Neuroscience & Business
As neuroscience and the private sector join forces, will they drive forward human development, or rip us away from the privacy of our own mind?
Treatment vs. Enhancement
What motivates innovation, and when do those goals become dangerous for consumers?
Emerging neurotechnologies possess the ability to modulate the brain, offering promising treatments for a wide range of disorders and paving the way for significant medical advancements. However, their potential to enhance brain capabilities beyond natural limits is equally alluring, particularly in a fast-paced world that values productivity and excellence. Learn more below about these different possible motivations for neurotech innovation, and their larger implications.
Treatment
Innovation in neuroscience has the potential to help people in unprecedented ways. Deep brain stimulators can help people with Parkinson’s function independently in day-to-day life. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) devices are being developed right now to help emergency states of depression, by experts like Nolan Williams at Stanford. Even virtual realities and digital therapeutics are on the rise in this sector, such as video games that train focus skills for people with ADHD, or simulations that teach stress management skills to those with PTSD that train people to build coping strategies for mental illness.
Learn from Neurotracker about exciting recently-developed treatments in neuroscience
Enhancement
Enhancement, however, is incredibly tempting for entrepreneurs. In a world that prioritizes speed and productivity and is more excited about technology than ever, people are looking for ways to focus more and improve cognition, creativity, and even mood.
In the words of Martha J. Farah, professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania:
“While enhancing human cognition could improve well-being, it could also lead to new social pressures, exacerbate existing inequalities, or even change what we value in human beings. What if some people become 'better' versions of themselves, and others, by comparison, seem inadequate?"
Learn from this expert opinion piece on neuroenhancement and its challenges to authenticity
Due to the simultaneous potential to help and to harm, innovation in neurotech is packed with both pros and cons.
Potential Pros
1. More people have the ability and energy to make an impact on the world
2. Increased human potential
3. Those who struggle with focus and mood are able to perform better
Potential Cons
1. Technologies are not equally distributed, enhancing existing inequalities (and creating new ones)
2. Standard of productivity spirals out of control
3. Decreased tolerance for normal human flaws
In considering these risk-benefit tradeoffs, it is important to understand a company’s motivation in creating a neuroscience-based product, and how they value ethics and social impact vs. pure economic gain and status.
Consider…
What motivations are valid/ethical for innovation in neuroscience?
How does society demonstrate values of progress vs. overall wellbeing? Where are these two goals tied together and where are they separate?
Innovation vs. Regulation
In an exciting but morally precarious field of cognitive enhancement, how do we manage encouragement of innovation’s momentum vs. mitigating its potential negative effects?
Technologies like brain stimulators, access to real-time brain data through headsets, and video games that can enhance cognitive abilities produce a sense of excitement and forward motion. As we have already seen with the advent of social media, momentum in entrepreneurship historically outweighs concerns of ethics and long-term impact on mental health. Due to the economic gain and rapid progress at our fingertips, the tech world leans towards the “move fast and break things” approach, awakening regulators to the dangers that come from leaving humanistic concerns to retrospect.
Organizations like UNESCO and the OECD are already developing neuroethics guidelines that anticipate potential ethical and health problems. So far, these guidelines are not directly represented in national policy.
-
The speeds of technological innovation and ethical regulation are out of sync. Scientists/entrepreneurs are gaining momentum before policymakers can fully anticipate the consequences of their actions. While some regulations are out there by UNESCO, the OECD, and other international stakeholders, they are not directly enforceable in the form of laws; entrepreneurs themselves have to decide to follow the guidelines for everyone’s collective benefit.
Read a study by neuroethics expert Karen Rommelfanger about how to reach entrepreneurs
Medical devices are stringently regulated by the FDA, and require years of robust clinical data before they are every put to use in medical settings. However, there is a huge potential for a direct consumer market for similarly impactful technology that leaves regulation up to the customers themselves, as government regulations do not reach the private sector in the same way. If companies don’t have to be transparent about how the product works and where it can go wrong, will the general public be able to catch the errors in time?
-
There are some methods of regulation that will reach entrepreneurs much more effectively than others. Too much restriction could dampen the field, or drive people to find destructive ways around the guidelines. Too little oversight, however, could leave some entrepreneurs to get carried away with the momentum of technological innovation.
Companies like Elon Musk’s "Neuralink" have faced backlash due to lack of transparency about the progress of their product. Experts feel communication comes casually on social media, rather than from reputable sources.
Musk is particularly unique in his high profile. According to Yasheng Huang from the MIT Sloan School of Management, “Musk has been able to leverage his political influence in ways that few other business leaders can. He has navigated regulatory challenges with agility.” It is therefore possible that regulators are hesitant to target Musk due to his immense social and political influence, showcasing the potential dangers and anxieties surrounding overregulation.
The problem of balance comes in here: there is danger in regulating an excited field, as well as in letting it gain too much power.
-
The term “techlash” refers to public backlash against existing technologies, usually due to concerns over ethics and well-being. This has been seen before, particularly with social media, where regulation was introduced only after its negative impacts on the public became apparent and, more significantly, after public protest.
Legislators have so far taken a hands-off approach to neurotechnology, which may produce a similar timeline. Things like the US BRAIN Initiative and the EU’s Human Brain Project encourage innovation; competition in the market could lead the private sector to ignore ethical concerns for the sake of “making it”. This would put regulation in the hands of the public (a hefty responsibility).
Emotiv Inc: A Case of Brain Data Theft
Emotiv Inc’s revolutionary device, “Insight,” collects data on the user’s cognition. Guido Girardi Lavín, Chilean senator, filed a lawsuit since he could not see his own data without a premium account (instead, only Emotiv could access it). He claimed privacy issues, including hacking of the brain and commercialization of brain data. Emotiv Inc claimed the risks were all hypothetical, and claim to be completely non-invasive. However, by their company model, their cloud maintains user data for research purposes even when they delete their account.
Why the Urgency? Rapid Neurotech Market Growth
Neurotech Reports projects that the overall worldwide market for neurotechnology products will be $12.82 billion in 2022 and will reach $38.17 billion in 2032.
Compound annual growth rate: 11.53%
Neurostimulation specifically is predicted to lead the market
A Positive Spin: Entrepreneurship for Social Impact
Rather than a limitation or dampening “rule,” neurotech ethics can actually provide momentum for social impact.
According to research by the World Economic Forum, most entrepreneurs in the space are aware of neuroethics and motivated by the possibilities of neurotechnology to make a positive impact. While it is important to beware of the outliers, this data is a good sign for potential implementation of neuroethics in the private sector.
The WEF recommends 3 steps for entrepreneurs in neuroscience:
Develop an Actionable Neuroethics Strategy
Raise Awareness with Impact Investors
Learn to navigate proactively, not reactively
Read the full WEF article: “How neuroethics can advance innovations for positive social impact”
Consider…
Are existing regulations headed in the right direction?
How can they be implemented in a way that is realistic for entrepreneurs?
How transparent should companies be with their research and development process?
What degree of responsibility do policymakers have for missteps in the private sector?
Neuromarketing
Can neuroscience help attract customers while ensuring freedom of choice?
Neuromarketing studies consumer’s biological responses to advertising stimuli. With consumer brain data, companies can “mind read” to set prices, and improve their branding and ad practices.
The field of neuromarketing is often criticized for validating information that we already know from traditional marketing practices. However, some cases suggest that it has its own value.
-
A 2011 Emory study took fMRI scans of people listening to music. Activity in a certain part of the brain ended up being correlated with the song’s popularity. However, when people were asked directly which songs they liked, their verbal, conscious responses did not correlate with the song's popularity; the brain knew something they didn’t.
-
While many people understand how to make something visually appealing in advertisements, many companies like the idea of ensuring consumers are directing their attention to exactly the right things at the right times. This can only be done with brain data, or namely a physiological proxy (eye tracking).
Leading consulting companies in the field, like Nielsen, use eye tracking to fine tune the timing of advertisements and the responses they elicit.
Read an NIH study about the effectiveness of eye tracking here
Like many other uses of neuroscience in business, there are major privacy concerns in neuromarketing; the idea of a big business “mind reading” is enough to make many people skeptical. There is also the added worry of coercion; advertising is of course supposed to be convincing and has manipulated consumer’s brains even before we fully understood that was possible. But, could the selling go too far and force people into decisions they would never otherwise make?
Learn more from the Harvard Business Review “Neuromarketing: What You Need to Know”
Generic Competitive Strategy: The Basics of Consumer Mindreading
To explain how businesses can achieve above average profitability, Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter created this table of “generic competitive strategies.”
For example, places like Walmart, McDonald’s, and Amazon use cost leadership, by setting low prices that make their products incredibly popular. They lead entire industries, meaning they have a broad target.
Starbucks and apple use differentiation; they target large audiences and distinguish themselves through quality and unique branding, allowing them to charge higher prices.
Rolls Royce and Prada both use a differentiation focus strategy. They sell to narrow, niche markets, and distinguish themselves within that niche.
Claire’s and Home Depot both use cost focus, providing very low costs in their niche markets.
The reason these strategies are separate is because it is very difficult for businesses to sustainably pursue more than one. Not only is differentiation usually too costly to also be a cost leader, but using too many approaches can confuse the consumer and their associations with the brand.
These strategies are based on business practices that read the mind of the consumer and appeal to different goals they may have, often unconsciously.
Consider…
Should neuromarketing be able to control consumer decisions without their knowledge?
How transparent should businesses be on their methods for grabbing customers?
Tracking Brain Activity at Work
Is productivity increasing at the cost of human health and privacy?
Monitoring employees' neural activity during dangerous tasks has gained attention in recent years. For professions like construction and aviation, alerting workers when fatigue levels become critical can save lives. However, if such tracking extends beyond safety concerns into the broader corporate world, it raises ethical questions.
Fatigue is well known to hinder productivity, and with productivity and focus directly linked to revenue, concerns arise about the use of neurological data as a business strategy. As neuroscience-based tools, such as productivity and focus trackers, become more common in workplaces, the boundary between improving safety and invading privacy becomes increasingly unclear.
While boosting productivity can benefit both employers and employees if implemented responsibly, without proper safeguards, such practices could easily be misused.
Read more:
-
The AttentiveU Glasses, developed by researchers at MIT, measure brain activity through EEG electrodes behind the user’s ears. This, with the additional feature of eye tracking, provides instant feedback on engagement. The user can even be notified of lowered engagement through sounds and haptics, sometimes before they can consciously realize they are slipping.
So far, this wearable seems like a device for individuals who want to boost their productivity and awareness. But, is it possible that certain workplaces could start requiring technology like this? And even on an individual level, what could the impacts be on mental health? Will it create increased mindfulness, paranoia, or a varying combination of both?
-
Researchers have been experimenting with EEG devices that both assess cognitive load, and adjust work levels based on that information. They have been tested on assembly line workers; for example, researchers in Belgium were able to distinguish between low, healthy, and dangerous amounts of cognitive load on workers in a simulated factory setting. Adjusting workloads could help keep workers safe and healthy. However, once again, there are concerns about employers using the bad days against them.
Applied Ergonomics Study on the potential of assessing cognitive workload
-
After years of development, some Chinese students now wear probes in the classroom that allows teachers immediate access to attention levels. While many are excited about the potential benefits of a more productive education, four major problems have been identified:
The data may often be inaccurate, as a classroom is far less controlled than a lab setting
It is often impossible to decipher between different brain states, as many produce similar looking data
Scientists do not know the ideal attention state for learning
The devices leave several other important brain changes completely unmonitored
The problems come from a combination of technology that is not quite there yet, and ethical problems for how to interpret and use the brain data.
The focus on increased focus and extreme efficiency in education reflects a desire to train productive future members of the workforce. In this case, neuroscience in business practice goes all the way back to childhood, reflecting its potential widespread effects.
Consider…