GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: Direct to Consumer Brain stimulation is Booming, but Ethical Concerns Remain

domingo, 10 de marzo de 2019

Direct to Consumer Brain stimulation is Booming, but Ethical Concerns Remain

Direct to Consumer Brain stimulation is Booming, but Ethical Concerns Remain

Bioedge

Direct to consumer brain stimulation is booming, but ethical concerns remain

by Xavier Symons | 10 Mar 2019 |

DIY bioscience has been gaining significant traction in recent years. One of the latest developments is direct to consumer brain stimulation devices. A myriad of neurostimulation devices have appeared on the market that supposedly monitor brain activity or provide low levels of electrical stimulation to the brain through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The devices purportedly do everything from increase concentration to relieve anxiety and even improve users’ capacity for rational deliberation.

One example is a popular neuropriming headset sold by tech-company Halo. The sports version of the headset is said to significantly improve users' athletic performance. The company's website touts scientific research indicating that the headset “enhanc[es] cycling performance by 17%”.

Tech companies are excited about the endless possibilities for different neurostimulation products, and the market for direct-to-consumer neurotechnology products is expected to exceed $3 billion in sales by 2020.

Yet ethicists are concerned about the risks that these technologies may pose to users, and there is an apparent lack of legal oversight for the brain stimulation devices.

“This is an area that’s increasing that we really need to pay attention to,” said Anna Wexler, an instructor in the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

These products are often marketed as science-based, but Wexler and Peter B. Reiner, a neuroethicist at the University of British Columbia, argued in a recent article in Science that “one overarching issue is whether direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies work as advertised.”

There are also significant concerns about the side-effects of brain stimulation devices. “We just don’t know what the long-term effects of brain stimulation are,” Wexler told The Inquirer earlier this year.

It often takes a newsworthy tragedy to make us think deeply about difficult ethical issues. One example is our lead story this week. The parents of a brain-damaged West Point cadet, Peter Zhu, asked a court to order a hospital to retrieve his sperm so that the family name can be carried on. No sooner said than done. Justice John P. Colangelo, of the New York Supreme Court, Ninth Judicial District, directed Westchester Medical Center to collect the sperm and have it stored. A court hearing will be held on March 21.

The outcome of this case will be interesting, partly because it pits ethics based on family ties against ethics based on personal autonomy. Peter’s parents know that they cannot get their son back, but they believe that they have a right to a possible child to carry on the family name. But bioethicists point out that grandparents do not have a right to a grandchild and that Peter never consented to such a procedure. A family's tragic loss is shaping up as a clash of cultures, collective versus individualistic, Asian versus Western.