Earlier this November Loyola's Neuroscience Society hosted a banquet and invited Emily Anthes, author of Frankenstein's Cat, to speak during it. In Frankenstein's Cat Anthes discusses a variety of issues such as: cloning, prosthetics, and "mind control" and the ethics of it. Recent breakthroughs in the field of neuroscience have allowed for some researchers to begin to design technologies that allow the brain of organisms, like beetles, to be hacked into and used to control their movements. During her lecture at the banquet Anthes focused on this idea of "hacking" into the bugs brains and also the ethics of doing so. She mentioned in her lecture, and her book, that a company now sells cockroaches along with a "brain hacking set" that any interested consumer can buy.
The debate about whether these kinds of products are ethical or not rages on. Those in support claim it is a great way to get the younger generation interested in neuroscience, while those who oppose claim we are taking away the organisms free will. An interesting counter argument to this is proposed by Greg Gage in an NPR article. He claims that this isn't controlling the insects mind but simply making them turn in a certain direction because they perceive a stimulus on that other side, similar to making a horse turn using reigns.
I think this is an important discussion those in the field of neuroscience and the general public need to be thinking about. Although I agree that this type of technology is not "mind control", I still believe it is important to figure out where we draw the metaphorical line. As with any big decision that needs to be made, pros and cons need to be weighed. Anthes shows both sides in Frankenstein's Cat and discussed both in her lecture. On one hand an insect could be used to spy on citizens and begin George Orwell's "Big Brother" government. On the other hand, the bugs could be used to help in rescue missions. The list of pros and cons continue to grow and it is important that both sides be heard. I think Anthes does a great job of giving both sides of the story and allowing people to become educated on the costs and benefits of this new technology. As with any new discovery, we must be cautious of its powers but not afraid to use it for the betterment of humanity. Scientific journalists, like Anthes, help get the word out about these new developments in many fields and allow the discussion to begin on what is right and what is wrong. I, for one, find there to be great benefits in a lot of these new developments, but think we should proceed with caution and make sure we know what we're doing. In the end, what is most important is that every person can make a well educated, personal decision on what they believe is right and wrong in this rapidly developing "brain hacking" technology.
Anthes, Emily. Frankenstiens Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Betasts. N.p: np., n.d. Print.
Staff, NPR. "What's Creepy, Crawly And A Champion Of Neuroscience?" NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2013
I too think this is an extremely interesting advance in neuroscience and agree that it would help get people involved in the science. I think that using beetles is far better than using lab rats or other animals for mind control, and since their minds are more simple in comparison it would be easier to study and understand.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this article’s ability to connect advances in neuroscience to consumer items, military weapons and ethics. Science has always been a passion of mine but until perusing my higher education at Loyola University of Chicago I never took into account the close relationship science had with ethical questions. I enjoyed that the author questioned how far humans could go in using technological breakthroughs to make our lives easier without crossing into areas that are ultimately dangerous and against our morals. I often have thought that human technology develops faster than our concepts for moral and ethical safeguards can be implemented.
ReplyDelete