Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to “Separating neuroethics from neurohype”

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 991–992 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Ienca et al. reply — In her response to our Commentary in the September 2018 issue1, Wexler makes incorrect statements on factual issues, misrepresents our analysis, and suggests a perspective on the (neuro)ethical debate that we find deeply troubling.

First, on the facts, we have numerous disagreements related to the status of neurotechnology. For instance, Wexler is wrong in asserting that “most consumer EEG devices do not provide access to raw EEG data.” The real-time display of raw electroencephalography (EEG) data is reported among the key features of several software packages built for direct-to-consumer (DTC) neuroheadsets. For instance, EmotivPRO, an integrated software solution built for Emotiv EPOC+ and Insight, advertises “a real-time display of EMOTIV headset data streams including raw EEG” (emphasis added). Similarly, eegID, an Android app for NeuroSky Mindwave, claims to enable users to “view EEG data,” including “EEG raw values.” NeuroSky’s FAQ section states: “Our technology is remarkable in how well our headsets read raw brainwave data.” Access to raw data has also been obtained by reverse-engineering these software tools. In 2010, a hacker going by Cody Brocious cracked Emotiv’s encryption, built a decryption routine and created an open-source library for reading EEG data directly from the headset. In addition, although Wexler claims that no single tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation), tACS (transcranial alternating current stimulation) or tRNS (transcranial random noise stimulation) device has obtained US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the Fisher Wallace Stimulator, a wearable tACS device2, has an FDA clearance for cranial electrotherapy stimulation and Activadose II from Caputron is cleared for iontophoresis and does not require modification or additional hardware to be used for tDCS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ienca, M., Haselager, P. & Emanuel, E. J. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 805–810 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rostami, M., Golesorkhi, M. & Ekhtiari, H. Basic Clin. Neurosci. 4, 190–208 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Boto, E. et al. Nature 555, 657–661 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Price, W. N. II & Cohen, I. G. Nat. Med. 25, 37–43 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Roy, Y., Hubert, B., Isabela, A., Alexandre, G. & Jocelyn, F. Deep learning-based electroencephalography analysis: a systematic review. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05498 (2019).

  6. Kahn, J. P., Vayena, E. & Mastroianni, A. C. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13677–13679 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Martinez-Martin, N. AMA J. Ethics 21, 180–187 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Enserink, M. & Chin, G. Science 347, 490–491 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nature 555, 559–560 (2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Ethics & Policy Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Marcello Ienca

  2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

    Pim Haselager

  3. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Ezekiel J. Emanuel

Authors
  1. Marcello Ienca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pim Haselager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ezekiel J. Emanuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcello Ienca.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ienca, M., Haselager, P. & Emanuel, E.J. Reply to “Separating neuroethics from neurohype”. Nat Biotechnol 37, 991–992 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0226-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0226-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing