Prison Camp or “Prison Clinic?” - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 202

the United States used fMRI (or similar) technology at Guantanamo? This is a dif-
ficult question to answer given the secretive nature of this prison. An easier question
to answer is whether the United States is interested in using fMRI (and or simi-
lar, if not more advanced) technology in a national security context. It seems that
such interest exists. The United States has already demonstrated that it will resort to
extreme (even internationally illegal) measures in an effort to gain access to “high-
profile” information. Polygraphs have been a standard tool for the DoD and DHS, in
spite of the fact they produce unreliable results. New and potentially more effective
techniques for obtaining information would reasonably attract the eye of the DoD
and DHS. The National Research Council (2009, 89), an organization which serves
as an advising body for the federal government, lists fMRI as one of several “high-
priority opportunities for army investment in neuroscience technologies.” Given the
supposed promise of fMRI lie detectors, this is profoundly unsurprising. In short,
interest likely exists in the DoD and DHS for the use of brain scanning technologies
as advanced lie detectors. Now it is time to briefly discuss the underlying ethical
issues regarding this usage.
AN ILLEGITIMATE NONCLINICAL USAGE OF fMRI?
Depending on how we answer the question regarding the current effectiveness or
potential future effectiveness of fMRI technology as a lie detector, we run into a
set of varying ethical issues. If the technology is currently ineffective or unreli-
able, then our focus falls on those who advocate for fMRI toward such ends and
how they are manipulating the powers-that-be with pseudoscientific nonsense. Let
me be clear. Given the current research climate, it seems that fMRI does not live
up to the ideal of an undefeatable lie detector (Klein 2010a). 4 They are, in short,
unreliable. Given this fact, there is no upside that can serve as a justification for the
use of this technology. Let us leave aside the issue of utilizing medical technology
on vulnerable populations for nonmedical reasons. If the technology is ineffective,
then those who attempt to market fMRI for use as a lie detector are charlatans.
Either they knowingly suppress evidence in order to further their own interests,
or they are making truth claims regarding the effectiveness of this technology
without sufficient evidence. Both are unethical, though likely to different extents.
In addition, given the ramifications of these scans on high-profile prisoners, and
the actions a government such as the United States might take based on this false
information, we can see that the potential consequences of unreliable tests may be
dire. Innocent individuals may be arrested and supposed combatant targets may be
struck. People could lose their livelihood or their very lives based upon inaccurate
readings, especially if those using this technology have a large amount of faith in
the accuracy of the scans. Compare these two significant ethical issues with the lack
of any real upside, and the use of fMRI technology as an advanced lie detector is
flatly unjustified.
However, if we set aside the issue of accuracy, we encounter an interesting set of
ethical and political issues. I will focus on two of these problems in the pages that
follow. The first concerns the use of medical technology for a nonmedical purpose.
fMRI technology was created as a tool for use in the medical environment. It is