Ethical Aspects of Neural Prostheses - Essay Example

? Ethical Aspects of Neural Prostheses Ethical Aspects of Neural Prostheses Extensive study has enabled man to garner understanding of the functioning of the brain. Currently, humans can explain the extensive neural system of the human brain. The human brain is a complex system although man has been slowly cracking down the coordination of the signals and activities. Psychologists and neuroscientists are using this knowledge to enhance the memory and learning process of the human brain. In addition, humans have designed procedures of restoring lost neural connections. Naturally, the human memory and learning process has deficiencies and fails at times. Cases of memory failures include absent-mindedness and forgetfulness. The effects of these failures limit the productivity and effectiveness of human beings. Therefore, human beings seek to enhance the quality of the memory in order to increase the competence of men. However, there are ethical issues surrounding the application of this knowledge. Analysis of University of South Carolina publications (2009) reveals that the concept of neural prostheses is the new invention that seeks to enhance the human cognition by constructing computer chips that on integration to the body, establish a connection between an individual and the chip. Most scientists describe these chips as ‘cognitive computers’. These chips have the potential to improve different cognitive processes of the human brain such as memory and communication. Human beings of ten suffer paralysis and other disease that limit the essential senses. These include paralysis, hearing disorders, and sight defects as well as deficiencies in other cognitive processes. The development of the first neural interfaces sought to intervene therapeutically to these defects and disabilities. The cochlear implant success in 1957 has given aid to many people. For majority of the people, such interfaces are ethically right as long as they are therapeutic (Pinel, 2009). According to the DANA foundation conference (2002), therapeutically, neural prostheses will have the power to mimic the functioning fashion of natural motors. They will have the capacity to enhance neurobiological connections and restore function in failing limbs. Limb action restoration will come because of the ability of the chips to stimulate muscle action. In the future, recovery from neuropsychological disorders may be an easier task with neural interfaces. In addition, neural interfaces will restore neural connections if they fail. These are the realms of possibilities in the future presented by advances in neural understanding. Several research ventures targeting different aspects of our cognition are underway today. These include development of neural interfaces for memory enhancement and brain robots. Others include stimulation of the brain in epileptic and depression patients. Other researchers are concentrating on imaging implants (Pinel, 2009). However, there are concerns that human beings may cross borders in the use of the new technology. Proposed use of the technology may go as far as enhancing the cognition of man to a point whereby man is susceptible to no error. Majority of those trying out the new projects believe that man can attain the level of integrity seeing only in science fiction. Some brain chips in the future will present individuals with multiple sensory connections and advanced level of connection. It is rational to establish the limits of the technology that has the potential to alter the human nature. However, the critical part will come in setting the limit point. People have differing opinions concerning the ethical use of these devices. What is ethical to some people is unethical to others. For Kevin Warwick and his wife, neural prostheses have changed the way the couple relates (Goertzel, 2002). Through chips embedded in their arms, they have the ability to transmit emotional affiliations directly to each other. One may wonder whether the technology is changing our relationships or altering the ways in which we connect. Is this going too far? With the advancing knowledge in different related fields, this technology may have no limit in the future. There are serious concerns on the level of efficacy and safety of interfaces. These interfaces work with a computer connection and it is common knowledge that a computer may crush any time. Probably, there will be an obvious loss of the connections. There is a worry that the natural connections may fade as well. With the emergence of new computer viruses each day, there may be a possibility of playing malice. Will someone be able to tamper with other’s brains by introducing viruses? (Goertzel, 2002). These are the worries surrounding the use of the new technology. Even when used for therapeutic purposes, some individuals feel that they are losing what defines them as human beings. Some people born deaf may not accept an interface because loss of the disability means losing what defines their being as unique. Will neural interfaces lead to the loss of traits that have defined our species as humans? Will they increase our capacities to a level of forgetting about being just human? The new technology may help us overcome what some psychologists have defined as ‘sins of memory ‘(DANA Foundation, 2002). However, as mush as these will intervene and correct the misfortunes that result because of our absentmindedness and forgetfulness, it may simply alter the experience of being human and of being prone to error. Neural prostheses will enable us to experience new depths of connection with the environment and people. Will this change our perceptions? What if by use of computers we could be able to perceive the thoughts and inclinations of others and probably be able to alter them, what will define the future man? Are neural prostheses taking man through a different level of evolution? The society must answer these questions before indulging into the process of enhancing our cognitive processes. Some people worry that by control of the neural interfaces, humans may lose the aspect of free will that defines the species as unique. To some people, the instincts of other animal species appear to them as free will of choice and thought. With the new interconnection, the servers of the computers may control our free will. They may control our thoughts by altering the neural connections. There is a worry that man may lose identity in the end. Human beings may become super humans. This brings into context the worry that man may be recreating himself. Religion determines the ethics of many people. To such people, God is the ultimate creator and man should not cross His boundaries. It becomes a source of concern that humans are lacking the recognition of the creator. Others feel that by enhancing cognition, humans are seeking to know too much (Goertzel, 2002). On critical thought, one may wonder what the new level of man’s ability to learn and remember will be. If majority of the individuals in society accept the neural interfaces for enhancing their natural ability, what will be the result? Probably, in the future athletes will use the new technology to enhance muscle activity. Maybe students will have ultimate memory of what they learn in school. The intelligence unit may have advanced ability to determine potential criminals. Some people will have extremes of competence in the workplace. These are possibilities with the advancing technology. There are concerns whether people with such abilities will compete on the same grounds with the rest or not. Despite all the above concerns, neural prostheses have made a difference in the lives of some individuals. Confessions of previously paralyzed individuals are evidence that the interface technology has done some good in society. It has restored independence in the paralyzed individuals making their lives better. Application of the technology has brought about clinical breakthroughs and these benefits deserve no underestimation (Maxon, 2002). The technology has both positive and negative potential. There are many clinical benefits of the technology. Restoring muscle action in limbs and connections in paralyzed individuals is remarkable. However, some interventions into memory enhancement and other automated cognitions raise many controversies. The technology must operate with limits to prevent the above-described extremes of interface application. There are legal and ethical bases under which the technology exists. In addition, one must consent to the use of the neural chips even in clinical setting. With a level of stringency, the emerging breakthroughs in computer science and psychology can benefit the human fraternity. However, the technology requires caution concerning safety. Risk assessment should be a critical step prior to any application. The neural interface technology can transform our realities positively if ethical, legal and safety measures receive priority in any research. Whether the future will come with extremes of the technology or immeasurable benefits depends on the choices made today. References Goertzel, B. (2002). The cyborgization of humanity. Retrieved on April, 14 2012, from http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/BrainCompInt.htm Maxon, R. (2002). Mind over (robotic ) matter. FDU Magazine. Retrieved on April, 14 2012, from http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/02fa/robotic.html Pinel, P. (2009). Biopsychology. New Jersey: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. The DANA Foundation. (2002). Neuroethics: Mapping the field. Retrieved on April, 14 2012, from http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=2872 University of Southern California. (2009). Center for neural engineering. Retrieved on April, 14 2012, from http://cne.usc.edu/publications/ Read More