Can your employer demand proof that you’ve slept well?

Fatigue can be just as dangerous as drink-driving. That is why both researchers and companies are increasingly investing in technologies that can monitor and improve our sleep. But what happens if sleep is no longer regarded as a private necessity, but as something that can be measured, documented and optimised?

This is the question posed by three bioethicists from the University of Copenhagen, the National University of Singapore and ETH Zurich in a new commentary article in the journal Nature. The researchers warn that sleep technologies can bring significant health benefits, but may also challenge fundamental rights such as privacy and the right to self-determination over one’s own body.

‘Technologies that improve sleep have the potential to benefit health, wellbeing and safety. But we need to discuss now who will benefit from these improvements and who will have access to the data these technologies collect,’ says Sebastian Porsdam Mann, a bioethicist and legal researcher at the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for Advanced Studies in Bioscience Innovation Law.

From sleep monitoring to sleep enhancement

Millions of people already use watches and apps to monitor their sleep. At the same time, researchers and companies are working on technologies that not only track sleep but actively seek to improve it.

These may include headbands that send weak electrical impulses to the brain during sleep, or systems that play sounds at precise times to influence brain activity and promote deep sleep. The aim is to enhance the restorative effect of sleep and improve both health and performance whilst awake.

‘However, the evidence is still limited. Most studies have been conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and the effects vary between different technologies,’ emphasises Sebastian Porsdam Mann.

Risk of surveillance in the workplace

If these technologies prove effective, they may quickly become attractive to employers, particularly in sectors where fatigue can have serious consequences, such as healthcare, transport and construction.

This raises ethical dilemmas:

The researchers point out that companies have previously attempted to collect employees’ sleep data. In 2016, two Dutch companies were investigated by the data protection authority for collecting activity and sleep data from employees. The authorities assessed that this constituted sensitive health information and that the employees’ consent could not be regarded as freely given due to the power imbalance between employer and employee.

According to the researchers, sleep technology may seem more harmless than other forms of performance-enhancing technology. Precisely for this reason, the pressure to use it may also be easier to justify.

‘It can quickly come to resemble a welfare provision. But when monitoring and performance enhancement are linked, there is a risk that voluntary schemes will gradually turn into expectations or requirements,’ says Sebastian Porsdam Mann.

Three proposals for responsible regulation

In the article, the researchers highlight three key principles for the future regulation of sleep technology.

Firstly, we should ask what is actually being improved and who benefits from that improvement. The aim should not be solely higher productivity, but also the sleeper’s overall well-being and health.

Secondly, regulations on sleep technology should be developed through public debate and democratic participation before the technologies become widespread.

Finally, access to effective sleep-enhancing technologies should be equitable, whilst protecting privacy and the right to opt out. Among other things, the researchers argue that people themselves should control access to the data generated whilst they are asleep.

‘Unless such safeguards are put in place, society risks sleep shifting from being a personal need to an institutional obligation,’ warns Sebastian Porsdam Mann.

The commentary has been published in the journal Nature under the headline ‘How tech-enhanced sleep could improve rest but erode privacy’. The authors are Sebastian Porsdam Mann (University of Copenhagen), Brian D. Earp (National University of Singapore) and Effy Vayena (ETH Zurich).

Read the commentary here.