Between Neuroskepticism and Neurogullibility - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 219

relevant to national security and defense agendas and operational employments;
see also, Singer 2009). Marks' reflection unequivocally addresses core examples of
psychoactive drugs and neuroimaging, with the potential for using neuroscientific
techniques on detainees who may represent a most vulnerable population in the
“war on terror.” His assumptions produce a blanket vision of neuroscience as a
homogeneous field. Therefore, Marks suggests creation of a national advisory com-
mittee on neurosecurity, staffed by professionals who possess the relevant scientific,
ethical, and legal expertise (Marks 2010; see also Chapters 10, 11, 15, and 17).
We can also recognize a different perspective, herein called neurogullibility .
This perspective describes the opportunity created by unifying neuroscience and
integrating neurotechnology, and recommends transforming the ideas, outcomes,
and products of these endeavors to advance the relative flourishing of individuals
and society. According to these arguments, the early decades of the twenty-first
century will evidence concentrated efforts to bring together nanotechnology, bio-
technology, information technology, and new, humane neurotechnology focused
upon augmenting cognitive science—and the capabilities it confers upon human
users (Canton 2012; Giordano 2012). The core assertion is that in a world where
the very nature of warfare is changing rapidly, national defense requires the uptake
and leveraging of innovative technology (inclusive of neurotechnology) that proj-
ects power so convincingly that any threats to the current Western superpowers
(e.g., the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] allies)
are deterred, minimized, or eliminated and that danger to Western warfighters
from hostile or friendly fire can be mitigated, and training costs reduced by more
than an order-of-magnitude through applications of neurotechnology (Bainbridge
et al. 2006; Giordano 2011). What communicates a feeling of gullibility is that
the inherent and derived ethical questions generated by this perspective are seem-
ingly bypassed by the premise that any defense application of neuroscience in the
highly competitive environments of deterrence, intelligence gathering, and lethal
combat dictate technological advancement so as to remain as far ahead of poten-
tial opponents' efforts as possible (Roco and Bainbridge 2003; Bainbridge et al.
2006). Both perspectives and their relative forms of analysis—whether neuro-
skepticism and/or neurogullibility —underscore the need for a more critical evalu-
ation of any use of neurotechnology in national security and defense.
NEUROSCIENCE, NEUROTECHNOLOGY, AND
NEUROETHICS: THREE FACETS OF A SINGLE LENS
To avoid reductionism or partial views in any ethical address of the use of neurosci-
ence in national security, I believe that we should first analyze technology and its
development relative to scientific knowledge and culture and then (and perhaps only
then) analyze the use of neurotechnology in the national security milieu. Essential
to such reshaped ethical consideration is the use of a more complete terminology.
Neuroscience, neurotechnology, neuroethics, neuroskepticism, and neurogullibil-
ity (and arguably any term bearing the “neuro” prefix) should be clarified terms of
unique meanings in and for authentic ethical reflections (Schein 2010; Giordano and
Benedikter 2012).