Is It Already Too Late To Consider The Ethics Of Mind Control Technology?By Nicholas West Yesterday, selfnews Post republished commentary from Harvard which cited a 52-page Stanford study looking into what Artificial Intelligence might look like in the year 2030. That report admits that much of what the general public believes to be science fiction like pre-crime, for example is already being implemented or is well on the way to impacting peoples day-to-day lives. We have seen the same call for ethical standards and caution about killer robots when, in fact, robots are already killing and injuring humans. Really all that is left to be considered, presumably, is the degree to which these systems should be permitted to become fully autonomous. The same dichotomy between properly addressing the role of future technology and uh oh, I think the genie is out of the bottle also appears in the following article from Arizona State University, which some readers might remember was the source of a whistleblower that came to selfnews Post some years ago with extreme concern about a secret DARPA program being conducted at Arizona State that aimed to develop a form of remote mind control using the technology of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. One of the ways that this technology could become remote-controlled is via the use of neural dust or smart dust that literally would open a two-way connection between brain and computer. You will read more about where that technology stands today in the article below, as well as other forms of implants that are slated for development. It used to be the case that I would highlight a select few words from university, military, and scientific press releases; this time, the entire article would have to be highlighted, as it runs the full gamut of open admission about what previously has been conspiratorial or sci-fi (there is even mention of geoengineering here). Lastly, can we really entrust the exact same players who are developing these systems many for profit and control to be involved in the formulation of an ethical framework? If you share a concern that the technology we have developed is beginning to take on a life of its own, please share this information as we try to keep pace and hopefully corral our own creations into the most positive functions possible. Considering Ethics Now Before Radically New Brain Technologies Get Away From Us By Andrew Maynard, Arizona State University Imagine infusing thousands of wireless devices into your brain, and using them to both monitor its activity and directly influence its actions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction, and for the moment it still is but possibly not for long. Brain research is on a roll at the moment. And as it converges with advances in science and technology more broadly, its transforming what we are likely to be able to achieve in the near future. Spurring the field on is the promise of more effective treatments for debilitating neurological and psychological disorders such as epilepsy, Parkinsons disease and depression. But new brain technologies will increasingly have the potential to alter how someone thinks, feels, behaves and even perceives themselves and others around them and not necessarily in ways that are within their control or with their consent. This is where things begin to get ethically uncomfortable. Because of concerns like these, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) are cohosting a meeting of experts this week on responsible innovation in brain science. Brain research is intimately entwined with advances in the neurotechnologies that not only help us study the brains inner workings, but also transform the ways we can interact with and influence it. For example, researchers at the University of California Berkeley recently published the first in-animal trials of what they called neural dust implanted millimeter-sized sensors. They inserted the sensors in the nerves and muscles of rats, showing that these miniature wirelessly powered and connected sensors can monitor neural activity. The long-term aim, though, is to introduce thousands of neural dust particles into human brains. The UC Berkeley sensors are still relatively large, on par with a coarse piece of sand, and just report on whats happening around them. Yet advances in nanoscale fabrication are likely to enable their further miniaturization. (The researchers estimate they could be made thinner than a human hair.) And in the future, combining them with technologies like optogenetics using light to stimulate genetically modified neurons could enable wireless, localized brain interrogation and control. Used in this way, future generations of neural dust could transform how chronic neurological disorders are managed. They could also enable hardwired brain-computer interfaces (the original motivation behind this research), or even be used to enhance cognitive ability and modify behavior. In 2013, President Obama launched the multi-year, multi-million dollar U.S. BRAIN Initiative (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies). The same year, the European Commission launched the Human Brain Project, focusing on advancing brain research, cognitive neuroscience and brain-inspired computing. There are also active brain research initiatives in China, Japan, Korea, Latin America, Israel, Switzerland, Canada and even Cuba. Together, these represent an emerging and globally coordinated effort to not only better understand how the brain works, but to find new ways of controlling and enhancing it (in particular in disease treatment and prevention); to interface with it; and to build computers and other artificial systems that are inspired by it. This weeks NAS workshop organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and supported by the National Science Foundation and my home institution of Arizona State University isnt the first gathering of experts to discuss the ethics of brain technologies. In fact theres already an active international community of experts addressing neuroethics. Many of these scientific initiatives do have a prominent ethics component. The U.S. BRAIN initiative for example includes a Neuroethics Workgroup, while the E.C. Human Brain Project is using an Ethics Map to guide research and development. These and others are grappling with the formidable challenges of developing future neurotechnologies responsibly. Its against this backdrop that the NAS workshop sets out to better understand the social and ethical opportunities and challenges emerging from global brain research and neurotechnologies. A goal is to identify ways of ensuring these technologies are developed in ways that are responsive to social needs, desires and concerns. And it comes at a time when brain research is beginning to open up radical new possibilities that were far beyond our grasp just a few years ago. In 2010, for instance, researchers at MIT demonstrated that Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, or TMS a noninvasive neurotechnology could temporarily alter someones moral judgment. Another noninvasive technique called transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) delivers low-level electrical currents to the brain via electrodes on the scalp; its being explored as a treatment for clinical conditions from depression to chronic pain while already being used in consumer products and by do-it-yourselfers to allegedly self-induce changes in mental state and ability. Crude as current capabilities using TMS and tDCS are, they are forcing people to think about the responsible development and use of technologies which have the ability to potentially change behavior, personality and thinking ability, at the flick of a switch. And the ethical questions they raise are far from straightforward. For instance, should students be allowed to take exams while using tDCS? Should teachers be able to use tDCS in the classroom? Should TMS be used to prevent a soldiers moral judgment from interfering with military operations? These and similar questions grapple with what is already possible. Complex as they are, they pale against the challenges emerging neurotechnologies are likely to raise. As research leads to an increasingly sophisticated and fine-grained understanding of how our brains function, related neurotechnologies are likely to become equally sophisticated. As they do, our abilities to precisely control function, thinking, behavior and personality, will extend far beyond what is currently possible. To get a sense of the emerging ethical and social challenges such capabilities potentially raise, consider this speculative near-future scenario: Imagine that in a few years time, the UC Berkeley neural dust has been successfully miniaturized and combined with optogenetics, allowing thousands of micrometer-sized devices to be seeded through someones brain that are capable of monitoring and influencing localized brain functions. Now imagine this network of neural transceivers is wirelessly connected to an external computer, and from there, to the internet. Such a network a crude foreshadowing of science fiction author Iain M. Banks neural lace (a concept that has already grabbed the attention of Elon Musk) would revolutionize the detection and treatment of neurological conditions, potentially improving quality of life for millions of people. It would enable external devices to be controlled through thought, effectively integrating networked brains into the Internet of Things. It could help overcome restricted physical abilities for some people. And it would potentially provide unprecedented levels of cognitive enhancement, by allowing people to interface directly with cloud-based artificial intelligence and other online systems. Think Apples Siri or Amazons Echo hardwired into your brain, and you begin to get the idea. Yet this neurotech which is almost within reach of current technological capabilities would not be risk-free. These risks could be social a growing socioeconomic divide perhaps between those who are neuro-enhanced and those who are not. Or they could be related to privacy and autonomy maybe the ability of employers and law enforcement to monitor, and even alter, thoughts and feelings. The innovation might threaten personal well-being and societal cohesion through (hypothetical) cyber substance abuse, where direct-to-brain code replaces psychoactive substances. It could make users highly vulnerable to neurological cyberattacks. Of course, predicting and responding to possible future risks is fraught with difficulties, and depends as much on who considers what a risk (and to whom) as it does the capabilities of emerging technologies to do harm. Yet its hard to avoid the likely disruptive potential of near-future neurotechnologies. Thus the urgent need to address as a society what we want the future of brain technologies to look like. Moving forward, the ethical and responsible development of emerging brain technologies will require new thinking, along with considerable investment, in what might go wrong, and how to avoid it. Here, we can learn from thinking about responsible and ethical innovation that has come to light around recombinant DNA, nanotechnology, geoengineering and other cutting-edge areas of science and technology. To develop future brain technologies both successfully and responsibly, we need to do so in ways that avoid potential pitfalls while not stifling innovation. We need approaches that ensure ordinary people can easily find out how these technologies might affect their lives and they must have a say in how theyre used. All this wont necessarily be easy responsible innovation rarely is. But through initiatives like this weeks NAS workshop and others, we have the opportunity to develop brain technologies that are profoundly beneficial, without getting caught up in an ethical minefield. Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Nicholas West writes for selfnewsPost.com. This article may be republished in part or in full with author attribution and source link. As far as Obamas Neural Brain initiative goes, maybe they could start with his own brain and those of the other politicians that run DC, who are proof people can be controlled without the need for implantable devices. As far as the devices go, if they can be used for military or population control purposes, they will be developed and used regardless of what the public thinks about them. If they have function elsewhere, this will be profit driven. All they are doing is mind control period theres no innovation here . Mad scientist crap Resistance is futile. Independence or self governance is divisive and intolerant. Battelle cares? What else do you think quantum computers will be used for? After all, every neural process of every brain on the planet is an enormous amount of data. 