European Public Deliberation on Brain Machine Interface Technology: Five Convergence Seminars [Book Review]

&
Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1071-1086 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We present a novel procedure to engage the public in ethical deliberations on the potential impacts of brain machine interface technology. We call this procedure a convergence seminar, a form of scenario-based group discussion that is founded on the idea of hypothetical retrospection. The theoretical background of this procedure and the results of five seminars are presented.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1007/s11948-012-9425-0

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,707

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Brain Machine Interface and Human Enhancement – An Ethical Review.Karim Jebari - 2013 - Neuroethics 6 (3):617-625.
European public advice on nanobiotechnology—four convergence seminars.Marion Godman & Sven Ove Hansson - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (1):43-59.
Worldwide deliberation and public use of reason online.May Thorseth - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):243-252.
Consciousness in mixed systems: Merging artificial and biological minds via brain-machine interface.Alexandra Elbakyan - unknown
From Nano-Convergence to NBIC-Convergence: “The best way to predict the future is to create it”.Joachim Schummer - unknown
A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review.Caroline Privault, Jacki O’Neill, Victor Ciriza & Jean-Michel Renders - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (4):459-479.
Toward an Ecological Theory of the Norms of Practical Deliberation.Jennifer M. Morton - 2010 - European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):561-584.
“Conflict over risks in food production: A challenge for democracy”. [REVIEW]Karsten Klint Jensen - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (3):269-283.
Do we need a specific kind of technoscience assessment? Taking the convergence of science and technology seriously.Karen Kastenhofer - 2010 - Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):37-54.
Mind, machine and morality: toward a philosophy of human-technology symbiosis.Peter A. Hancock - 2009 - Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Consensus by aggregation and deliberation.Richard Bradley - 2007 - Hommage a Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation.Erik Schneiderhan & Shamus Khan - 2008 - Sociological Theory 26 (1):1-24.
Democracy, deliberation and disobedience.William Smith - 2004 - Res Publica 10 (4):353-377.
Should Probabilistic Design Replace Safety Factors?Neelke Doorn & Sven Ove Hansson - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):151-168.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-12-22

Downloads
81 (#210,424)

6 months
7 (#481,211)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Karim Jebari
Institute for Futures Studies
Sven Ove Hansson
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Citations of this work

To Describe, Transmit or Inquire: Ethics and technology in school.Viktor Gardelli - 2016 - Dissertation, Luleå University of Technology
Evaluating Ethical Tools.Payam Moula & Per Sandin - 2015 - Metaphilosophy 46 (2):263-279.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Stimulating brains, altering minds.W. Glannon - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):289-292.
Hypothetical Retrospection.Sven Ove Hansson - 2007 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2):145-157.
Nuclear Energy, Risk, and Emotions.Sabine Roeser - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):197-201.

Add more references