Between Neuroskepticism and Neurogullibility - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 218

the neurosciences and the relative pace at which concepts are being translated into
operationalizable tools and techniques.
Neuroscientific experiments, often characterized by low invasiveness, are intended
and implemented for affording better understanding of brain structures and functions
and the relationship of neural activity to thought and behavior. These trials have
engendered significant contribution to cognitive sciences, stimulated philosophical
debate about free will, responsibility, and autonomy, and attracted interest from both
the academic community as well as the public. With this surge—as yet relatively
nascent—in neuroscientific capability and information, some see the potential for
militarized neuroscience as being far too incipient to be of any serious concern;
conversely, other scholars posit that we are on the cusp of a massive shift in military
technology that will have profound effects both at the front lines, as well as within
the spheres of national and international politics (Achterhuis 2001; Ihde 2009;
Singer 2009; Benanti 2010; Giordano et al. 2010; Marks 2010). To be sure, these
points may be debatable. However, recent funding investments and allocations in
brain research by the U.S. and other nations' defense agencies appear to mitigate the
former stance in favor of the latter. On some level, this may be viewed as a reality
check. In this chapter, I argue that neuroscience and neurotechnology and their use
in national security and defense should be well understood and evaluated—not only
to establish a more rational view of when and how neurotechnology can be used in
national defense and security agenda, but also to address—if not challenge—strate-
gic and political questions that foster serious (neuro)ethical implications about the
use of neuroscience in such enterprise.
THE CORE QUESTION: NEUROSKEPTICISM
OR NEUROGULLIBILITY?
As these new possibilities arise, a hard debate has emerged that its scope and
implications are too broad to fully explicate here. In short, there are two recog-
nizably fundamental positions in the differing perspectives that characterize a
view of neurosciences and the applicability of its tools and techniques. One side is
characterized by a thesis that is based on a so-called neuroskepticism : a perspec-
tive informed by scientific studies that entails considerable scrutiny when view-
ing the practical implications and real-world applications of recent developments
in neuroscience (Marks 2010). This perspective asserts that the use—and possible
misuse—of neuroscience in contexts of national security science demand urgent
evaluation in light of actual utility, assumed viability, and applications in practice
(Giordano et al. 2010; Marks 2010; see also Chapters 11 and 17). For example,
Marks expresses concerns about the naming and utilization of neuroscientifi-
cally based outcomes and products in national security contexts and focuses upon
the practical and ethical hazards that arise from the deployment of this opaque
terminology. Marks' considerations rest upon the observation that neuroscience
offers unparalleled opportunities to transform our lives on the one hand, and on
the other hand simultaneously fosters new ethical questions, issues, and prob-
lems (a point Giordano [2012] has emphasized in characterizing the “demiurgi-
cal” potential of neuroscience and neurotechnology—and one that is exceedingly