Engaging Neuroethical Issues Generated by the Use of Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 265

of prior ELSI/NELSI that may be applicable to present circumstances, as well as
establish bases for casuistically approaching future NELSI spawned by proposed or
envisioned use of neuro S/T in NSID.
A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Rapid advancement of neuro S/T and shifts in global sociopolitical dynamics may
yield novel situations and contingencies (Benedikter and Giordano 2012; Giordano
and Benedikter 2012a, 2012b). Still, an analytical approach to historicity can be
useful for developing heuristics to (1) examine current uses of neuro S/T in light
of previous successes, failures, and NELSI; (2) inform neuroethical focus, delib-
eration, and decision-making to guide present and future applications of neuro S/T;
and in this way (3) avoid both repetition of previous mistakes, as well as current
misdirection and/or misuses of neuro S/T (Giordano 2013a, 2013b, 2014; see also
Chapter 16). This methodological approach, which we refer to by the acronym
HISTORY , addresses H istoricity and I mplications of S/T in those prior instances
and situations that offer relevant information to address current circumstances, con-
tingencies, issues, questions and problems; and engages O mbudsmanship (the real-
istic evaluation of capabilities, limitations, benefits, burdens, risks, and harms of
neuro S/T), toward R esponsible Y eomanry in the pragmatic elucidation and address
of NELSI and problems generated by neuro S/T in specific contexts (Giordano 2013b;
Giordano and Benedikter 2013).
Yet, TASKER-in-practice and HISTORY-as-process are reliant upon, reflec-
tive of, and presume a level of expertise in those professionals who are involved.
Much has been written about the validity of ethical expertise, and a complete dis-
cussion of that literature is beyond the scope of this chapter (for overviews, see
Rasmussen 2005; Selinger and Crease 2006). We seek to side-step the debate and
directly define what ethical expertise should entail and obtain. The multidiscipli-
narity of the focus and process is such that expertise should be specific (to one's
discipline—or disciplines) and representative of sufficient experience(s) to allow
flexibility to hone knowledge and skills upon a number of potential NELSI that
arise from new (and possibly unique) applications of neuro S/T in NSID. Both
TASKER and HISTORY require the capability to develop and apply neuroethical
concepts in a range of (rapidly developing and shifting) conceptualizations (Rawls
1971; Lanzilao et al. 2014).
Clearly, those who would be engaged in addressing NELSI arising in and from
NSID would not be neophytes or novices, but rather would be well-established profes-
sionals with considerable expertise in their respective fields (and perhaps multiple disci-
plines). Yet, it will be important to ensure that these individuals possess and retain the
types and extent of knowledge and skills' competencies that afford greatest flexibility
and agility to apprehend the NELSI that can and will likely arise (as well as those that
are presently unanticipated and will only emerge as subsequent iterations of neuro S/T
are developed and applied in NSID contexts). How this flexibility will be evaluated and
ensured needs to be addressed if such currency is to be maintained as a cornerstone
of these individuals' and groups' fluency in approaching and articulating neuroethi-
cal decision making that exerts the range of foreseeable effect(s) that neuro S/T could