EAP - Trames Publications

PUBLISHED
SINCE 1997

TRAMES. A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences

ISSN 1736-7514 (Electronic)
ISSN 1406-0922 (Print)

Open Access Journal

CiteScore: 0.8

Impact Factor (2022): 0.2

BRAIN READING AND MENTAL PRIVACY; pp. 204–212

PDF | DOI: 10.3176/tr.2011.2.08

Authors

Valtteri Arstila, Franklin Scott

Abstract

The widespread use and novel applications of brain imaging techniques seem to open the possibility of new threats to one’s privacy. Being in a situation where we cannot control what information about ourselves is available to others could restrict the jobs we can get, the business we conduct, the way we are seen by strangers, and the way we relate to our friends and family. While researchers and practitioners should be cautious about the ways they use brain imaging data, we argue that brain reading does not violate privacy in any way different from the already established psychological methods to determine mental phenomena, such as whether someone suffers from color blindness or is clinically depressed. For brain reading to constitute a new threat, we claim it would have to be possible to easily gather information about a subject’s mental states in accidental or malicious ways without the knowledge of the subject. Against this possibility, we note that brain imaging techniques require (i) the researchers to intentionally seek a specific type of mental state to the exclusion of information about other states, (ii) the active cooperation and participation of subjects, and (iii) a method of analysis that depends on the already established psychological tests. Hence, while there should be policies that specify when brain imaging can be used and how, these policies should be treated within a broader context of privacy issues in psychology rather than as a special case.

References

Amodio, D. M., J. T. Jost, S. L. Master, and C. M. Yee (2007) “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism”. Nature Neuroscience 10, 10, 1246–1247.
doi:10.1038/nn1979

Aron, A., H. Fisher, D. J. Mashek, G. Strong, H. Li, and L. L. Brown (2005) “Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love”. Journal of Neurophysiology 94, 1, 327–337.
doi:10.1152/jn.00838.2004

Chadwick, M. J., D. Hassabis, N. Weiskopf, and E.A. Maguire (2010) “Decoding individual episodic memory traces in the human hippocampus”. Current Biology 20, 6, 544–547.
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.053

Eaton, M. L., and J. Illes (2007) “Commercializing cognitive neurotechnology – the ethical terrain”. Nature biotechnology 25, 393–397.
doi:10.1038/nbt0407-393

Egeth, H. E., and S. Yantis (1997) “Visual attention: control, representation, and time course”. Annual Review of Psychology 48, 269–297.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269

Farah, M. J., M. E. Smith, C. Gawuga, D. Lindsell, and D. Foster (2008) “Brain imaging and brain privacy: a realistic concern?”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21, 119–127.
doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21010

Fisher, H. E., A. Aron, and Lucy L. Brown (2006) “Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 361, 1476, 2173–2186.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1938

Fuchs, T. (2006) “Ethical issues in neuroscience”. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 19, 600–607.
doi:10.1097/01.yco.0000245752.75879.26

Holcombe, A. O. (2009) “Seeing slow and seeing fast: two limits on perception”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 5, 216–221.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.005

Illes, J., A. C. Rosen, L. Huang, R. A. Goldstein, T. A. Raffin, and G. Swan (2004) “Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research”. Neurology 62, 888–890.

Jiang, Y., P. Costello, F. Fang, M. Huang, and S. He (2006) “A gender- and sexual orientation-dependent spatial attentional effect of invisible images”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 45, 17048–17052.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0605678103

Koenigs, M., L. Young, R. Adolphs, D. Tranel, F. Cushman, M. Hauser, and A. Damasio (2007) “Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments”. Nature 446, 7138, 908–911.
doi:10.1038/nature05631

Kozel, F. A., K. A. Johnson, Q. Mu, E. L. Grenesko, S. J. Laken, and M. S. George (2005) “Detecting deception using functional magnetic resonance imaging”. Biological Psychiatry 58, 8, 605–613.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.07.040

Kuhnen, C. M. and B. Knutson (2005) “The neural basis of financial risk taking”. Neuron 47, 5, 763–770.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.08.008

Nelson, K. (2010) “Intel debuts mind-reading brain scans in NYC”. Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/08/2010-04-08_mindreading_brain_scans_ debut_in_nyc.html.

Nieder, A. and E.K. Miller (2004) “A parieto-frontal network for visual numerical information in the monkey”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 19: 7457.

Phelps, E. A., K. J. O’Connor, W. A. Cunningham, E. S. Funayma, J. C. Gatenby, J. C. Gore, and
M. R. Banaji (2000) “Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activity”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 1–10.
doi:10.1162/089892900562552

Räikkä, J. (2010) “Brain imaging and privacy”. Neuroethics 3, 1, 5–12.

Sententia, W. (2004) “Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013, 1, 221–228.
doi:10.1196/annals.1305.014

Sip, K. E., A. Roepstorff, W. McGregor, and C. D. Frith (2008) “Detecting deception: the scope and limits”. Trends in cognitive sciences 12, 2, 48–53.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.008

Zald, D. H. (2003) “The human amygdala and the emotional evaluation of sensory stimuli”. Brain Research Reviews 41, 1, 88–123.
doi:10.1016/S0165-0173(02)00248-5

Zink, C. F., Y. Tong, Q. Chen, D. S. Bassett, J. L. Stein, and A. Meyer-Lindenberg (2008) “Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans”. Neuron 58, 2, 273–283.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025

Back to Issue