ABSTRACT
In this article, we report on a pilot study examining perceptions of dual use among neurotechnologists and neuroethicists. We carried out 10 semistructured interviews with participants from established universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia about the risks they saw with the new technology and who has responsibility for safely developing it. We used a grounded theory approach to code and develop themes from the data and establish a foundation for analysis. Our findings showed that dual use was not considered binary, but rather multifaceted and fluid, with the commercialization and globalization of the emerging science shifting participants' understandings of what neurotechnologies are considered beneficial and harmful, rendering future uses unknowable.