Large wakes of ethical outcries tend to follow new applications of genetic research. Among the many concerns are parents deciding how to engineer their undeveloped child into the “perfect” human being.

These public debates are so massive that legislation is in the works for placing bans on certain types of genetic work. We seem to have a difficult time allowing ourselves to take advantage of beneficial technologies (in the name of bettering our health and well-being) for fear of evil-doers altering these technologies for use against our well-being.

recent opinion article from the Economist, brings up these same ethical cries in another human arena: neuroscience. The dooms-day warnings presented here focus on how neuroengineering technologies can destroy our privacy, provide body- and personality-altering drugs to the rich, and potentially bring down the curtain on what we currently deem important in “being human”.

Although some of these concerns are just as valid as worries about the unproven ways genetic engineering can bring negative effects to our society, a key difference when applied to neuroengineering is in that of choice. Many (but not all) genetic technologies are applied before an embryo develops, so the resulting altered human does not have any say as to what is to become of it. On the other hand, plugging into a memory enhancing neuron device must be implemented by yourself.

The final sense that is portrayed in this article is that the authors are scared to discover what we really are all about. What will we do if the claims from philosophers and theologians as to what is the essence of being human is debunked by future discoveries in brain research? The argument made here seems to be that if this happens, then we will all of a sudden not be human anymore. We may know the truth, but that science doesn’t match with what we want.

The prospects of a mad scientist or Big Brother controlling our society via genetic and neuroengineering are certainly frightening. However, they just aren’t very likely unless the voting public remains painfully uneducated. Instead, an equally scary world is one in which we allow policy to force limitations on our development as a society because we don’t want to take the risk of finding out that what we want the world to be like is not really the case.

No matter what deeper understandings come out of future neuroscience research, we will still be human. The only difference is that we will really know what it means to be human, instead of just hoping and guessing. Just because it’s uncomfortable, doesn’t mean we should hide from reality. This is often referred to as denial.

[Read the article]


One Response to The Ethics of Neurotechnology

  1. ZelIlano says:

    Fantastic writing ! I loved the specifics , Does anyone know if I might be able to get a sample DA 31 document to work with ?

Share your thoughts...

Last updated February 16, 2018