Search results

Extant and newly developing techniques and technologies generated by research in brain sciences are characteristically employed in clinical medicine. However, the increasing capabilities conferred by these approaches to access, assess and affect cognition, emotion and behavior render them viable and attractive for engagement beyond the clinical realm, in what are referred to as “dual-use” applications. Definitions of what constitutes dual-use research and applications can vary so as to include utilization in the public sector for lifestyle or wellness purposes – with growing participation of a do-it-yourself (i.e., biohacking) community, and an iterative interest and use in military and warfare operations. Such uses can pose risks to public safety, and challenge research ethics’ principled imperative for non-harm (although while complete avoidance of any harm may be in reality impossible, certainly any/all harms incurred should be minimized). Thus, it is important to both clarify the construct of dual-use brain research and address the ethical issues that such research fosters. This chapter provides a review and clarification of the concept of dual-use brain science, and describes how current and emerging tools and techniques of brain research are actually or potentially employed in settings that threaten public health and incur ethical concerns. Key ethical issues are addressed, and recommendations for ethical guidance of potentially dual-use research are proposed.

Technological progress and the advancement of the 4th Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0) are well underway. However, its influence on the transformation of core sectors from the perspective of consumer well-being remains under-explored. Seeking to bridge this gap in the marketing and public policy literature, this study aims to propose a conceptual framework to explicate how data-driven, intelligent and connected IR 4.0 technologies are blurring traditional boundaries between digital, physical and biological domains.

This is a conceptual paper using primarily a literature review of the field. The authors position the work as a contribution to consumer well-being and public policy literature from the lens of increasingly important in our technology-integrated society emerging technologies.

The authors define and conceptualize technology-enabled well-being (TEW), which allows a better understanding of transformative outcomes of IR 4.0 on three essential dimensions of consumer well-being: individual, societal and environmental. Finally, the authors discuss public policy implications and outline future research directions.

The authors highlight specific gaps in the literature on IR 4.0. First, past studies in consumer well-being did not incorporate substantial changes that emerging IR 4.0 technologies bring, especially across increasingly blurring digital, physical and biological domains. Second, past research focused on individual technologies and individual well-being. What is unaccounted for is the potential for a synergetic, proactive effect that emerging technologies bring on the aggregate level not only to individuals but also to society and the environment. Finally, understanding the differences between responses to different outcomes of technologies has important implications for developing public policy. Synergetic, proactive effect of technologies on core sectors such as healthcare, education, financial services, manufacturing and retailing is noted.

This essay asks: How can we understand and theorise the impacts of robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI) on everyday life based on Radical Humanism? How can Lefebvre's ideas be used to reveal the ideological character of contemporary accounts of the impacts of robots and AI on society? It engages with rather unknown works of the Radical Humanist Henri Lefebvre on the sociology and philosophy of technology such as Vers le cybernanthrope (Towards the Cybernanthrope). Foundations of a Lefebvrian, dialectical, Radical Humanist approach to the sociology and philosophy of technology are presented. This essay introduces Lefebvre's notion of the cybernanthrope and sets it in relation to robots and AI in contemporary society. Based on Lefebvre's critique of the cybernanthrope, this chapter develops foundations of the ideology critique of robots and AI in digital capitalism. It discusses examples of technological deterministic and social constructivist thought in the context of robotics, AI, and cyborgs and argues for an alternative, Lefebvrian, dialectical approach. This essay situates Humanism in the context of computing, AI and robotics. The chapter advances a Lefebvrian Radical Humanism by engaging in analyses of AI and robots in Post-humanism, Transhumanism, techno-deterministic approaches, social construction of technology approaches, techno-optimism, techno-pessimism, acceleratonism, the mass unemployment hypothesis and Spike Jonze's movie Her. This chapter shows that the major lesson we can learn from the Radical Humanist sociology of technology and Henri Lefebvre's works on technology is that Radical Humanism helps creating and sustaining technologies for the many, not the few. This insight remains of high relevance in the age of digital capitalism, smart robots and AI.

The supposedly radical development of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions regarding the moral responsibility of it. In the sphere of business, they are translated into questions about AI and business ethics (BE) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The purpos of this study is to conceptually reformulate these questions from the point of view of two possible aspect-changes, namely, starting from corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) and starting not from AIs incapability for responsibility but from its ability to imitate human CSR without performing typical human CSI.

The author draws upon the literature and his previous works on the relationship between AI and human CSI. This comparison aims to remodel the understanding of human CSI and AIs inability to be CSI. The conceptual remodelling is offered by taking a negative view on the relation. If AI can be made not to perform human-like CSI, then AI is at least less CSI than humans. For this task, it is necessary to remodel human and AI CSR, but AI does not have to be CSR. It is sufficient that it can be less CSI than humans to be more CSR.

The previously suggested remodelling of basic concepts in question leads to the conclusion that it is not impossible for AI to act or operate more CSI then humans simply by not making typical human CSIs. Strictly speaking, AI is not CSR because it cannot be responsible as humans can. If it can perform actions with a significantly lesser amount of CSI in comparison to humans, it is certainly less CSI.

This paper is only a conceptual remodelling and a suggestion of a research hypothesis. As such, it implies particular morality, ethics and the concepts of CSI and AI.

How this remodelling could be done in practice is an issue of future research.

The author delivers the paper on comparison between human and AI CSI which is not much discussed in literature.

Neuroscience, with its promise to peer into the brain and explain the sources of human behavior and human consciousness, has captured the scientific, clinical, and public imaginations. Among those in the thrall of neuroscience are a group of ethicists who are carving out a new subspecialty within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. Neuroethics has taken as its task the policing of neuroscience. By virtue of its very existence, neuroethics presents a threat to its parent field bioethics. In its struggle to maintain authority as the guardian of neuroscience, neuroethics must respond to criticisms from bioethicists who see no need for the subspecialty. We describe the social history of neuroethics and use that history to consider several issues of concern to social scientists, including the social contexts that generate ethical questions and shape the way those questions are framed and answered; strategies used by neuroethicists to secure a place in an occupational structure that includes life scientists and other ethics experts; and the impact of the field of neuroethics on both the work of neuroscience and public perceptions of the value and danger of the science of the brain.

This paper aims to focus on the modern development of bionics and linking new technologies with the human nervous system or other biological systems that cause changes of the human biological structure.

The paper is a discursive evaluation of technological progress and new systems where computers and machines integrate, making a single matrix entity – the cyborg. Here fundamental questions arise, such as what it means to be human and what is (descriptive aspect) and what should be (normative aspect) a human being?

The paper argues for the value of twenty-first century human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies that promised to “help” humans become “more than human”, trying to create human beings with greatly enhanced abilities, to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. Modern man is gradually disappearing as a natural being and increasingly turning into an artificial creature “cyborg” that leads into the question, what will ultimately remain human in a human body?

The paper contributes to the existing debates about further development of cyborgisation and examines boundaries that will strictly divide man from a cyborg in the near future. In order to protect man from the omnipotence of technology and its unethical application is necessary to establish cyborgoethics that would determine the implementation of an artificial boundary in the natural body.

Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0) technologies have strong potential to affect consumer well-being, positively or negatively, so the current paper aims to review potential opportunities and threats that these technologies represent for consumers in several core economic sectors: health care, education, financial services, manufacturing and retailing.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for how IR 4.0 technologies affect consumer well-being in five representative sectors: health care, education, financial services, manufacturing and retailing. The authors argue that the potential transformations of these specific sectors, facilitated by these technologies, may have profound effects on consumer well-being, with urgent public policy implications.

Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, three-dimensional printing, machine learning and blockchain, provide customers with novel approaches toward decisions regarding health, education, finances and other fundamental parts of their lives. The organizations that provide these services, such as hospitals, universities and banks, actively adopt the innovations offered by IR 4.0. These evolving and disruptive technologies thus are changing reality for consumers and providers.

This paper proposes some novel public policy implications of IR 4.0 technologies for consumer well-being, and it outlines further research directions that can enhance understanding of relevant technologies and the consequences of their use for society.