I’ve been learning about the brain over the last few days and it has helped me re-realise the magnificent complexity of the human body and the ethical issues surrounding scientific progress. Resources have been piled into brain research over the past 100 years or so, yet we are still totally clueless about how most of the more complex processes in the brain occur. For example, we don’t really understand long term memory, how the brain processes such vast amounts of information in parallel in such a short amount of time, or why and how certain memories are chosen to be stored and recalled.
On the other hand, I learnt about some amazing things that can be done. For example, we can manufacture passable man made ears, and before too long eyes as well. A scientist called Miguel Nicolelis has done some amazing experiments where a monkey was trained to move a robotic arm using thoughts alone. This involves implanting electrodes right into the brain, which obviously is going to be tricky and expensive to apply in humans; but there are also more limited examples of ‘thought control’ using non-invasive EEG (pads on the head) methods. This has obvious medical applications, such as re-routing thought impulses in paralysed people so they can regain control of their muscles, which is potentially fantastic; but on the other hand the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency have apparently already started looking into such brain-machine interfaces to make killing people even faster.
It all presents interesting ethical questions. Stem cells. Mind control. Mind-altering drugs. Military technology. When science and morality clash, who’s more powerful? Can the two be combined harmoniously? If we wanted to could we ever stop the juggernaut of scientific progression? After revealing so much knowledge and power, could science ultimately be the death of us?
its been a while since ive had time to open my mind to this sort of issue and its a good article. morality and science are intertwined, and morality here is the gross public opinion, the ethical side. without it, science would be widespread and directionless. scientific research itself is only possible because of the supportive society in which is exists. if humanity was still living singularly and alone there would not be time to dedicate to the study of the universe. my point being that modern experimental science depends on the common person and so is subject to it. to its opinions and to its desires. in 98% of cases scientific research will not be funded unless the preliminary data/evidence indicates financial return.
more specifically the debate over the use of stem cells has many boundaries e.g. religious, emotional, evolution, ethical and so in this instance there are a lot of opinions that need appeasing before any progress can be made, before it becomes a sound financial investment. if not, that route of scientfic study will be shut down and the scientists set on a new path.
morality first, science after.
i also like the irony of brains trying to understand brains, good imagery
I think with most science it’s money first, science follows. It’s not so much the ‘common person’ who decides the direction but the rich companies and organisations.
The ‘common person’ has more of a say in ‘ethical challenging’ areas of science, such as those mentioned above, but that is normally worked though government rather than directly; public opinion creating legislation to limit science.
What the….? We have a quite reasoinable understanding of memory and a damned fine understanding of how the brain processes in parallel. Those are far, far from the questions being asked now. It really is more a case of sorting out the nitty gritty. Thats all just basic neural networks. Exactly how many of this type of inhibitory neuron are involved in this feedback loop, how somatic sensations are rebuilt after being broken down, details of why place codes are used to represent magnitude of scent. Thoise are samples of some issues going on at the moment.
And though I’ve not looked into that specific researchers work on robotic arms, it really shouldnt be that that hard. Give any old fool a bunch of electrodes, a monkey and a monitor and you can train it to move an arm. DARPA is running a large collaborative project on psosthetics, including direct brain controlled devices. Things like controlling robot arms, and even playing the piano are childs play designed to entertain those providing funding. The real issues, as ever, are the ones that arnt even mentioned to the public. Oh… yoiu mentioned DARPA above. The project is actually more for rehabilitation - theres too many soldiers surviving having body parts blown of and its a drain on the economy. Og course there are potential military applications though.
But yes! Neuroscience rocks!