Occupational Health and Neuroergonomics: The Future of Wearable Neurotechnologies at the Workplace

Abstract

Because the presumed application of neuroergonomic enhancement in the workplace is likely more imminent than the realization of an enhanced moral reasoning, is a societal response needed, eg, in the form of regulatory controls? Just as genetic engineering will allow us to decode and alter the genome of our cells, so similarly neuroengineering aims to decode and alter the connectome of our brains. Along those lines, it has been noted that data obtained by employers from brain-interfacing devices of employees may not be considered medical or health data and thus may not qualify for protections by current laws such as the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the European General Data Protection Regulation so additional privacy regulations might be needed.20 It has also been suggested that legislation analogous to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which protects workers from genetic discrimination in employment, should be considered to protect workers from discrimination against refusal to participate in neuroergonomic enhancement. 57 There is some logic to these suggestions since brain activity data are arguably a more interpretable and intimate representation of who a person is than their genome.20 However, public opinion might differ on this issue. For example, a recent survey of the general public in Japan presented individuals with four scenarios involving minimally to highly invasive neurological enhancement interventions. Only about 20% of respondents stated a willingness to use enhancement technologies, especially if they were less invasive, and 80% were not. On the other hand, about 80% of respondents were tolerant toward others' use of such technologies, and about 80%felt that therewas no need for banning such technologies.64 This outlook would be consistent with many legal systems that are structured to allow users to choose to take calculated risk. Of course, this presupposes that userswill be aware of any potential risks and how the technology should be used properly. Thus, it may be necessary to requiremanufacturers and suppliers of such devices to fully inform potential users of the appropriate use constraints and to clearly disclose any possible adverse effects, including long-term use risks, which unfortunately are currently poorly understood.20 Further study of attitudes among various stakeholder groups might be revealing, as has been done for employees' and occupational health professionals' perspectives on the use of genetic testing in the workplace.65,66 Even so, additional considerations for issues of workplace applications seem warranted. Perhaps at the very least, relevant stakeholders and individuals with expertise in dealing with such situations (including engineers, occupational health professionals, employees, employers, lawyers, ethicists, social scientists, government officials, etc) need to be convened to consider what applications would be considered acceptable and which should be avoided. For example, recently the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard Association put together a standards roadmap whitepaper on neurotechnologies for brain-computer interfacing. 67 This whitepaper called for a working group on the Recommended Practice for the Responsible Design and Development of Neurotechnologies. They would be tasked "to assess the ethical and socio-technical considerations and practices regarding the design, development, and use of neurotechnologies which enables developers, researchers, users and regulators to anticipate and address ethical and sociocultural implications of neurotechnologies, mitigating negative unintended consequences, while increasing community support and engagement with neurotechnology innovators."68 Similarly, occupational health organizations need to examine their ethical standards to ensure that practicing professionals will be prepared to advise employers on the application of neuroergonomics in their workplaces in a way that is best for the health and safety of their workers. It would seem that these steps are "no-brainers" requiring no further cognitive enhancement to implement.