Why Neuroscientists Should Take the Pledge - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 230

The accepted acts of “coercive interrogation” included waterboarding, sleep depri-
vation, stress positions, humiliation, and even slamming people against a wall (Miles
2009). Disagreement between the APA leadership and many APA members on the
ethics of psychologist participation in torture continues (Kaye 2011).
APPLICATIONS OF NEUROSCIENCE TO “NATIONAL SECURITY”
In much of the discussion about “National Security” and neuroscience, the term
“National Security” is used in the rather narrow sense of a country's military and
intelligence agencies. In this article, I place the term in quotes when it is used in this
sense in order to remind us that real national security is more than that. Real national
security will certainly include freedom from fear of foreign invasion and terrorism
which “National Security” purports to provide, but will also include freedom from
other fears such as hunger, arbitrary arrest, ill health, old age, loss of income, and
no future for one's children. Because of the interconnected world in which we live,
real national security will require freedom from such fears for all peoples, not just
the people of one country. Our concern must be for security that is both real and
international.
Current and potential applications of neuroscience to a country's military and
intelligence agencies, that is, “National Security,” have been extensively described
throughout this volume and elsewhere (Rose 2005; Moreno 2006; National Research
Council 2008, 2009; Giordano and Wurzman 2011; Giordano 2012; Neurdon 2012;
The Royal Society 2012; Tennison and Moreno 2012). Only a brief overview can be
given here.
Giordano (2012) distinguishes two major categories of applications of neurosci-
ence to a country's military and intelligence agencies, assessment and intervention .
Assessment is the relatively passive use of neural indicators such as electroenceph-
alogram (EEG), evoked potentials, and functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) for purposes such as monitoring alertness and other psychological states
in soldiers while they are watching videos or radar screens; determining suitabil-
ity of individuals for different tasks; training; and determining whether someone
is lying during an interrogation. This last use, determining if someone is lying, has
received a great deal of attention (National Research Council 2008; Marks 2010;
Tennison and Moreno 2012). The consensus among neuroscientists seems to be that
lie detection by monitoring brain function is not possible at present, but commer-
cial companies have claimed otherwise and are marketing the use of fMRI (No Lie
fMRI Inc. 2012) and EEG (Government Works Inc. 2012) for this purpose. One of
these companies even claims that it is possible to identify terrorists or the intention
to commit terrorist acts by recording brain activity, a process they refer to as “brain
fingerprinting” (Government Works Inc. 2012). Such “mind reading” capacities may
be largely fanciful at present, but this may not always be the case.
The possible use of such technology for lie detection or “mind reading” raises such
ethical and legal issues as the right to privacy and protection from self-incrimination,
rights granted to U.S. citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution. If it is against the law to search someone's house without a warrant, it
should also be against the law to search someone's brain without a warrant.