Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:22:42.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cyberbiosecurity: An Emerging Field that has Ethical Implications for Clinical Neuroscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2021

Dov Greenbaum*
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale UniversityNew Haven, Connecticut, USA Harry Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel Zvi Meitar Institute for Legal Implications of Emerging Technologies, IDC, Israel
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Cyberbiosecurity is an emerging field that relates to the intersection of cybersecurity and the clinical and research practice in the biosciences. Beyond the concerns that usually arise in the areas of genomics, this paper highlights ethical concerns raised by cyberbiosecurity in clinical neuroscience. These concerns relate not only to the privacy of the data collected by imaging devices, but also the concern that patients using various stimulatory devices can be harmed by a hacker who either obfuscates the outputs or who interferes with the stimulatory process. The paper offers some suggestions as to how to rectify these increasingly dire concerns.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Khan, F, Ncube, C, Ramasamy, LK, Kadry, S, Nam, Y. A digital DNA sequencing engine for ransomware detection using machine learning. IEEE Accesss 2020;8:119710–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Dinh, A, Brill, D, Li, Y, He, W. Malware sequence alignment. In 2016 IEEE International Conferences on Big Data and Cloud Computing (BDCloud), Social Computing and Networking (SocialCom), Sustainable Computing and Communications (SustainCom)(BDCloud-SocialCom-SustainCom); 2016 (pp. 613–7). IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Berger, KM, Roderick, J. National and Transnational Security Implications of Big Data in the Life Sciences. New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2014.Google Scholar

4. Puzis, R, Farbiash, D, Brodt, O, Elovici, Y, Greenbaum, D. Increased cyber-biosecurity for DNA synthesis. Nature Biotechnology 2020;38(12):1379–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Shahror, RA, Wu, CC, Chiang, YH, Chen, KY. Genetically modified mesenchymal stem cells: The next generation of stem cell-based therapy for TBI. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2020;21(11):4051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Farbiash D, Puzis R. Cyberbiosecurity: DNA injection attack in synthetic biology. 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.14224.

7. Murch R. Security vulnerabilities in the bioeconomy existed prior to synthetic biology. Presentation to the NAS National Materials and Manufacturing Board, May 1, 2019.

8. Spence, N, Bhardwaj, N Paul, III DP. Ransomware in healthcare facilities: A Harbinger of the future? Perspectives in Health Information Management 2018;122.Google Scholar

9. Ibarra, J, Jahankhani, H, Kendzierskyj, S. Cyber-physical attacks and the value of healthcare data: facing an era of cyber extortion and organised crime. In: Blockchain and Clinical Trial. Cham: Springer; 2019, at 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Greenbaum, D. Avoiding overregulation in the medical internet of things. In: Cohen, IG, Fernandez Lynch, H, Vayena, E, Gasser, U, eds. Big Data, Health Law, and Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018:129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Newman LH. A new pacemaker hack puts malware directly on the device. Wired; August 9, 2018; available at https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-hat/ (accessed 20 Jan 2021).

13. DeFranco, J, DiEuliis, D, Giordano, J. Redefining neuroweapons. PRISM 2019;8(3):48–3.Google Scholar

14. Scammell R. Brain hacking: Will our memories be safe? Verdict; Oct 30 2018; available at https://www.verdict.co.uk/brain-hacking-memories-safe/?utm_source=Army%20Technology&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Must%20Read&utm_content=Image (accessed 10 June 2021)

15. Abiri, R, Borhani, S, Sellers, EW, Jiang, Y, Zhao, X. A comprehensive review of EEG-based brain–computer interface paradigms. Journal of Neural Engineering 2019;16(1):011001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Nakar, S, Weinberger, S, Greenbaum, D. Legal and social implications of predictive brain machine interfaces: Duty of care, negligence, and criminal responsibility. American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience 2015;6(4):40–2.Google Scholar

17. Dadia, T, Neuralink, Greenbaum D.: The ethical ’rithmatic of reading and writing to the brain. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2019;10(4):187–9.Google ScholarPubMed

18. Coin, A, Dubljević, V. The authenticity of machine-augmented human intelligence: Therapy, enhancement, and the extended mind. Neuroethics 2020;18.Google Scholar

19. Rashkov, GV, Bobe, AS, Fastovets, DV, Komarova, MV. Natural image reconstruction from brain waves: A novel visual BCI system with native feedback. bioRxiv, 2019;787101.Google Scholar

20. Landau, O, Cohen, A, Gordon, S, Nissim, N. Mind your privacy: Privacy leakage through BCI applications using machine learning methods. Knowledge-Based Systems 2020 198;105932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Greenberg, A. Inside the mind’s eye: An international perspective on data privacy law in the age of brain machine interfaces. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 2019;29:79.Google Scholar

22. Blondet, MVR, Laszlo, S, Jin, Z.. Assessment of permanence of non-volitional EEG brainwaves as a biometric. In IEEE International Conference on Identity, Security and Behavior Analysis (ISBA 2015); 2015, at 16.Google Scholar

23. Bansod, NS, Dabhade, SB, Kazi, MM, Rode, YS, Kale, KV. Single electrode brain signal data fusion for security. In 2016 International Conference on Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC); 2016, at 108–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Blankertz, B, Tangermann, M, Vidaurre, C, Fazli, S, Sannelli, C, Haufe, S, et al. The Berlin brain–computer interface: Non-medical uses of BCI technology. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2010;4:198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. Belkacem, AN. Cybersecurity framework for P300-based brain computer interface. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC); 2020, at 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Andersen, RA, Aflalo, T, Kellis, S. From thought to action: The brain–machine interface in posterior parietal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2019;116(52):26274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Benabid, AL, Costecalde, T, Eliseyev, A, Charvet, G, Verney, A, Karakas, S, et al. An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration. The Lancet Neurology 2019;18(12):1112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Greenbaum, D. Ethical, legal and social concerns relating to exoskeletons. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society. 2016 Jan 5;45(3):234–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Musk, E. An integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2019;21(10):e16194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Lewis T. Elon Musk’s pig-brain implant is still a long way from ‘solving paralysis.’ Scientific American; September 2, 2020; available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/elon-musks-pig-brain-implant-is-still-a-long-way-from-solving-paralysis/ (accessed 20 Jan 2021).

31. Gillum, D, Carrera, LAO, Mendoza, IA, Bates, P, Bowens, D, Jetson, Z. et al. The 2017 Arizona biosecurity workshop: An open dialogue about biosecurity. Applied Biosafety 2018;23(4):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Murch, RS, So, WK, Buchholz, WG, Raman, S, Peccoud, J. Cyberbiosecurity: An emerging new discipline to help safeguard the bioeconomy. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2018;6:39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed