Concerns and Church Teaching

Secularly, there are questions of privacy, hacking, and social divide. Which data and where should data be stored? Is it possible to stop companies from profiting off of brain data? With how much data companies are farming off of users every day, it would not be surprising if they took the opportunity to encroach on user privacy even more. Even the government might tap into BCIs as well. Hacking will be more and more concerning as BCIs are able to interact with the body more and more, possibly resulting in some form of mind control depending on BCI capability. As for social effects, there will be a division between those with BCIs and those who don’t. This may cause a superiority problem, and may harshen the divide of the poor and the rich. There will also be the question if those who have BCI-enhanced intelligence are allowed to attend the same schools as those who don’t, or if there is a need for school at all.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

When asking how far we should go through a Catholic lens, there are two sub questions. How far should engineers develop BCIs, and how advanced of a BCI can an average Catholic consumer buy? Although there is no official church teaching on BCIs nor are BCIs advanced and mainstream, there are some teachings and principles that can help answer or provide parameters to these questions, at least in a speculative lens of this current time. 

​

First we need to understand the dignity of the human body. God created us in His image, and therefore we have dignity and a responsibility to respect that dignity.  God also put in place a ‘natural order’ and law that we must follow. God may have given us reason and intellect to invent tools to better our lives, but we cannot abuse that freedom and power. Our bodies are temples, and we do not have the authority to alter it drastically as we please. 

​

Similarly, testing on humans must respect human dignity. Testing must not have major or disproportionate risks and moral violations, regardless of consent or goal(Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], 1997, para. 2295). Alternatives to human testing include animal testing, stem cell testing, and computer testing. Since God gave us dominion and therefore responsibility over creation, testing on animals must be within reasonable limits and should be aiming for a greater good. As for stem cell testing, stem cells must be obtained ethically.

​

So, when it comes to BCI development and how far that should go, there are a couple of criteria. The developers should avoid altering our body or mind drastically. While development for therapeutic use is encouraged, it cannot go against the ‘natural law.’ It cannot be justified simply by calling it ‘the next step in human evolution.’ That being said, advances in technology, especially medical, shouldn’t be discouraged as technology is an “expression of man’s dominion over creation” (CCC, 1997, para. 2293). BCIs as a form of medical treatment or even a quality of life invention should not be shunned purely on skepticism. Lastly, data obtained from BCIs, both medical and commercial, should be protected.

As for people using it, the morality of BCI use depends on what kind of BCI it is. A BCI used for therapeutic reasons, like to cure paralysis, is generally acceptable. The Church makes a distinction between therapy and enhancement (USCCB). Therapy aims to return a person back to a natural and healthy human state. Enhancement seeks to bring a human beyond what is within a natural human range. Enhancement is a no-go, as it seeks to change the natural order.

​

So what counts as enhancement, and do all non-therapeutic BCIs fall under it? Those that stimulate the brain probably do. Stimulation of the brain using the device can be an unnatural means of getting someone to perceive, think, or do something. Although not really on the same level, it can be compared to drunkenness. Drunkenness is forbidden because it causes the drinker to lose full control of themselves and their thinking. Not all brain-stimulating BCIs are that drastic, however. Those that send a simple shock to alert someone when drowsy driving should not be a huge moral problem. 

So what about non-invasive, unidirectional BCIs that only read brain data? It can be argued that it counts as enhancement because it allows the user to do things they cannot normally do with just their brain, but it can also be argued that it is just another tool, like a phone strapped to your head. Being non-invasive, it does not require any alteration of the body. This form of BCI is the most morally licit, likely to be fine for Catholics to get for everyday life.

​

So, in conclusion, BCIs are a very interesting development with many promising results. As BCIs get more and more advanced in the future, it is important for Catholics to understand how they work and how they can interact with the body. The brain is a complex marvel, with many properties of biology and physics playing into it. Our understanding of it allows us to create devices that read and interpret brain data. It’s important to understand the Church’s stance on therapy and enhancement, and how different uses of BCIs fall on that spectrum. Our brains and mind are beautiful creations made by God, and it is important to respect it as we stride toward the future. As for how far we should go, it all really depends on where BCIs go from here. As of now, people can only speculate, but there are principles that God and the Church have listed out that can help form some answers. From existing sources and interpretation, it should be safe to keep developing them for medical purposes, as long as they do not violate natural law. Developers should steer clear of encroaching too much on consumers and consumers should be wary of the invasiveness of their BCI and what their BCI could do to them. 

​