable access to advances in neurotechnology and neuroscience”. Chile’s “Neuroprotection Bill” faces criticism for its vague scope, limitations, and obligations, highlighting the need for more nuanced discussion of the issue.
The Central Debate
Proponents of Fair Access to Mental Augmentation are concerned that cognitive enhancements may primarily benefit the wealthy due to high pricing, which may widen social, cultural, and economic divides. They suggest that the enhanced mental abilities afforded to those with the purchasing power to buy mental augmentation devices will further exacerbate wealth gaps. Moreover, proponents argue that the social polarization caused by augmentation technology would have knock-on consequences for a range of human rights, raising questions about how far a “neurotech divide” could set back equality and inclusion. They warn that augmentation devices require especially careful consideration when used in classrooms, workplaces, and other competitive environments where wealth differences are amplified. And even in the context of medical treatment, the benefits of neurotechnologies will not be financially accessible to everyone. Proponents of the NeuroRight to Fair Access also point out that if augmentation becomes a widespread practice, enhanced abilities may become a standard. This raises the challenge of respecting people’s will to not use neurotechnologies – an issue touched on in the NeuroRights framework.
Critics of Fair Access to Mental Augmentation question the feasibility of implementing the policy framework. If equal access to neuroenhancement is established in a way where states are responsible for guaranteeing equal access to all, this would imply a fiscal burden to already-underfunded health systems that cannot provide access to more basic human needs. Critics also argue that the NeuroRights framework must be adapted to various economic, cultural, and social contexts before its implementation, since augmentation technology is not equally perceived nor equally accessible across the globe. For example, mental augmentation may go against religious precepts and morals where the modification of human nature is not viewed favorably. Moreover, enshrining access to mental augmentation as an international human right risks punishments for developing nations with less access to such technologies, which may widen gaps between wealthy and historically-exploited countries.
Conclusion and Future Prospects
Neurotechnologies have recently entered the market, increasing the availability of products for mental augmentation purposes. The global neurotech market is growing at a compound annual rate of 12% and is expected to reach $21 billion by 2026. This rapid pace of innovation suggests that we may be late to regulate neurotechnologies. To promote responsible and ethical use, it is crucial to engage in proactive and thoughtful discussions on how to regulate neurotechnologies effectively.
