美国公众对大脑数据敏感性的看法。

IF 2.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2024-01-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsad032
Shenyang Huang, Umika Paul, Shikhar Gupta, Karen Desai, Melinda Guo, Jennifer Jung, Beatrice Capestany, William D Krenzer, Dylan Stonecipher, Nita Farahany
{"title":"美国公众对大脑数据敏感性的看法。","authors":"Shenyang Huang, Umika Paul, Shikhar Gupta, Karen Desai, Melinda Guo, Jennifer Jung, Beatrice Capestany, William D Krenzer, Dylan Stonecipher, Nita Farahany","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As we approach an era of potentially widespread consumer neurotechnology, scholars and organizations worldwide have started to raise concerns about the data privacy issues these devices will present. Notably absent in these discussions is empirical evidence about how the public perceives that same information. This article presents the results of a nationwide survey on public perceptions of brain data, to inform discussions of law and policy regarding brain data governance. The survey reveals that the public may perceive certain brain data as less sensitive than other 'private' information, like social security numbers, but more sensitive than some 'public' information, like media preferences. The findings also reveal that not all inferences about mental experiences may be perceived as equally sensitive, and perhaps not all data should be treated alike in ethical and policy discussions. An enhanced understanding of public perceptions of brain data could advance the development of ethical and legal norms concerning consumer neurotechnology.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"11 1","pages":"lsad032"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10800024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"U.S. public perceptions of the sensitivity of brain data.\",\"authors\":\"Shenyang Huang, Umika Paul, Shikhar Gupta, Karen Desai, Melinda Guo, Jennifer Jung, Beatrice Capestany, William D Krenzer, Dylan Stonecipher, Nita Farahany\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsad032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As we approach an era of potentially widespread consumer neurotechnology, scholars and organizations worldwide have started to raise concerns about the data privacy issues these devices will present. Notably absent in these discussions is empirical evidence about how the public perceives that same information. This article presents the results of a nationwide survey on public perceptions of brain data, to inform discussions of law and policy regarding brain data governance. The survey reveals that the public may perceive certain brain data as less sensitive than other 'private' information, like social security numbers, but more sensitive than some 'public' information, like media preferences. The findings also reveal that not all inferences about mental experiences may be perceived as equally sensitive, and perhaps not all data should be treated alike in ethical and policy discussions. An enhanced understanding of public perceptions of brain data could advance the development of ethical and legal norms concerning consumer neurotechnology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"lsad032\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10800024/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着消费神经技术时代的到来,全球的学者和组织都开始关注这些设备将带来的数据隐私问题。值得注意的是,在这些讨论中缺乏有关公众如何看待这些信息的实证证据。本文介绍了一项关于公众对大脑数据看法的全国性调查结果,为有关大脑数据管理的法律和政策讨论提供参考。调查显示,公众可能认为某些脑数据的敏感性低于其他 "私人 "信息,如社会安全号码,但高于某些 "公共 "信息,如媒体偏好。调查结果还显示,并非所有关于心理体验的推断都被视为同样敏感,也许在伦理和政策讨论中,并非所有数据都应一视同仁。进一步了解公众对大脑数据的看法,可以促进有关消费神经技术的伦理和法律规范的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
U.S. public perceptions of the sensitivity of brain data.

As we approach an era of potentially widespread consumer neurotechnology, scholars and organizations worldwide have started to raise concerns about the data privacy issues these devices will present. Notably absent in these discussions is empirical evidence about how the public perceives that same information. This article presents the results of a nationwide survey on public perceptions of brain data, to inform discussions of law and policy regarding brain data governance. The survey reveals that the public may perceive certain brain data as less sensitive than other 'private' information, like social security numbers, but more sensitive than some 'public' information, like media preferences. The findings also reveal that not all inferences about mental experiences may be perceived as equally sensitive, and perhaps not all data should be treated alike in ethical and policy discussions. An enhanced understanding of public perceptions of brain data could advance the development of ethical and legal norms concerning consumer neurotechnology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
The SNP consortium: background and context. Two-faced Janus? Consent to participate in research and consent to data processing in the EHDS era: a comparative analysis of requirements and standards in eight European countries. Mind, machine, and the law: reimagining neurotechnology governance through disability rights. Taking actuarial fairness seriously: what is required for the ethical use of genetics in insurance? Polygenic disease risk scoring and genetic non-discrimination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1