Between Neuroskepticism and Neurogullibility - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense

Biomedical Engineering Reference

In-Depth Information

The second paradigm, pursuit of equality and happiness, is focused upon the

relationship between people within a given nation. From this view, fundamental

rights should be granted in every situation: in no one circumstance, inclusive of

national defense and security, it is allowable that neurotechnology be employed to

violate human rights as granted by foundational documents and tenets (such as the

U.S. Constitution and World Health Organization Declaration of Human Rights).

This perspective offers a defensible point that human integrity within societies is

supported and sustained by such rights and law. However, I believe that national

defense and security are issues that are larger than rights and laws defined by national

borders (Benanti 2012a, 2012b).

The third paradigm, emphasis upon policies, establishes that regulatory language

and doctrine be formulated and enacted to guide and govern the use of neurotechnol-

ogy in national defense agendas in ways that are independent from legal prescription

of any one particular nation, per se. This paradigm is reflective of the views of schol-

ars working in conjunction with, under the auspices of, and/or who are supportive of

the precepts of large international institutions such as the United Nations (UNESCO).

Within this view, only supranational and independent institutions can prescind to the

extent necessary to develop and implement policy language and effect(s) capable of

achieving an equitable and sound use of neurotechnology in national defense and

security applications (Benanti 2012a).

TOWARD GOVERNANCE

Schein's analysis shows that neurotechnology, like every technology, must be dis-

sected to its levels of artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying

assumptions (Schein 2010). To ignore this renders any analytic—and guiding—

approach vulnerable to a form of techno-neuro-reductionism, as neuroskepticism

and/or neurogullibility arguably reveal. To avoid this, we should strive to create and

sustain neuroscience as a reflexive practice that responds to social and cultural chal-

lenges posed both to the field of science and to world society, as consequential to

recent advances in brain sciences. To achieve this goal, it will be important to rec-

ognize the complexity of culture and to develop effective tools to foster meaning-

ful practice. A clarified terminology of neuroscience—and neuroethics—will be an

important first step (Giordano 2011; Giordano and Benedikter 2012). Establishing

pragmatic distinctions between neuroscience and neurotechnology may foster im-

proved understanding, and in so doing, may lead to a form of neuroskepticism that

does not offer such a pessimistic view of neuroscience's future, but instead, prompts

a deep and urgent request for moral commitment to developing and using neurotech-

nology in national defense and security agenda, as well as more broadly, in health

care and the conduct of daily life (Giordano 2012; Giordano and Benedikter 2012;