In the last few years, the rapid convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (NBIC) technologies, has fueled a growing debate in the scientific and bioethical arenas about the issues in cognitive enhancement.
Nanotechnology is providing research instrumentation for improving knowledge of brain structure and function as well as new means of drug delivery. Neurobiology is developing increased understanding of how brains and associated neural systems work. Information technology provides signal-processing capabilities for neurobiological research and for interfaces among sensors, computers, brains, and prosthetic devices; it also enables modeling and simulation for computational neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience has extended traditional cognitive psychology into the realm of understanding correlates between brain structure and function and cognition [1].
While cognition-enhancing drugs have received a lot of attention in recent literature, there is another emerging area of research that poses a number of ethical, legal, and social questions: Nano-neural interfaces. This technology has the potential not only for brain repair or axon regeneration, but the merger of artificial intelligence with human capabilities. Futurist and scientist Ray Kurzweil predicts within the next 25 years, "the union of human and machine, in which the knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our own creations;" and that the merger between human and machine will be so complete that distinctions will be impossible or rendered meaningless. The ethical, legal, and societal concern is that by merging with technology, we change what it means to be 'human' or a 'person' and change basic human nature. Brain implants that create interfaces between human neural systems and computers will allow for (1) the improvement and augmentation of human capabilities, (2) the advent of 'human' immortality through cloning and implantation of bioelectronic chips with the uploaded emotions, memories and knowledge of the source human, and (3) the possibility that humanity may be replaced by the next stage in guided evolution [2].
Linda MacDonald Glenn is a bioethesist and counselor-at-law currently based in Vermont. She spent a large part of her career presenting pioneering cases in fields such as patient advocacy, genetics (nature vs. nurture) and neuroethics. She now focuses on academic aspects of these topics and is or has been a fellow of several institutions including the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and the Institute for Ethics at the American Medical Association. She is on the teaching faculty of several prestigious bioethics and scientific writing programs, including the Singularity University in Silicon Valley, California (see further reading box). She is the author of numerous seminal papers on her topics of expertise (for example "Biotechnology at the Margins of Personhood: An Evolving Legal Paradigm" and "When Pigs Fly? Legal and Ethical Issues in Transgenics and the Creation of Chimeras") and is editor-in-chief of a women's bioethics blog.
As with many other emerging controversial technologies, there is a spectrum of beliefs. At one end of the spectrum, there are people who argue that neuroenhancements should be embraced as freeing and transcendent. At the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that neuroenhancement is an illustration of humanity's hubris and we, as a species, should put the brakes on further technological development. In the center of the spectrum are those who recognize that neuroenhancements are changing and challenging our current definitions of normalcy, as well as our relationships [2].
Most ethicists recognize that new technologies present the challenges of weighing and balancing potential benefits versus potential harms. At least one ethicist has argued that that the knowledge that we have gained about the relationship between our brains and behavior, may allow us to develop 'moral enhancements', a heightened sense of responsibility and empathy for others and our fellow creatures [3].
We will continually incorporate more and more computer technology into our lives, and ourselves, until we become one with it [4]. Even though enhancements and alterations are not likely to be banned, I would argue that it is prudent to advocate a thoughtful, cautious approach, with discourse recognizing public input, as well as a consideration of unintended consequences that may occur. The discussions ethics of cognitive enhancement should not be limited to neuroscientists: A creative multidisciplinary proactive approach that includes thoughtful reflections implications of the nano-neural interfaces is needed to address ethical and moral conundrums.
The Singularity University is a new university in California that aims to educate young potential leaders (as well as existing ones) in the "number of exponentially growing technologies that will massively increase human capability and fundamentally reshape our future". They run an 10-week interdisciplinary graduate program each summer and are very interested in applications by enthusiastic, high calibre students with an international background. Scholarships are available.
[1] Policy Implications of Technologies for Cognitive Enhancement, Paper from \Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University, and Advanced Concepts Group, Sandia National Laboratories, May 2006, available at http://www.cspo.org/documents/FinalEnhancedCognitionReport.pdf
[2] Ethical. Legal and Social Issues in Nanotechnology and Regenerative Medicine: Methods and Protocols, Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), v. 811, pp. 303-16, 2012
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/why-cognitive-enhancement-is-in-your-future-and-your-past/252566/
[4] Case Studies: Ethical and Legal Issues in Human-Machine Mergers (or the Cyborgs Cometh), 21 Annals of Health Law-ASLME edition 75"
Further reading:
"James Hughes Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future.
Andy Clark Natural Born Cyborgs.
Martha J Farah Briefing: Brain Machine Interfaces and Non-Pharmacological Enhancement http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/penn-neuroethics-briefing/nonpharmacologic-enhancement
Benedict Carey Brain Enhancement is Wrong, Right? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
By Linda MacDonald Glenn, Bioethesist and Counselor-at-Law
this article originally appeared September 2012 in CNS Volume 5, Issue 3 Engineering the Brain
No comments:
Post a Comment