Neurotechnology, Global Relations, and National Security - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 6

and the growing prominence of non-Western nations in neuro S/T research and
production (Bitzinger 2004; Sobocki et al. 2006; Lynch and McCann 2009) afford
a number of heretofore ineffectual nations a greater economic presence upon the
world stage. Taken together with the relative accessibility of neuro S/T to nonstate
actors (Forsythe and Giordano 2011), this creates new scenarios of socioeconomic
and political dependencies, and rebalances power equations of global politics, influ-
ence, and defense needs and capabilities.
The issue of how to apply neuro S/T also prompts the human question in the
more strict philosophical and ethical sense, as reflective of, and inherited by Western
post-Enlightenment constructs, which are now situated among increasingly prevalent
and influentially pluralist ideals and ethics (Anderson et al. 2012; Giordano and
Benedikter 2012). How might neuro S/T be used to establish definitions, norms, mores,
and attitudes toward particular individuals, groups, or communities? To reiterate, neuro
S/T—like any form of science and technology—can be used to effect good and harm.
And while the tendency to use science and technology inaptly or toward malevolent
ends is certainly not novel, the extent and profundity of what neuroscientific informa-
tion implies (i.e., about the nature of the mind, self-control, identity, and morality) and
what neuro S/T can exert over these aspects of the human being, condition, predica-
ment, and relationships mandates thorough review and discernment.
Therefore, a particularly high level of scrutiny is needed when looking to, and
relying upon neuro S/T to describe, evaluate, predict, or control human thought, emo-
tions, and behavior. It will be crucial to develop measurements for such scrutiny and
the means—and ethico-legal lenses, voices, parameters, and paradigms—that will be
required to translate these metrics to nationally, regionally, and internationally relevant
standards (Farahany 2009; Dando 2007; Nuffield Council Report 2013). Extant cri-
teria, as provided by ethics, laws, policies, and treaties, while viable to some degree,
can reflect—and are often contributory to—the scientific, social, and economic
“climate” in which various techniques and technologies are regarded, embraced, and
utilized. Thus, in most cases they are only temporary philosophical and/or politi-
cal agreements and represent the dominant socially accepted viewpoint(s). How
can these be evaluated and weighed when sociocultural (and political) perspectives,
needs, and values differ?
To wit, I hold that any and all analyses and guidelines for the use of neuro S/T
must be based upon pragmatic assessment of technological and human dimensions
of science and technology, the capabilities and limits of scientific and technological
endeavor, and the manifestations incurred by studying and using such science and
technology in the public sphere(s) in which NSID exerts influence and effect.
ADDRESSING CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES: A PATH FORWARD
Toward such ends, it becomes essential to appropriately address these “deep” ques-
tions, both separately and in their interrelatedness. A first step is to more fully
recognize the rapid development and use of neuro S/T, the variety of new fields of
application and transformation generated in the mid-to-long term by neuroscientific
techniques and tools, and the information and capability they yield. To date, there has