In our recent debate, regarding whether brain chips should be allowed or banned there are a few very important aspects one must contemplate. For instance, how do we account for the loss of human diversity? Who takes the blame when something goes horribly wrong? What about human anxiety of tampering with nature and playing God? What about the psychological impact this could have? Due to inability to answer the following questions, I therefore, can conclude for myself that I am against the use of brain chips for any other reason than therapeutic purposes. Therapeutic brain chips can allow a blind person to see, a paralyzed person to move or more generally improve an impaired person's quality of life significantly. This improved state may stem in part from the deontological view, which looks at what is morally correct. In this case, physical integrity being preserved would be viewed as morally correct or as our obligation to human kind. (Angeles,1992 & Olson, 2006) Therefore, making brain chips commercialized could cause major dilemmas, not only in the scientific community but also in our own personal lives. It could shake the very moral fibers by which we as human beings currently live.
The wide spread use of brain chips will cause the loss of human diversity. For instance, why do we celebrate musical composers such as, Mozart or Bach? In my opinion, these two gentlemen were among the world's greatest musical composers. What if everyone could possess their ability? Would the music be as revered or celebrated? When taking away the rarity by which musical composers arise we strip the art of making music and make it commonplace. The thought would be "Oh I can do that too", it takes away the individualism a person feels when they can do something special and do it differently. If we all have the "musical chip" we are all put on the same plane. It would become painfully evident that the differences between us would most likely reflect financial status. I am quite certain, that an implementation of a brain chip would not be cheap, as it would require neurosurgery! Although, admittedly we can see economical differences in today's society, in that, children who grow up with wealthy parents can go to the better schools and participate in more extra curricular activities. These "extra" privileges can allow an individual to advance in life; however, there are still instances where people from what we would call the "lower class" can succeed and make a very nice life for themselves. However, I think once the induction of brain chips take effect the gap between the haves and the have nots will be dramatically increased! Those people who could through education and hard work pull through will not have the opportunity. If we consider that if everyone had super human brain qualities such as a math chip, higher visual acuity chip, 10+ language chips, musician chip or a whole host of other possibilities; How could they compete without brain modifications to those who possess them? What about insurance companies, would they have to provide coverage to their customers for these brain chips? It's hard enough to get necessary medical help/ coverage from insurance companies now, without adding something that is not "necessary" for human survival. What about the anxiety it could cause? In that, people who are afraid of surgery would then be pressured to undergo surgery by bosses, military, or just mere survival in society.
There is the question of brain chips and governmental regulation, which might very well prove to be quite frightening as this could allow totalitarian control of humans. (Angeles,1992 & Olson, 2006) George Annas, who is a professor and chair of the Department of Health Law, Bioethics & Human Rights of Boston University School of Public Health, and discusses the projection of experimental protocols states: "projects to implant removable monitoring devices at the base of the brains of neonates in three main teaching hospitals… The devices would not only permit us to locate the implantees at any time, but could be programmed in the future to monitor the sound around them and play subliminal messages directly to their brains." (Olson, 2006) Using such technology, commercial interests or the government could control and monitor citizens. A paramount worry involves who will control the technology and what will be programmed; this issue overlaps the uneasiness about privacy concerns and the need for secure communications links. (McGee & Maguire, 2006)
Also for consideration, are the enormous questions that arise about safety and efficacy. Can doctors live with knowing that human error during surgery can permanently alter the course of a perfectly healthy individual? What if the chip malfunctions, as most technology will do at one point or another by either battery failing or a fault in manufacturing? How do you know that testing on animals can generate a human equivalent response to the chips? Is human testing ethical and what happens when something goes horribly wrong? At this point, it is emphatically clear that scientists have a lot of work a head of them. It has been predicted by the director of MIT's Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte, "In 20 years the possibility of symbiosis between man and machine will be possible…. These chips will be embedded by bioengineers into our bodies." (Olson, 2006) He goes on and states, "Suddenly technology has given us powers with which we can manipulate not only external reality, the physical world – but also much more, ourselves." (Olson, 2006) However, this is coming from a very optimistic scientist who I don't think is giving much thought to the ramifications but seeing only the possibilities. This type of division amongst scientists is quite prominent. Some share Nicholas's point of view : "Our duty, as men and women, is to proceed as if limits to our ability did not exist… We are collaborators in creation", others think that technology when used for enhancement should be regulated and treated as research subjects and closely monitored for its effects and lastly, some think it should never be done! (Chardin, 2005 & McGee + Maguire, 2006)
Scientists will need to amicably solve their differences in points of view to come up with the best solution for the world! This agreement is very important because the making or implementing of brain chips illegal is not an option. The reason being is that it may be illegal in one part of the world, however, that will not stop another nation from experimenting and implementing their new found technology. This has been readily demonstrated in human cloning efforts; it is illegal to clone human beings in theUS but inEurope there are no such regulations. I think all types of professions from around the world need to collaborate and make a set of stipulations and regulations that scientists must follow regarding brain chips and other new possibilities such as, cloning. If this can be achieved, it may help regulate what is done to some extent. Dr. Ellen McGee, director of theLong Island Center for Ethics atLong Island University
Brain chips as a therapeutic means of improving someone's life are already in use. In June of 2004, a 25 year old was one of the first humans to have a brain chip inserted into his brain called the BrainGate made by Cyberkinetics. The insertion of this chip into the motor cortex area of the brain has enabled the checking of e-mail and playing computer games simply by using thoughts. (Hooper, 2004) In addition, he can turn lights on and off and control a TV, all while talking and moving his head. (Hooper, 2004) The chip contains 100 electrodes each thinner than a hair, which detect neural electrical activity. The use of electrical conductivity is how a person can use thought to make a computer, connected via a small wire, do what the brain tells it. John Donoghue, a professor of Neuroscience at Brown University and co-founder of Cyberkinetics states: "Our goal is to develop the BrainGate system so that it can be linked to many useful devices…this includes medical devices such as muscle stimulators, to give the physically impaired a significant improvement in their ability to interact with the world." (Hooper, 2004) Due to the great success of this first human trial, five more people are set to undergo the same procedure. As the potential of human morality is questioned, what is right and wrong, the physical integrity of the individual is preserved and not altered un-necessarily. The beauty of the brain chip is that it is being used for therapeutic purposes, which helps the impaired individual gain some quality of life and independence!
In light of all the questions and uncertainty, I do feel that the preservation of physical integrity is an important factor in whether brain chips should be allowed. Due to uncertainty about efficacy, decrease of diversity within the population, the chance of governmental tampering and psychological impact I feel that it is wrong to alter the brain of a healthy individual with "super" human abilities. One aspect I did not explore in the paper is how will the body react to all of its upgrades? If no limits are placed on the brain chip there will be no limit as to what parts of your body will need to undergo change to match your super abilities. Therefore, I think therapeutic brain chips should be the limit and where the line should be drawn.
References:
Angeles P, The Harper Collins Dictionary for Philosophy. 1992.Deontology ,New York
Grahma-Rowe D. 2003. World's First Brain Prosthesis Revealed: New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3488(June 2, 2006)
Hooper S. 2004. Brain Chip Offers Hope for Paralyzed: CNN.com
John Horgan. 2005. Brain Chips and Other Dreams of the Cyber-Evangelists. World Transhumanist Association
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/814(June 2, 2006)
McGee e. & Maguire G. 2006. Implantable Brain Chips: Ethical and Policy Issues: Lahey Clinic –Dartmouth Medical Center
http://www.lahey.org/NewsPubs/Publications/Ethics/JournalWinter2001/Journal_Winter2001_Feature.asp(June 5, 2006)
No comments:
Post a Comment