As we go further and further into the future, many ideas that were previously only explored in science fiction are becoming more of a reality. One of these ideas is neuroenhancement or utilizing certain techniques to enhance people to make them better through the use of technology. Even when disregarding the potential ethical dilemmas that come with the actual implementation of this sort of technology into a person, whether that be through surgery or through some sort of drug, there are other ethical dilemmas that are apparent when looking at the outcomes that will result from this sort of technology. One study focused on determining the general consensus of the use of neuroenhancements, whether they be neuronal implants that enhance brain function or a performance-enhancing drug. The mean scores indicated that many people agreed with their use in a military setting, given that it was well tested before use, as well as the fact that people should be able to freely decide if they want to take part in programs designed with neuroenhancements in mind. However, they also expressed some agreement with statements regarding allowing people to keep neuroprostheses after active duty ends, which may be helpful in some cases but could pose a threat depending on how the particular implant functions.
Initial concerns about ethics arise when determining the role that neuroenhancements play in the rest of the affected person’s life. As stated previously, it is clear that the patient's autonomy be prioritized throughout the whole process, making sure that they are well educated on the risks and outcomes of procedures, and that the procedures themselves are non-mandatory. Other concerns, particularly those relating to non-malfeasance, are harder to exactly quantify. Since these supposed implants would make potential candidates better soldiers, the doctors who are performing these surgeries would in some ways be indirectly harming those who it would be used against. These ethical dilemmas don’t just stop at the military level, however, as there is potential that these enhancements could cause lasting harm to the patient if not properly managed. Additionally, another study specifically mentions how the autonomy of children could be implicated if their parents decide to allow them to undergo enhancement that significantly changes their life. Even though there are many positive benefits that could come with the proper use of neuroenhancements, there are many ethical pitfalls that make them less appealing than initially thought.
Sources:
Chatterjee A. The ethics of neuroenhancement. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;118:323-34. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53501-6.00027-5. PMID: 24182389.
Sattler, S., Jacobs, E., Singh, I., Whetham, D., Bárd, I., Moreno, J., Galeazzi, G., & Allansdottir, A. (2022). Neuroenhancements in the Military: A Mixed-Method Pilot Study on Attitudes of Staff Officers to Ethics and Rules. Neuroethics, 15(1). https://doi-org.dml.regis.edu/10.1007/s12152-022-09490-2
Neuroenhancement is a super interesting concept that poses an equally interesting and complex ethical dilemma. I found an ethics article (https://blog.degruyter.com/neuroenhancement-curse-or-blessing/) that talks about two main moral objections to neuroenhancement: disruption of autonomy and authenticity. The article brings up the point that even if autonomy is ensured throughout the entire process of obtaining neuroenhancements, if the enhancements override some processes of the brain autonomy could be compromised. I think there is a lot of research that still needs to be done to ensure we understand the whole picture of neuroenhancements, but it is truly amazing how many advancements in neuroscience have been made to even have this discussion on the table.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic and is very similar to what I've talked about in my bio seminar a while back. The main focus of the course was about CRISPR and it use in the future and what that can look like. A movie we watched took this idea further and reimagined a world where we have complete control of genetics. If you haven't seen it, it's called Gattaca. Neuroenhancement is one of the things we talked about where we start drawing the line for what we should be able to change about us and what we shouldn't. Trivial things like eye color were things that most people didn't care too much about, but intelligence and body types were becoming a hot topic. However, the issue at the end of the day, and what the movie was showing, was the society was becoming separated by those who were genetically engineered and those who were of natural birth. Those who were modified were of higher society since they could pay for it and wanted all the benefits they could get. Which brings up a good question. If something like neuroenhancement was completely worked out and had no problems with it, would everyone be able to have access to it? How much would or should it cost?
ReplyDeleteI think that the discussion of ethics surrounding any kind of human manipulation has always been controversial due to the difficulties of defining acceptable thresholds. How and why does one method of manipulation seem more just and more acceptable than another? When that question is asked of me, I usually try to break the topic down into sections that I can agree or disagree with using consistent rational. That being said, I've found an article that breaks down neuroenhancements down into sections. It starts out by breaking down the topic into cognitive enhancement dimensions that includes: mode of action, cognitive domain, personal factors, temporal factors, side effects, availability, and acceptance. It then further breaks down mode of action into cognitive enhancement strategies that includes: behavioral, biochemical, and physical methods with examples for each. I'm not going to discuss my thoughts on the ethics of neuroenhancements as the topic has so many nuances to dive into with just a comment, but I did want to share how I would start to build a consistent opinion by agreeing or disagreeing with these different sections.
ReplyDeleteReference:
Dresler, M., Sandberg, A., Bublitz, C., Ohla, K., Trenado, C., Mroczko-Wąsowicz, A., Kühn, S., & Repantis, D. (2019). Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement. ACS chemical neuroscience, 10(3), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00571
Hello, I enjoyed reading your passage and the ethical dilemmas you laid out. One thing I wanted to explore is that smarter soldiers might also mean a reduced loss of life. If soldiers were to have neuroenhancements, they may become better at distinguishing between soldier and civilian and may be better at keeping their comrades alive. If this is true then there would not be an ethical dilemma for the doctors who would be working on these studies.
ReplyDelete