Engaging Neuroethical Issues Generated by the Use of Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 273

a more straightforward and effective approach—yielding Ockham's Razor (i.e.,
optimized parsimony) to fortify preparation and engagement of current and future
NELSI generated by neuro S/T in NSID.
We recognize—and endorse—that some aspects and details of neuroscientific
NSID research and development obviously need to remain classified (Giordano et al.
2010). Yet, we also advocate the need for frank, yet prudently directed and metered
public communication about the broad scale and intent of such programs, so as to
(1) avoid miscommunication and misapprehension and (2) gain insight into public
concerns, expectations, and anxieties that undergird attendant NELSI. However, to
paraphrase the U.S. President Barack Obama, the public frequently has a deficit of
trust and harbors deep doubts about the workings of government (Obama 2010).
Critical to any approach to NELSI of neuro S/T in NSID are public queries (and
worries) of who will be involved in decisions about the scope and tenor of such
research and its applications, and in what ways do these individuals' qualifications
and experiences afford the capabilities demanded by both the ethical enormity of the
effort, and a responsibility to public protection. It is not unreasonable to anticipate
fears of “hawks in doves' feathers,” and suspicions of “doves in the hawks' nest.”
Neither is useful, nor recommended.
CONCLUSIONS: INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
What is required is that those involved must have knowledge and skills necessary
for ethical reasoning and must also be aware of (if not experienced in) the realities,
contingencies, and exigencies of NSID contexts. We maintain that the MR-ER will
afford a mechanism to assess and inculcate these attributes and will also allow for
more transparent and accurate public evidence (and perhaps selection) of individuals
who are best prepared to guide, influence, and steer neuro S/T research and use in
NSID. Additionally, we believe that the process, method, and paradigm presented
herein comport well with a critical analytic approach to addressing social effects of
neuro S/T, such as that proposed by Choudhoury et al. (2009), and a surety frame-
work for guiding neuro S/T relative to identified NELSI (Shaneyfelt and Peercy
2012). Therefore, it can be employed to identify neuroethical issues, problems, and
questions, ground these to past, present, and future circumstances and possibilities,
and pose resolutions to effectively inform policy and law to guide use or non-use in
NSID (Sarewitz and Karas 2012).
Writ large, we view the process, method, and paradigm as constituents of a three-
legged platform that is required to authentically address NELSI in any context
(Figure 17.3). Assessment and training of professionals (at the journeyman level) is
important, but enduring commitment to guiding neuro S/T will necessitate educa-
tion, both within the scientific and engineering fields, as well as the (social science
and humanities') disciplines that will enable the ethically sound articulation of S/T
in the social, economic, and political domains of human enterprise (Giordano 2012b;
Anderson and Giordano 2013, vide supra ).
None of these efforts in addressing NELSI are achievable or sustainable without
“support.” Such support is twofold and reciprocal: Extrinsically, it must provide
(1) funding to study, develop, articulate, and grow programs dedicated to the education,