The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, is a Department of Defense agency
that is known for funding research into new technologies ranging from the
outlandish – flying cars – to the slightly more tractable – autonomous
vehicles. With these developments, the
agency and many other military research groups have developed close relationships
with the scientific world. Recently, US
national security groups have come to see neuroscience as a key frontier in the
21st century. The nature of
neuroscience research, however, means that research of interest to the military
is often begun without any interest in military applications. This interplay between civilian and military
technologies is nothing new. The
internet and GPS were originally developed for military use.
In a paper
published in PLoS Biology, an open-access journal, Michael Tennison and
Jonathan Moreno explored the balance between military interests and scientific
ethics. They argue that while the goal
of science is to expand knowledge via rigorous validation, the military aims to
utilize new technologies as quickly as possible for national defense. They hold that, as a result of this conflict,
neuroscientists should remain conscious of the possibility of dual-uses, both
civilian and military, for they research.
Should this
possibility of dual-use for new research be a real cause for worry? The authors discuss a few technologies such
as brain-computer interfaces, mental enhancement, and technologies developed
toward the possibility of brain-reading.
Each military technology goes hand in hand with scientific research, yet
the goals of the research that yielded each were not the creation of new
military weapons. I believe that while
continued military use of neuroscience research is a cause for concern, there
is not much that can be done if we hope to continue advancing our knowledge of
the brain. The nature of neuroscience
research means that as we increase our understanding of the brain and develop
new technologies, these new ideas will continue to play a role in military
operations.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120320195800.htm
1 comment:
I agree that the potential dual-use of neurological advancements is problematic for researchers who may not feel comfortable promoting military operations. However, I feel that the financial component add a more direct ethical dilemma—for example, the Pentagon currently funds a lot of research into PTSD and memory erasure techniques. There’s definitely something uncomfortable there—imagine what the military could do with a pill to make us forget. At the very least, if they achieve their goal, PTSD will no longer be the major cost of war that it is, thereby making war seem more attractive to officials and the public. But is this use of the technology ethical? If it’s not, is it then ethical for researchers to accept funding from these sources?
It comes down to a question of whether or not researchers are obligated to consider the potential applications of their innovations, or if they are spared from responsibility so long as their intentions are pure. Some may argue that science should not be restricted because it may be one day abused, but does that mean that we must accept these unintended uses as an inevitable part of innovation? Or should we first focus on ensuring that neurological advances, when they do arrive, will not be misused, and then focus on the science? History may urge us to take a more preventative, not reactive, approach to science in the military in the future.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/fear-erasing-drugs/
Post a Comment