“NEURINT” and Neuroweapons - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 97

(Rubaj 2003). The actions and effects of these categories of drugs are provided
in Table 7.2.
While some of these agents can be used to enhance the neurocognitive
and motor performance of (one's own) troops (e.g., low dose of stimulants and
mood-altering drugs), others have apparent utility against hostile forces (e.g.,
somnolent, psychotogenic, affiliative, and epileptogenic agents). Moreover, while
a “weapon” is characteristically considered to be a tool used to incur injury,
agents such as oxytocin and/or MDMA may actually reduce or prevent harm
inflicted on an opponent by decreasing their desire to fight or making them
more amenable to affiliation. These effects are wholly consistent with the more
formal definition of a weapon, as “. . . a means of contending against an other”
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2008). To paraphrase Kautilya: the person who
becomes a friend is no longer an enemy (Kautilya 1929). Yet, this too can be
viewed as potentially harmful in that drug-induced effects upon cognition and
emotion may alter the identity, autonomy, and free will of others, and in doing
so, are exercises of “biopower” (Foucault 2007; Rippon and Senior 2010; see
also Chapter 12). Nevertheless, we opine that when attempting to balance ben-
efits, risks, and harms within contexts of jus ad bello and jus in bellum , such
outcomes—while poweful—may need to be considered as less injurious than
either more profound forms of neuropsychiatric insult or those produced by more
“traditional” weaponry.
To be sure, the use of drugs to affect cognitive, emotional, or behavioral
function carries many risks of abuse (e.g., excessive doses or too-frequent use),
misuse, unintended interactions with other drugs, foods and situations, and
alterations in social behavior (Hughes 2007). Additionally, the effects of any
drug depend on an individuals' particular combination of genes, environment,
phenotype, and the presence or absence of both physiological and psychopatho-
logical traits, and these can vary widely within a given population. Therefore,
despite the relatively small size of the military, considerable diversity still exists
in the aforementioned characteristics, and this would need to be accounted for,
as would any variations in those populations in which the use of neurotropic
agents is being considered.
Thus, it is probable that any neurotropic agent would produce variable responses
and effect(s) in a population reflective of individual geno- and phenotypes, as
well as biological variations in given individuals over time. This could incur an
increased likelihood of unanticipated effects. Therefore, it is important that phar-
maceutical research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE) of such agents
engage the time and resources required to maximize desirable drug actions and
effects based upon individual and group geno- and phenotypes and assess poten-
tially adverse and/or unwanted side effects. Of course, adverse effects could also
be exploited for use on an enemy population. In light of this, drug design would
require resources necessary for evaluation and measurement of geno- and phe-
notypic characteristics that could be optimized to selectively employ particular
drugs within a population. By targeting these characteristics, it would be possible
to mass deliver agents and still achieve some significant measure of individual-
ized effect(s). Current efforts in “personalized medicine” may afford steps toward