Engaging Neuroethical Issues Generated by the Use of Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 262

3. Making appropriate neuro S/T approaches available and employable in all
national security endeavors, but only in accordance with strictly defined
and implemented ethico-legal parameters (that would then need to be sur-
veyed and enforced on a variety of scales and levels)
While perhaps noble in intent, we hold the first option to be unrealistic and thus unten-
able given (1) that almost any published neuro S/T research can be used for NSID
purposes; (2) the potential for dual-use neuro S/T research; and (3) the directly subsi-
dized neuro S/T within various militaries and defense silos (worldwide). This leaves
options 2 and/or 3. When considering these options, it must be borne to mind that the
appointed goal of intelligence and security efforts (at least of the United States and
its allies) is not to cause harm without purpose, but rather to uphold and protect the
rights of the polis. But, to reiterate, neuro S/T research and use in NSID is not lim-
ited to the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and allied
nations; and as history has shown, law enforcement and military authority can be
misappropriated and abused (in any country), and these possibilities must be taken
into account and abuses should be prevented or mitigated as best possible.
Therefore, we hold that it will be necessary to discern whether neuroethical delib-
eration and decisions relevant to NSID applications should be based upon the follow-
ing approaches:
1. A particular philosophical approach (e.g., utilitarianism? deontology?
standpoint?) to ground any ethical posture toward the use/non-use of
neuro S/T in NSID
2. The spirit of the law, which might allow uses of neuro S/T with particular
legal constraints (that could be amended and/or modified in accordance
with legal procedure) as usually afforded to circumstances of public safety
(Ferguson 1999; Giordano et al. 2014; see also Chapter 9)
3. Philosophical and applied constructs of military ethics (e.g., jus in bello ) that
could be applied to the use of new and emerging neuroscientific techniques
and tools ( vide supra ; see Simon 1999; Gross 2013; Chapter 15)
4. Some extant or new combination of these approaches that might afford pre-
cepts and principles that are more reflective of and responsive to the rapidly
shifting capabilities of neuro S/T in the social and political spheres that define
arenas of national security concerns on local and global levels (Giordano and
Benedikter 2012a, 2012b; Lanzilao et al. 2014; Shook and Giordano 2014)
Irrespective of the neuroethical approach and/or system embraced, we advocate
sensitivity to what we have referred to as “footfall effects,” namely, that it is not
the intention to impede the pace or momentum of forward progress of neuro S/T
(given the aforementioned difficulties, if not impossibility of doing so), but rather to
scrutinize where each forward step may fall, “. . . so as to tread wisely with appropri-
ate lightness or force, and remain upright and balanced both in the course of usual
events, and if pushed or stricken” (Giordano 2013a).
Footfall sensitivity and responsivity necessitates three interacting considerations:
First is whether (a given) neuro S/T is sufficiently mature to be used in ways proposed
within NSID applications. In some cases, it appears that actual capabilities are lacking,