Neurotechnology, Global Relations, and National Security - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 5

3. The use of neuro S/T must be admissible in a court of law under the most
current and stringent legal standards (Orofino 1996). As well, it will be
important to examine other ethico-legal frameworks and standards to
enable a more internationally relevant approach to using neuro S/T in NSID
agendas (Farahany 2009; Freeman and Goodenough 2009; Eagleman 2011;
Spranger 2012; Morse and Roskies 2013).
4. If neuro S/T is employed for intelligence purposes, only information perti-
nent to an ongoing investigation or a specific issue of security and/or deter-
rence should be obtained and used, and this should be stored in official
police and/or government records.
5. There must be other corroborating evidence to substantiate interventive
action(s)—outside of evidence gathered by neuro S/T—as is necessary
based upon maturity and reliability of techniques (see criterion 3 in this
list; also Chapter 9).
6. There must be a valid precedent and/or exigency to incur the use of neuro S/T
in these circumstances (see criteria 2 and 3 in this list; also Chapters 9
through 11, 15, and 17).
7. Applying these technologies in a predictive or preventive manner is still
practically problematic and should not be implemented until further sci-
entific research and technical development has been undertaken and more
detailed and effective ethico-legal frameworks are generated (Farahany
2009; Greely 2013; Giordano et al. 2014).
Of course, this necessitates (1) questioning the ecological validity and reliability of the
ways that neuro S/T is used, as well as (2) concern about the ethico-legal probity and
value of neuro S/T-based assessment and intervention in specific NSID applications.
To be sure, such questions and concerns are challenging; the challenge reflects and
must address the fundamental questions in neuroscience. That is, what are the nature
and type of neurobiological characteristics that affect cognition, emotion, and behav-
ior? Can these characteristics be accurately assessed, and what types and combina-
tions of techniques, technologies, and metrics are required in this task? Can these
techniques and tools be used to (1) describe and perhaps predict bio-psychosocial
factors of group violence; (2) provide putative targets for multidisciplinary interven-
tion to deter or mitigate aggression and violence; and (3) if so, in what ways, to what
extent—and through what process and method(s)—can and should these approaches
be utilized (and conversely, in what situations and circumstances should they be
constrained or prohibited)?
It is unwise—and inapt—to overestimate (or underestimate) the capability of
neuro S/T, and it is equally foolish to misjudge the power conferred by this sci-
ence or the tendency for certain groups to misdirect and misuse these technologies
and the power they yield (Giordano 2012c). Granted, there is robust political—and
thus national security—power that can be gained and leveraged through neuro S/T.
Although contributory to new dimensions of military capability, such power is not
limited to war-fighting capacity. The changing political “power shift from the West
towards the East … [as] consequence of the latest … financial crises” (as asserted
by France's Premier Francois Fillon on November 6, 2011; Evans-Pritchard 2011),