Can (and Should) We Regulate Neurosecurity? - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 256

The case for a weak regulatory model of military-purposed science is derived
from Lesson Four: legitimate concerns. The idea is to identify when legitimate con-
cerns are in play, so that steps can be taken to address such issues. In the same way
that conflicts of interest are not inherently wrong but inherently must be managed, so
too is military-purposed science not inherently wrong, but inherently susceptible to
legitimate concerns that would necessitate, and benefit from oversight.
O pTiOn f Our : a cTive e ducaTiOn
A less-invasive model that still retains some element of regulation can be found in
mandated responsible conduct of research (RCR) training. The National Institutes of
Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) both require RCR train-
ing for all students (graduate and undergraduate) who receive financial support for
research. The frightening history of irresponsibly conducted research (be it data fal-
sification, plagiarism, improperly managed conflicts of interest, or abuse of human
research participants) motivated these federal organizations to mandate training, so
that future scientists would recognize research ethics issues when they arise and
know how to reason through them when they are encountered.
With regard to military-purposed science, an option is to list military-purposed
science (or something more general about the relationship between the scientist and
society) within the standardized core areas that must be covered as part of RCR
training. At present, there are two separate lists of RCR core areas, one from the
NIH and one from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Both include human sub-
jects research, non-human animal research, conflicts of interest, data management,
authorship/publication, peer review, collaboration, mentor/mentee responsibilities,
research misconduct, and conflicts of interest. The difference is that the NIH list
also includes “the scientist as a responsible member of society, contemporary ethi-
cal issues in biomedical research, and the environmental and societal impacts of
scientific research,” while the ORI list does not (Steneck 2007; National Institutes
of Health 2009). The NIH and ORI lists of RCR core areas should be coordinated
so as not to breed confusion about what is and is not required in mandated training.
More specifically, the ORI list should add a core area pertaining to the scientist as a
responsible member of society. Listing “military-purposed science” as a standalone
domain of RCR training might be asking a lot, but treating that topic under the more
general heading of “scientist as a responsible member of society” is both feasible
and arguably necessary, particularly in light of ongoing efforts to advance brain
research through societally innovative applications of neurotechnologies.
O pTiOn f ive : k eep T alking
The last model is the existing discursive model—that is, just keep talking. The idea
here is motivated by the fact that any new regulatory system at the ORI/NIH/NSF level,
which would have to be enacted by individual institutions, would be incredibly difficult
to implement. What's more, advocates for the existing model could point to Lesson One
about military-purposed science being “just controversial.” So, the argument goes, the
best option at present is to just keep talking for now and watch how things play out.