PrisonPlanet Forum
May 21, 2013, 07:59:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Super-human brain technology sparks ethics debate  (Read 1620 times)
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« on: March 03, 2012, 03:43:50 PM »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-brain-neurotechnology-ethics-idUSTRE82000F20120301


Quote
Super-human brain technology sparks ethics debate

   
Factbox

    Neurotechnologies in spotlight of UK ethics review
    Thu, Mar 1 2012

Analysis & Opinion

    Introducing ‘The Human Impact’
    The ability to think and generate new ideas


An undated image of the human brain taken through scanning technology. REUTERS/Sage

By Kate Kelland

LONDON | Thu Mar 1, 2012 9:02am EST

(Reuters) - A British ethics group has launched a debate on the ethical dilemmas posed by new technologies that tap into the brain and could bring super-human strength, highly enhanced concentration or thought-controlled weaponry.

With the prospect of future conflicts between armies controlling weapons with their minds, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched a consultation on Thursday to consider the risks of blurring the lines between humans and machines.

"Intervening in the brain has always raised both hopes and fears in equal measure. Hopes of curing terrible diseases, and fears about the consequences of trying to enhance human capability beyond what is normally possible," said Thomas Baldwin, a professor of philosophy at Britain's York University who is leading the study.

"These challenge us to think carefully about fundamental questions to do with the brain: What makes us human? What makes us an individual? And how and why do we think and behave in the way we do?."

The Council, an independent body which looks at ethical issues raised by new developments in biology and medicine, wants to focus on three main areas of neurotechnologies that change the brain: brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), neurostimulation techniques such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and neural stem cell therapy.

These technologies are already at various stages of development for use in the treatment of medical conditions including Parkinson's disease, depression and stroke, and experts think they could bring significant benefits, especially for patients with severe brain disease or damage.

GROWING FAST

But they also have huge potential outside the health context. In military applications, BCIs are being used to develop weapons or vehicles controlled remotely by brain signals, and there is big commercial scope in the gaming industry with the development of computer games controlled by people's thoughts.

Speaking at a briefing to launch the consultation, Baldwin said the estimated total global market for all neurotechnologies - including pharmaceuticals for the treatment of brain disorders - is around $150 billion.

"Setting pharmaceuticals aside, the value of the market for the devices and technologies we are dealing with is something in the region of $8 billion, and growing fast," he said.

Kevin Warwick, a professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading and a supporter of more neurotechnology research, said some experimental brain technologies had great potential in medicine.

"From the brain signals, a brain computer interface could translate a person's desire to move ... and then use those signals to operate a wheelchair or other piece of technology," he said. "For someone who has locked-in syndrome, for example, and cannot communicate, a BCI could be life-changing."

But he and Baldwin also stressed there are concerns about safety of some experimental techniques that involve implants in the brain, and about the ethics of using such technology in other medicine and other fields.

"If brain-computer interfaces are used to control military aircraft or weapons from far away, who takes ultimate responsibility for the actions? Could this be blurring the line between man and machine?" Baldwin said.

The ethics council's consultation is at www.nuffieldbioethics.org/neurotechnology. The deadline for responses is April 23 and it expects to publish a report with recommendations in 2013.

(Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2012, 03:48:19 PM »

Novel neurotechnologies: consultation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6kJoozBJg&feature=player_embedded

To launch a Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation, Professor Tom Baldwin, chair of the inquiry, outlines the ethical issues raised by novel neurotechnologies that intervene in the brain. Dr Alena Buyx, Assistant Director of the Council, goes on to describe neurostimulation and neural stem cell therapy in more detail, and Professor Kevin Warwick, a member of the Working Party, discusses some of his work around brain-computer interfaces. www.nuffieldbioethics.org/neurotechnology

hmm interesting they only have to videos up and this is the other one !!!!

Human bodies donation video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0TuIcbjBk&feature=channel

Authors of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report 'Human bodies: donation for medicine and research' discuss their findings. Find out more at: www.nuffieldbioethics.org/donation

Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2012, 03:51:16 PM »

hmm Kevin Warwick stared  in this video

mad scientists (transhumanism)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7hh4jYvSKg
Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2012, 04:07:38 PM »

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/neurotechnology/neurotechnology-how-respond


Quote
How to respond

The Council is seeking views on the ethical issues raised by novel neurotechnologies that intervene in the brain.

Download the consultation paper (Word, 326KB).

We would prefer it if you could send your response to us electronically. Responses can be sent via email to Varsha Jagadesham: vjagadesham@nuffieldbioethics.org, with ‘Novel neurotechnologies’ in the subject line. Please ensure that you also include a completed response form with your submission, which can be found at the end of the consultation document.

If you would prefer to respond by post, please send your submission to:
Varsha Jagadesham
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
28 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3JS

The deadline for responses is Monday 23 April (5pm).
Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2012, 04:18:27 PM »

hmm from the word doc


Quote
General questions

1. Have you ever used a technology that intervenes in the brain, and with what consequences? Please describe your experience.

2. If you have not used a technology that intervenes in the brain before, would you do so if you were ill? Why / why not?

3. Would you use a technology that intervenes in the brain for non-medical purposes, such as gaming or improving your cognitive skills? Why / why not?

4. What are the most important ethical challenges raised by novel neurotechnologies that intervene in the brain?

5. In what ways, if at all, should the development and use of these technologies be promoted, restricted and/or regulated? Please explain your reasons.



Quote
Questions
Please be specific with regards to the type of BCI you are referring to in your answer

6. Have you used a BCI, and if so, with what consequences? Please describe your experience.

7. If you have not used a BCI before, under what circumstances would you do so?

8. What are your expectations and concerns for BCIs?

9. Are there any particular ethical or social issues associated with BCIs?

10. What would robust and effective regulation of research in this area look like? Is more or less regulation needed? Please justify your response.



Quote
Questions

Please indicate which technology (TMS, DBS) you are referring to in your answer

11. Have you used neurostimulation and if so, with what consequences? Please describe your experience.

12. If you have not used neurostimulation before, under what circumstances would you do so?

13. Under what circumstances do you think it might be acceptable to use neurostimulation in non-medical context (that is to say, not for the treatment of a disease or disability)?

14. Are there any particular ethical or social issues associated with neurostimulation?
15. What would robust and effective regulation of research in this area look like? Is more or less regulation needed? Please justify your response.


Quote
Questions

16. Under what circumstances would you use neural stem cell therapy?

17. What do you think of the risks and benefits of neural stem cell therapy?

18. Are there any particular ethical or social issues associated with neural stem cell therapy?
19. How do you feel about neural stem cell therapy being used for non-medical purposes one day, for example for human enhancement?

20. What would robust and effective regulation of research in this area look like? Is more or less regulation needed? Please justify your response.
Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2012, 10:21:34 PM »

this looks more like PR and marketing strategy

Nuffield Foundation is interesting ...pushing "green agenda" and other stuff

checking their website I found that the Investment Committee had the people who handle IBM and BAE pension funds ...

also the Wellcome Trust also partners in this ....they are from Sir Henry Wellcome who co-founded a multinational pharmaceutical company




Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2012, 10:33:46 PM »

GlaxoSmithKline is the multinational pharmaceutical company
Logged
Deca
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,065



« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2012, 06:47:23 PM »

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/about

Quote
About

Introduction

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is an independent body that examines and reports on ethical issues in biology and medicine. It was established by the Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation in 1991, and since 1994 it has been funded jointly by the Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.

The Council has achieved an international reputation for advising policy makers and stimulating debate in bioethics.

Terms of reference

The Council's terms of reference require it:

1. To identify and define ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research in order to respond to, and to anticipate, public concern;

2. To make arrangements for examining and reporting on such questions with a view to promoting public understanding and discussion; this may lead, where needed, to the formulation of new guidelines by the appropriate regulatory or other body;

3. In the light of the outcome of its work, to publish reports; and to make representations, as the Council may judge appropriate.
Logged
Freebird100
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,722



« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2012, 12:05:03 PM »

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/20/scientists-warn-of-ethical-battle-concerning-military-mind-control

Scientists Warn of Ethical Battle Concerning Military Mind Control
Advances in neuroscience are closer than ever to becoming a reality, but scientists are warning the military - along with their peers - that with great power comes great responsibility

By Jason Koebler
March 20, 2012 RSS Feed Print

A future of brain-controlled tanks, automated attack drones and mind-reading interrogation techniques may arrive sooner than later, but advances in neuroscience that will usher in a new era of combat come with tough ethical implications for both the military and scientists responsible for the technology, according to one of the country's leading bioethicists.

"Everybody agrees that conflict will be changed as new technologies are coming on," says Jonathan Moreno, author of Mind Wars: Brain Science and the Military in the 21st Century. "But nobody knows where that technology is going."

[See pictures of Navy SEALs]

Moreno warns in an essay published in the science journal PLoS Biology Tuesday that the military's interest in neuroscience advancements "generates a tension in its relationship with science."

"The goals of national security and the goals of science may conflict. The latter employs rigorous standards of validation in the expansion of knowledge, while the former depends on the most promising deployable solutions for the defense of the nation," he writes.

Much of neuroscience focuses on returning function to people with traumatic brain injuries, he says. Just as Albert Einstein didn't know his special theory of relativity could one day be used to create a nuclear weapon, neuroscience research intended to heal could soon be used to harm.

"Neuroscientists may not consider how their work contributes to warfare," he adds.

Moreno says there is a fine line between using neuroscience devices to allow an injured person to regain baseline functions and enhancing someone's body to perform better than their natural body ever could.

"Where one draws that line is not obvious, and how one decides to cross that line is not easy. People will say 'Why would we want to deny warfighters these advantages?'" he says.

[Mind Control, Biometrics Could Change the World]

Moreno isn't the only one thinking about this. The Brookings Institution's Peter Singer writes in his book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, that "'the Pentagon's real-world record with things like the aboveground testing of atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and Gulf War syndrome certainly doesn't inspire the greatest confidence among the first generation of soldiers involved [in brain enhancement research.]"

The military, scientists and ethicists are increasingly wondering how neuroscience technology changes the battlefield. The staggering possibilities are further along than many think. There is already development on automated drones that are programmed to make their own decisions about who to kill within the rules of war. Other ideas that are closer-than-you-think to becoming a military reality: Tanks controlled from half a world away, memory erasures that could prevent PTSD, and "brain fingerprinting" that could be used to extract secrets from enemies.Moreno foretold some of these developments when he first published Mind Wars in 2006, but not without trepidation.

"I was afraid I'd be dismissed as a paranoid schizophrenic when I first published the book," he says. But then a funny thing happened—the Department of Defense and other military groups began holding panels on neurotechnology to determine how and when it should be used. I was surprised how quickly the policy questions moved forward. Questions like: 'Can we use autonomous attack drones?' 'Must there be a human being in the vehicle?' 'How much of a payload can it have?'. There are real questions coming up in the international legal community."

All of those questions will have to be answered sooner than later, Moreno says, along with a host of others. Should soldiers have the right to refuse "experimental" brain implants? Will the military want to use some of this technology before science deems it safe?

"There's a tremendous tension about this," he says. "There's a great feeling of responsibility that we push this stuff out so we're ahead of our adversaries."
Logged

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

Thomas Jefferson
Freebird100
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,722



« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2012, 12:15:32 PM »

It looks like thousands of mind control victims just might be vindicated in the claims they made the last 40 years.
Logged

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

Thomas Jefferson
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!