Neurotechnology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotechnology 

Neurotechnology is any technology that has a fundamental influence on how people understand the brain and various aspects of consciousness, thought, and higher order activities in the brain. It also includes technologies that are designed to improve and repair brain function and allow researchers and clinicians to visualize the brain.

Background

The field of neurotechnology has been around for nearly half a century but has only reached maturity in the last twenty years. The advent of brain imaging revolutionized the field, allowing researchers to directly monitor the brain's activities during experiments. Neurotechnology has made significant impact on society, though its presence is so commonplace that many do not realize its ubiquity. From pharmaceutical drugs to brain scanning, neurotechnology affects nearly all industrialized people either directly or indirectly, be it from drugs for depression, sleep, ADD, or anti-neurotics to cancer scanning, stroke rehabilitation, and much more.

As the field's depth increases it will potentially allow society to control and harness more of what the brain does and how it influences lifestyles and personalities. Commonplace technologies already attempt to do this; games like BrainAge, and programs like Fast ForWord that aim to improve brain function, are neurotechnologies.

Currently, modern science can image nearly all aspects of the brain as well as control a degree of the function of the brain. It can help control depression, over-activation, sleep deprivation, and many other conditions. Therapeutically it can help improve stroke victims' motor coordination, improve brain function, reduce epileptic episodes (see epilepsy), improve patients with degenerative motor diseases (Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, ALS), and can even help alleviate phantom pain perception. Advances in the field promise many new enhancements and rehabilitation methods for patients suffering from neurological problems. The neurotechnology revolution has given rise to the Decade of the Mind initiative, which was started in 2007. It also offers the possibility of revealing the mechanisms by which mind and consciousness emerge from the brain.

Current technologies

Live Imaging

Magnetoencephalography is a functional neuroimaging technique for mapping brain activity by recording magnetic fields produced by electrical currents occurring naturally in the brain, using very sensitive magnetometers. Arrays of SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices) are the most common magnetometer. Applications of MEG include basic research into perceptual and cognitive brain processes, localizing regions affected by pathology before surgical removal, determining the function of various parts of the brain, and neurofeedback. This can be applied in a clinical setting to find locations of abnormalities as well as in an experimental setting to simply measure brain activity.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used for scanning the brain for topological and landmark structure in the brain, but can also be used for imaging activation in the brain. While detail about how MRI works is reserved for the actual MRI article, the uses of MRI are far reaching in the study of neuroscience. It is a cornerstone technology in studying the mind, especially with the advent of functional MRI (fMRI). Functional MRI measures the oxygen levels in the brain upon activation (higher oxygen content = neural activation) and allows researchers to understand what loci are responsible for activation under a given stimulus. This technology is a large improvement to single cell or loci activation by means of exposing the brain and contact stimulation. Functional MRI allows researchers to draw associative relationships between different loci and regions of the brain and provides a large amount of knowledge in establishing new landmarks and loci in the brain.

Computed tomography (CT) is another technology used for scanning the brain. It has been used since the 1970s and is another tool used by neuroscientists to track brain structure and activation. While many of the functions of CT scans are now done using MRI, CT can still be used as the mode by which brain activation and brain injury are detected. Using an X-ray, researchers can detect radioactive markers in the brain that indicate brain activation as a tool to establish relationships in the brain as well as detect many injuries/diseases that can cause lasting damage to the brain such as aneurysms, degeneration, and cancer.

Positron emission tomography (PET) is another imaging technology that aids researchers. Instead of using magnetic resonance or X-rays, PET scans rely on positron emitting markers that are bound to a biologically relevant marker such as glucose. The more activation in the brain the more that region requires nutrients, so higher activation appears more brightly on an image of the brain. PET scans are becoming more frequently used by researchers because PET scans are activated due to metabolism whereas MRI is activated on a more physiological basis (sugar activation versus oxygen activation).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is essentially direct magnetic stimulation to the brain. Because electric currents and magnetic fields are intrinsically related, by stimulating the brain with magnetic pulses it is possible to interfere with specific loci in the brain to produce a predictable effect. This field of study is currently receiving a large amount of attention due to the potential benefits that could come out of better understanding this technology. Transcranial magnetic movement of particles in the brain shows promise for drug targeting and delivery as studies have demonstrated this to be noninvasive on brain physiology.

Transcranial direct current stimulation

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of neurostimulation which uses constant, low current delivered via electrodes placed on the scalp. The mechanisms underlying tDCS effects are still incompletely understood, but recent advances in neurotechnology allowing for in vivo assessment of brain electric activity during tDCS promise to advance understanding of these mechanisms. Research into using tDCS on healthy adults have demonstrated that tDCS can increase cognitive performance on a variety of tasks, depending on the area of the brain being stimulated. tDCS has been used to enhance language and mathematical ability (though one form of tDCS was also found to inhibit math learning), attention span, problem solving, memory, and coordination.

Cranial surface measurements

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a method of measuring brainwave activity non-invasively. A number of electrodes are placed around the head and scalp and electrical signals are measured. Typically EEGs are used when dealing with sleep, as there are characteristic wave patterns associated with different stages of sleep. Clinically EEGs are used to study epilepsy as well as stroke and tumor presence in the brain. EEGs are a different method to understand the electrical signaling in the brain during activation.

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is another method of measuring activity in the brain by measuring the magnetic fields that arise from electrical currents in the brain. The benefit to using MEG instead of EEG is that these fields are highly localized and give rise to better understanding of how specific loci react to stimulation or if these regions over-activate (as in epileptic seizures).

Implant technologies

Neurodevices are any devices used to monitor or regulate brain activity. Currently there are a few available for clinical use as a treatment for Parkinson's disease. The most common neurodevices are deep brain stimulators (DBS) that are used to give electrical stimulation to areas stricken by inactivity. Parkinson's disease is known to be caused by an inactivation of the basal ganglia (nuclei) and recently DBS has become the more preferred form of treatment for Parkinson's disease, although current research questions the efficiency of DBS for movement disorders.

Neuromodulation is a relatively new field that combines the use of neurodevices and neurochemistry. The basis of this field is that the brain can be regulated using a number of different factors (metabolic, electrical stimulation, physiological) and that all these can be modulated by devices implanted in the neural network. While currently this field is still in the researcher phase, it represents a new type of technological integration in the field of neurotechnology. The brain is a very sensitive organ, so in addition to researching the amazing things that neuromodulation and implanted neural devices can produce, it is important to research ways to create devices that elicit as few negative responses from the body as possible. This can be done by modifying the material surface chemistry of neural implants.

Cell therapy

Researchers have begun looking at uses for stem cells in the brain, which recently have been found in a few loci. A large number of studies are being done to determine if this form of therapy could be used in a large scale. Experiments have successfully used stem cells in the brains of children who suffered from injuries in gestation and elderly people with degenerative diseases in order to induce the brain to produce new cells and to make more connections between neurons.

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals play a vital role in maintaining stable brain chemistry, and are the most commonly used neurotechnology by the general public and medicine. Drugs like sertraline, methylphenidate, and zolpidem act as chemical modulators in the brain, and they allow for normal activity in many people whose brains cannot act normally under physiological conditions. While pharmaceuticals are usually not mentioned and have their own field, the role of pharmaceuticals is perhaps the most far-reaching and commonplace in modern society (the focus on this article will largely ignore neuropharmaceuticals, for more information, see neuropsychopharmacology). Movement of magnetic particles to targeted brain regions for drug delivery is an emerging field of study and causes no detectable circuit damage.

Low field magnetic stimulation

Stimulation with low-intensity magnetic fields is currently under study for depression at Harvard Medical School, and has previously been explored by Bell. It has FDA approval for treatment of depression. It is also being researched for other applications such as autism. One issue is that no two brains are alike and stimulation can cause either polarization or depolarization. (et al.), Marino (et al.), and others.

How these help study the brain

Magnetic resonance imaging is a vital tool in neurological research in showing activation in the brain as well as providing a comprehensive image of the brain being studied. While MRIs are used clinically for showing brain size, it still has relevance in the study of brains because it can be used to determine extent of injuries or deformation. These can have a significant effect on personality, sense perception, memory, higher order thinking, movement, and spatial understanding. However, current research tends to focus more so on fMRI or real-time functional MRI (rtfMRI). These two methods allow the scientist or the participant, respectively, to view activation in the brain. This is incredibly vital in understanding how a person thinks and how their brain reacts to a person's environment, as well as understanding how the brain works under various stressors or dysfunctions. Real-time functional MRI is a revolutionary tool available to neurologists and neuroscientists because patients can see how their brain reacts to stressors and can perceive visual feedback. CT scans are very similar to MRI in their academic use because they can be used to image the brain upon injury, but they are more limited in perceptual feedback. CTs are generally used in clinical studies far more than in academic studies, and are found far more often in a hospital than a research facility. PET scans are also finding more relevance in academia because they can be used to observe metabolic uptake of neurons, giving researchers a wider perspective about neural activity in the brain for a given condition. Combinations of these methods can provide researchers with knowledge of both physiological and metabolic behaviors of loci in the brain and can be used to explain activation and deactivation of parts of the brain under specific conditions.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a relatively new method of studying how the brain functions and is used in many research labs focused on behavioral disorders and hallucinations. What makes TMS research so interesting in the neuroscience community is that it can target specific regions of the brain and shut them down or activate temporarily; thereby changing the way the brain behaves. Personality disorders can stem from a variety of external factors, but when the disorder stems from the circuitry of the brain TMS can be used to deactivate the circuitry. This can give rise to a number of responses, ranging from “normality” to something more unexpected, but current research is based on the theory that use of TMS could radically change treatment and perhaps act as a cure for personality disorders and hallucinations. Currently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is being researched to see if this deactivation effect can be made more permanent in patients suffering from these disorders. Some techniques combine TMS and another scanning method such as EEG to get additional information about brain activity such as cortical response.

Both EEG and MEG are currently being used to study the brain's activity under different conditions. Each uses similar principles but allows researchers to examine individual regions of the brain, allowing isolation and potentially specific classification of active regions. As mentioned above, EEG is very useful in analysis of immobile patients, typically during the sleep cycle. While there are other types of research that utilize EEG, EEG has been fundamental in understanding the resting brain during sleep. There are other potential uses for EEG and MEG such as charting rehabilitation and improvement after trauma as well as testing neural conductivity in specific regions of epileptics or patients with personality disorders.

Neuromodulation can involve numerous technologies combined or used independently to achieve a desired effect in the brain. Gene and cell therapy are becoming more prevalent in research and clinical trials and these technologies could help stunt or even reverse disease progression in the central nervous system. Deep brain stimulation is currently used in many patients with movement disorders and is used to improve the quality of life in patients. While deep brain stimulation is a method to study how the brain functions per se, it provides both surgeons and neurologists important information about how the brain works when certain small regions of the basal ganglia (nuclei) are stimulated by electrical currents.

Future technologies

The future of neurotechnologies lies in how they are fundamentally applied, and not so much on what new versions will be developed. Current technologies give a large amount of insight into the mind and how the brain functions, but basic research is still needed to demonstrate the more applied functions of these technologies. Currently, rtfMRI is being researched as a method for pain therapy have shown that there is a significant improvement in the way people perceive pain if they are made aware of how their brain is functioning while in pain. By providing direct and understandable feedback, researchers can help patients with chronic pain decrease their symptoms. This new type of bio/mechanical-feedback is a new development in pain therapy. Functional MRI is also being considered for a number of more applicable uses outside of the clinic. Research has been done on testing the efficiency of mapping the brain in the case when someone lies as a new way to detect lying. Along the same vein, EEG has been considered for use in lie detection as well. TMS is being used in a variety of potential therapies for patients with personality disorders, epilepsy, PTSD, migraine, and other brain-firing disorders, but has been found to have varying clinical success for each condition. The end result of such research would be to develop a method to alter the brain's perception and firing and train patients' brains to rewire permanently under inhibiting conditions (for more information see rTMS). In addition, PET scans have been found to be 93% accurate in detecting Alzheimer's disease nearly 3 years before conventional diagnosis, indicating that PET scanning is becoming more useful in both the laboratory and the clinic.

Stem cell technologies are always salient both in the minds of the general public and scientists because of their large potential. Recent advances in stem cell research have allowed researchers to ethically pursue studies in nearly every facet of the body, which includes the brain. Research has shown that while most of the brain does not regenerate and is typically a very difficult environment to foster regeneration, there are portions of the brain with regenerative capabilities (specifically the hippocampus and the olfactory bulbs). Much of the research in central nervous system regeneration is how to overcome this poor regenerative quality of the brain. It is important to note that there are therapies that improve cognition and increase the amount of neural pathways, but this does not mean that there is a proliferation of neural cells in the brain. Rather, it is called a plastic rewiring of the brain (plastic because it indicates malleability) and is considered a vital part of growth. Nevertheless, many problems in patients stem from death of neurons in the brain, and researchers in the field are striving to produce technologies that enable regeneration in patients with stroke, Parkinson's diseases, severe trauma, and Alzheimer's disease, as well as many others. While still in fledgling stages of development, researchers have recently begun making very interesting progress in attempting to treat these diseases. Researchers have recently successfully produced dopaminergic neurons for transplant in patients with Parkinson's diseases with the hopes that they will be able to move again with a more steady supply of dopamine. Many researchers are building scaffolds that could be transplanted into a patient with spinal cord trauma to present an environment that promotes growth of axons (portions of the cell attributed with transmission of electrical signals) so that patients unable to move or feel might be able to do so again. The potentials are wide-ranging, but it is important to note that many of these therapies are still in the laboratory phase and are slowly being adapted in the clinic. Some scientists remain skeptical with the development of the field, and warn that there is a much larger chance that electrical prosthesis will be developed to solve clinical problems such as hearing loss or paralysis before cell therapy is used in a clinic.

Novel drug delivery systems are being researched in order to improve the lives of those who struggle with brain disorders that might not be treated with stem cells, modulation, or rehabilitation. Pharmaceuticals play a very important role in society, and the brain has a very selective barrier that prevents some drugs from going from the blood to the brain. There are some diseases of the brain such as meningitis that require doctors to directly inject medicine into the spinal cord because the drug cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Research is being conducted to investigate new methods of targeting the brain using the blood supply, as it is much easier to inject into the blood than the spine. New technologies such as nanotechnology are being researched for selective drug delivery, but these technologies have problems as with any other. One of the major setbacks is that when a particle is too large, the patient's liver will take up the particle and degrade it for excretion, but if the particle is too small there will not be enough drug in the particle to take effect. In addition, the size of the capillary pore is important because too large a particle might not fit or even plug up the hole, preventing adequate supply of the drug to the brain. Other research is involved in integrating a protein device between the layers to create a free-flowing gate that is unimpeded by the limitations of the body. Another direction is receptor-mediated transport, where receptors in the brain used to transport nutrients are manipulated to transport drugs across the blood–brain barrier. Some have even suggested that focused ultrasound opens the blood–brain barrier momentarily and allows free passage of chemicals into the brain. Ultimately the goal for drug delivery is to develop a method that maximizes the amount of drug in the loci with as little degraded in the blood stream as possible.

Neuromodulation is a technology currently used for patients with movement disorders, although research is currently being done to apply this technology to other disorders. Recently, a study was done on if DBS could improve depression with positive results, indicating that this technology might have potential as a therapy for multiple disorders in the brain. DBS is limited by its high cost however, and in developing countries the availability of DBS is very limited. A new version of DBS is under investigation and has developed into the novel field, optogenetics. Optogenetics is the combination of deep brain stimulation with fiber optics and gene therapy. Essentially, the fiber optic cables are designed to light up under electrical stimulation, and a protein would be added to a neuron via gene therapy to excite it under light stimuli. So by combining these three independent fields, a surgeon could excite a single and specific neuron in order to help treat a patient with some disorder. Neuromodulation offers a wide degree of therapy for many patients, but due to the nature of the disorders it is currently used to treat its effects are often temporary. Future goals in the field hope to alleviate that problem by increasing the years of effect until DBS can be used for the remainder of the patient's life. Another use for neuromodulation would be in building neuro-interface prosthetic devices that would allow quadriplegics the ability to maneuver a cursor on a screen with their thoughts, thereby increasing their ability to interact with others around them. By understanding the motor cortex and understanding how the brain signals motion, it is possible to emulate this response on a computer screen.

Ethics

Stem cells

The ethical debate about use of embryonic stem cells has stirred controversy both in the United States and abroad; although more recently these debates have lessened due to modern advances in creating induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells. The greatest advantage for use of embryonic stem cells is the fact that they can differentiate (become) nearly any type of cell provided the right conditions and signals. However, recent advances by Shinya Yamanaka et al. have found ways to create pluripotent cells without the use of such controversial cell cultures. Using the patient's own cells and re-differentiating them into the desired cell type bypasses both possible patient rejection of the embryonic stem cells and any ethical concerns associated with using them, while also providing researchers a larger supply of available cells. However, induced pluripotent cells have the potential to form benign (though potentially malignant) tumors, and tend to have poor survivability in vivo (in the living body) on damaged tissue. Much of the ethics concerning use of stem cells has subsided from the embryonic/adult stem cell debate due to its rendered moot, but now societies find themselves debating whether or not this technology can be ethically used. Enhancements of traits, use of animals for tissue scaffolding, and even arguments for moral degeneration have been made with the fears that if this technology reaches its full potential a new paradigm shift will occur in human behavior.

Military application

New neurotechnologies have always garnered the appeal of governments, from lie detection technology and virtual reality to rehabilitation and understanding the psyche. Due to the Iraq War and War on Terror, American soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are reported to have percentages up to 12% with PTSD. There are many researchers hoping to improve these peoples' conditions by implementing new strategies for recovery. By combining pharmaceuticals and neurotechnologies, some researchers have discovered ways of lowering the "fear" response and theorize that it may be applicable to PTSD. Virtual reality is another technology that has drawn much attention in the military. If improved, it could be possible to train soldiers how to deal with complex situations in times of peace, in order to better prepare and train a modern army.

Privacy

Finally, when these technologies are being developed society must understand that these neurotechnologies could reveal the one thing that people can always keep secret: what they are thinking. While there are large amounts of benefits associated with these technologies, it is necessary for scientists, citizens and policy makers alike to consider implications for privacy. This term is important in many ethical circles concerned with the state and goals of progress in the field of neurotechnology. Current improvements such as “brain fingerprinting” or lie detection using EEG or fMRI could give rise to a set fixture of loci/emotional relationships in the brain, although these technologies are still years away from full application. It is important to consider how all these neurotechnologies might affect the future of society, and it is suggested that political, scientific, and civil debates are heard about the implementation of these newer technologies that potentially offer a new wealth of once-private information. Some ethicists are also concerned with the use of TMS and fear that the technique could be used to alter patients in ways that are undesired by the patient.

Cognitive liberty

Cognitive liberty refers to a suggested right to self-determination of individuals to control their own mental processes, cognition, and consciousness including by the use of various neurotechnologies and psychoactive substances. This perceived right is relevant for reformation and development of associated laws.

Brain implant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_implant 

 

A laboratory rat with a brain implant used to record neuronal activity

Brain implants, often referred to as neural implants, are technological devices that connect directly to a biological subject's brain – usually placed on the surface of the brain, or attached to the brain's cortex. A common purpose of modern brain implants and the focus of much current research is establishing a biomedical prosthesis circumventing areas in the brain that have become dysfunctional after a stroke or other head injuries. This includes sensory substitution, e.g., in vision. Other brain implants are used in animal experiments simply to record brain activity for scientific reasons. Some brain implants involve creating interfaces between neural systems and computer chips. This work is part of a wider research field called brain-computer interfaces. (Brain-computer interface research also includes technology such as EEG arrays that allow interface between mind and machine but do not require direct implantation of a device.)

Neural implants such as deep brain stimulation and Vagus nerve stimulation are increasingly becoming routine for patients with Parkinson's disease and clinical depression, respectively.

Purpose

Brain implants electrically stimulate, block or record (or both record and stimulate simultaneously) signals from single neurons or groups of neurons (biological neural networks) in the brain. The blocking technique is called intra-abdominal vagal blocking. This can only be done where the functional associations of these neurons are approximately known. Because of the complexity of neural processing and the lack of access to action potential related signals using neuroimaging techniques, the application of brain implants has been seriously limited until recent advances in neurophysiology and computer processing power. Much research is also being done on the surface chemistry of neural implants in effort to design products which minimize all negative effects that an active implant can have on the brain, and that the body can have on the function of the implant. Researchers are also exploring a range of delivery systems, such as using veins, to deliver these implants without brain surgery; by leaving the skull sealed shut, patients could receive their neural implants without running as great a risk of seizures, strokes, or permanent neural impairments, all of which can be caused by open-brain surgery.

Research and applications

Research in sensory substitution has made significant progress since 1970. Especially in vision, due to the knowledge of the working of the visual system, eye implants (often involving some brain implants or monitoring) have been applied with demonstrated success. For hearing, cochlear implants are used to stimulate the auditory nerve directly. The vestibulocochlear nerve is part of the peripheral nervous system, but the interface is similar to that of true brain implants.

Multiple projects have demonstrated success at recording from the brains of animals for long periods of time. As early as 1976, researchers at the NIH led by Edward Schmidt made action potential recordings of signals from rhesus monkey motor cortexes using immovable "hatpin" electrodes, including recording from single neurons for over 30 days, and consistent recordings for greater than three years from the best electrodes.

The "hatpin" electrodes were made of pure iridium and insulated with Parylene, materials that are currently used in the Cyberkinetics implementation of the Utah array. These same electrodes, or derivations thereof using the same biocompatible electrode materials, are currently used in visual prosthetics laboratories, laboratories studying the neural basis of learning, and motor prosthetics approaches other than the Cyberkinetics probes.

Schematic of the "Utah" Electrode Array

Other laboratory groups produce their own implants to provide unique capabilities not available from the commercial products.

Breakthroughs include: studies of the process of functional brain re-wiring throughout the learning of a sensory discrimination, control of physical devices by rat brains, monkeys over robotic arms, remote control of mechanical devices by monkeys and humans, remote control over the movements of roaches, the first reported use of the Utah Array in a human for bidirectional signalling. Currently a number of groups are conducting preliminary motor prosthetic implants in humans. These studies are presently limited to several months by the longevity of the implants. The array now forms the sensor component of the Braingate.

Much research is also being done on the surface chemistry of neural implants in effort to design products which minimize all negative effects that an active implant can have on the brain, and that the body can have on the function of the implant.

Another type of neural implant that is being experimented on is Prosthetic Neuronal Memory Silicon Chips, which imitate the signal processing done by functioning neurons that allows peoples' brains to create long-term memories.

In 2016, scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign announced development of tiny brain sensors for use postoperative monitoring, which melt away when they are no longer needed.

In 2016, scientists out of the University of Melbourne published proof-of-concept data related to a discovery for Stentrode, a device implanted via the jugular vein, demonstrated the potential for a neural recording device to be engineered onto a stent and implanted into a blood vessel in the brain, without the need for open brain surgery. The technology platform is being developed for patients with paralysis to facilitate control of external devices such as robotic limbs, computers and exoskeletons by translating brain activity. It may ultimately help diagnose and treat a range of brain pathologies, such as epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.

Military

DARPA has announced its interest in developing "cyborg insects" to transmit data from sensors implanted into the insect during the pupal stage. The insect's motion would be controlled from a Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) and could conceivably survey an environment or detect explosives and gas. Similarly, DARPA is developing a neural implant to remotely control the movement of sharks. The shark's unique senses would then be exploited to provide data feedback in relation to enemy ship movement or underwater explosives.

In 2006, researchers at Cornell University invented a new surgical procedure to implant artificial structures into insects during their metamorphic development. The first insect cyborgs, moths with integrated electronics in their thorax, were demonstrated by the same researchers. The initial success of the techniques has resulted in increased research and the creation of a program called Hybrid-Insect-MEMS, HI-MEMS. Its goal, according to DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office, is to develop "tightly coupled machine-insect interfaces by placing micro-mechanical systems inside the insects during the early stages of metamorphosis".

The use of neural implants has recently been attempted, with success, on cockroaches. Surgically applied electrodes were put on the insect, which were remotely controlled by a human. The results, although sometimes different, basically showed that the cockroach could be controlled by the impulses it received through the electrodes. DARPA is now funding this research because of its obvious beneficial applications to the military and other areas

In 2009 at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Micro-electronic mechanical systems (MEMS) conference in Italy, researchers demonstrated the first "wireless" flying-beetle cyborg. Engineers at the University of California at Berkeley pioneered the design of a "remote controlled beetle", funded by the DARPA HI-MEMS Program. This was followed later that year by the demonstration of wireless control of a "lift-assisted" moth-cyborg.

Eventually researchers plan to develop HI-MEMS for dragonflies, bees, rats and pigeons. For the HI-MEMS cybernetic bug to be considered a success, it must fly 100 metres (330 ft) from a starting point, guided via computer into a controlled landing within 5 metres (16 ft) of a specific end point. Once landed, the cybernetic bug must remain in place.

In 2012, DARPA provided seed funding to Dr. Thomas Oxley, a neurointerventionist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, for a technology that became known as Stentrode. Oxley’s group in Australia was the only non-US-based funded by DARPA as part of the Reliable Neural Interface Technology (RE-NET) program. This technology is the first to attempt to provide neural implants through a minimally invasive surgical procedure that does not require cutting into the skull. That is, an electrode array built onto a self-expanding stent, implanted into the brain via cerebral angiography. This pathway can provide safe, easy access and capture a strong signal for a number of indications beyond addressing paralysis, and is currently in clinical trials in patients with severe paralysis seeking to regain the ability to communicate.

In 2015 it was reported that scientists from the Perception and Recognition Neuro-technologies Laboratory at the Southern Federal University in Rostov-on-Don suggested using rats with microchips planted in their brains to detect explosive devices.

In 2016 it was reported that American engineers are developing a system that would transform locusts into "remote controlled explosive detectors" with electrodes in their brains beaming information about dangerous substances back to their operators.

Rehabilitation

Neurostimulators have been in use since 1997 to ease the symptoms of such diseases as epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, dystonia and recently depression.

Current brain implants are made from a variety of materials such as tungsten, silicon, platinum-iridium, or even stainless steel. Future brain implants may make use of more exotic materials such as nanoscale carbon fibers (nanotubes), and polycarbonate urethane.

Brain implants are also being explored by DARPA as part of the Reliable Neural-Interface Technology (RE-NET) program launched in 2010 to directly address the need for high-performance neural interfaces to control the dexterous functions made possible by DARPA’s advanced prosthetic limbs. The goal is to provide high-bandwidth, intuitive control interface for these limbs, in order to achieve their full potential to improve quality of life for wounded troops.

Historical research

In 1870, Eduard Hitzig and Gustav Fritsch demonstrated that electrical stimulation of the brains of dogs could produce movements. Robert Bartholow showed the same to be true for humans in 1874. By the start of the 20th century, Fedor Krause began to systematically map human brain areas, using patients that had undergone brain surgery.

Prominent research was conducted in the 1950s. Robert G. Heath experimented with aggressive mental patients, aiming to influence his subjects' moods through electrical stimulation.

Yale University physiologist Jose Delgado demonstrated limited control of animal and human subjects' behaviours using electronic stimulation. He invented the stimoceiver or transdermal stimulator, a device implanted in the brain to transmit electrical impulses that modify basic behaviours such as aggression or sensations of pleasure.

Delgado was later to write a popular book on mind control, called Physical Control of the Mind, where he stated: "the feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated [...] The ultimate objective of this research is to provide an understanding of the mechanisms involved in the directional control of animals and to provide practical systems suitable for human application."

In the 1950s, the CIA also funded research into mind control techniques, through programs such as MKULTRA. Perhaps because he received funding for some research through the US Office of Naval Research, it has been suggested (but not proven) that Delgado also received backing through the CIA. He denied this claim in a 2005 article in Scientific American describing it only as a speculation by conspiracy-theorists. He stated that his research was only progressively scientifically motivated to understand how the brain works.

Recent advances in neurotechnologies and neuroimaging, along with an increased understanding of neurocircuitry, are factors contributing to the rapid rise in the use of neurostimulation therapies to treat an increasingly wide range of neurologic and psychiatric disorders. Electrical stimulation technologies are evolving after remaining fairly stagnant for the past 30 years, moving toward potential closed-loop therapeutic control systems with the ability to deliver stimulation with higher spatial resolution to provide continuous customized neuromodulation for optimal clinical outcomes.

Concerns and ethical considerations

Ethical questions raised include who are good candidates to receive neural implants and what are good and bad uses of neural implants. Whilst deep brain stimulation is increasingly becoming routine for patients with Parkinson's disease, there may be some behavioural side effects. Reports in the literature describe the possibility of apathy, hallucinations, compulsive gambling, hypersexuality, cognitive dysfunction, and depression. However, these may be temporary and related to correct placement and calibration of the stimulator and so are potentially reversible.

Some transhumanists, such as Raymond Kurzweil and Kevin Warwick, see brain implants as part of a next step for humans in progress and evolution, whereas others, especially bioconservatives, view them as unnatural, with humankind losing essential human qualities. It raises controversy similar to other forms of human enhancement. For instance, it is argued that implants would technically change people into cybernetic organisms (cyborgs). It's also expected that all research will comply to the Declaration of Helsinki. Yet further, the usual legal duties apply such as information to the person wearing implants and that the implants are voluntary, with (very) few exceptions.

Other concerns involve vulnerabilities of neural implants to cybercrime or intrusive surveillance as neural implants could be hacked, misused or misdesigned.

Sadja states that "one's private thoughts are important to protect" and doesn't consider it a good idea to just charge the government or any company with protecting them. Walter Glannon, a neuroethicist of the University of Calgary notes that "there is a risk of the microchips being hacked by third parties" and that "this could interfere with the user's intention to perform actions, violate privacy by extracting information from the chip".

In fiction and philosophy

Brain implants are now part of modern culture but there were early philosophical references of relevance as far back as René Descartes.

In his 1641 Meditations, Descartes argued that it would be impossible to tell if all one's apparently real experiences were in fact being produced by an evil demon intent on deception. A modern twist on Descartes' argument is provided by the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, which imagines a brain, sustained apart from its body in a vat of nutrients, and hooked up to a computer which is capable of stimulating it in such a way as to produce the illusion that everything is normal.

Popular science fiction discussing brain implants and mind control became widespread in the 20th century, often with a dystopian outlook. Literature in the 1970s delved into the topic, including The Terminal Man by Michael Crichton, where a man suffering from brain damage receives an experimental surgical brain implant designed to prevent seizures, which he abuses by triggering for pleasure. Another example is Larry Niven's science fiction writing of wire-heads in his "Known Space" stories.

A somewhat more positive view of brain implants used to communicate with a computer as a form of augmented intelligence is seen in Algis Budrys 1976 novel Michaelmas.

Fear that the technology will be misused by the government and military is an early theme. In the 1981 BBC serial The Nightmare Man the pilot of a high-tech mini submarine is linked to his craft via a brain implant but becomes a savage killer after ripping out the implant.

Perhaps the most influential novel exploring the world of brain implants was William Gibson's 1984 novel Neuromancer. This was the first novel in a genre that came to be known as "cyberpunk". It follows a computer hacker through a world where mercenaries are augmented with brain implants to enhance strength, vision, memory, etc. Gibson coins the term "matrix" and introduces the concept of "jacking in" with head electrodes or direct implants. He also explores possible entertainment applications of brain implants such as the "simstim" (simulated stimulation) which is a device used to record and playback experiences.

Gibson's work led to an explosion in popular culture references to brain implants. Its influences are felt, for example, in the 1989 roleplaying game Shadowrun, which borrowed his term "datajack" to describe a brain-computer interface. The implants in Gibson's novels and short stories formed the template for the 1995 film Johnny Mnemonic and later, The Matrix Trilogy.

Pulp fiction with implants or brain implants include the novel series Typers, film Spider-Man 2, the TV series Earth: Final Conflict, and numerous computer/video games.

• The Gap Cycle (The Gap into): In Stephen R. Donaldson's series of novels, the use (and misuse) of "zone implant" technology is key to several plotlines.
• Ghost in the Shell anime and manga franchise: Cyberbrain neural augmentation technology is the focus. Implants of powerful computers provide vastly increased memory capacity, total recall, as well as the ability to view his or her own memories on an external viewing device. Users can also initiate a telepathic conversation with other cyberbrain users, the downsides being cyberbrain hacking, malicious memory alteration, and the deliberate distortion of subjective reality and experience.
• In Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Oath of Fealty (1981) an arcology with high surveillance and feudal-like society is built by a private company due to riots around Los Angeles. Its systems are run by MILLIE, an advanced computer system, with some high-level executives being able to communicate directly with it and given omniscience of the arcology's workings via expensive implants in their brains.

Film

• Brainstorm (1983): The military tries to take control over a new technology that can record and transfer thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
• RoboCop (1987) Science fiction action film. Police officer Alex Murphy is murdered and revived as a superhuman cyborg law enforcer.
• Johnny Mnemonic (1995): The main character acts as a "mnemonic courier" by way of a storage implant in his brain, allowing him to carry sensitive information undetected between parties.
• The Manchurian Candidate (2004): For a means of mind control, the presidential hopeful Raymond Shaw unknowingly has a chip implanted in his head by Manchurian Global, a fictional geopolitical organization aimed at making parts of the government sleeper cells, or puppets for their monetary advancement.
• Hardwired (2009): A corporation attempting to bring marketing to the next level implants a chip into main character's brain.
• Terminator Salvation (2009): A character named Marcus Wright discovers he is a Cyborg and must choose to fight for humans or an evil Artificial intelligence.

Television

• The Happiness Cage (1972) A German scientist works on a way of quelling overly aggressive soldiers by developing implants that directly stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain. Also known as The Mind Snatchers.
• Six Million Dollar Man (1974 to 1978) Steve Austin suffers an accident and is rebuilt as a cyborg.
• The Bionic Woman (1976 to 1978) Jaime Sommers suffers an accident and is rebuilt as a cyborg.
• Blake's 7: Olag Gan, a character, has a brain implant which is supposed to prevent future aggression after being convicted of killing an officer from the oppressive Federation.
• Dark Angel: The notorious Red Series use neuro-implants pushed into their brain stem at the base of their skull to amp them up and hyper-adrenalize them and make them almost unstoppable. Unfortunately the effects of the implant burn out their system after six months to a year and kill them.
• The X-Files (episode:Duane Barry, relevant to the overreaching mytharc of the series.): FBI Agent Dana Scully discovers an implant set under the skin at the back of her neck which can read her every thought and change memory through electrical signals that alter the brain chemistry.
• Star Trek franchise: Members of the Borg collective are equipped with brain implants which connect them to the Borg collective consciousness.
• Stargate SG-1 franchise: Advanced replicators, the Asuran interface with humans by inserting their hand into the brain of humans.
• Fringe: The Observers use a needle like, self-guided implant which allows them to read the minds of others at the expense of emotion. The implant also allows for short range teleportation and increases intelligence.
• Person of Interest, Season 4. Episode 81 or 13. Title "M.I.A" "One of many innocent people who Samaritan operatives are experimenting on with neural implants."
• Brain implants appear in several episodes of The Outer Limits: in the episode "Straight and Narrow", students are forced to have brain implants and are controlled by them. In "The Message", a character named Jennifer Winter receives a brain implant to hear. In "Living Hell", a character named Ben Kohler receives a brain implant to save his life. And in "Judgment Day", a character who is judged a criminal has a chip implanted on the medulla oblongata of the lower brainstem . The forcibly implanted chip induces overwhelming pain and disorientation by a remote control within range. In the episode "Awakening", season three, episode 10, a neurologically impaired woman receives a brain implant to help her become more like a typical human.
• Black Mirror, a British science fiction television anthology series, has several episodes in which characters have implants on their head or in their brain or eyes, providing video recording and playback, augmented reality, and communication.
• Earth: Final Conflict, in season 1, episode 12, named "Sandoval's Run", the character named Sandoval experiences the breakdown of his brain implant.
• Earth: Final Conflict, in season 4, episode 12, named "The Summit", the character named Liam is implanted with a neural surveillance device.

Video games

• In the video games PlanetSide and Chrome, players can use implants to improve their aim, run faster, and see better, along with other enhancements.
• The Deus Ex video game series addresses the nature and impact of human enhancement with regard to a wide variety of prosthesis and brain implants. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, set in 2027, details the impact on society of human augmentation and the controversy it could generate. Several characters in the game have implanted neurochips to aid their professions (or their whims). Examples are of a helicopter pilot with implanted chips to better pilot her aircraft and analyse flight paths, velocity and spatial awareness, a CEO getting an artificial arm to throw a baseball better, as well as a hacker with a brain-computer interface that allows direct access to computer networks and also to act as a 'human proxy' to allow an individual in a remote location to control his actions.

The game raises the question of the downsides of this kind of augmentation as those who cannot afford the enhancements (or object to getting them) rapidly find themselves at a serious disadvantage against people with artificial enhancement of their abilities. The spectre of being forced to have mechanical or electronic enhancements just to get a job is explored as well. The storyline addresses the effect of implant rejection by use of the fictional drug 'Neuropozyne' which breaks down glial tissue and is also fiercely addictive, leaving people who have augmentations little choice but to continue buying the drug from a single biotech corporation who controls the price of it. Without the drug augmented people experience rejection of implants (along with ensuing loss of implant functionality), crippling pain, and possible death.

• In the video game AI: The Somnium Files, a direct neural interface is used to invasively interface the thoughts and dreams of two individuals to the extent that one person could forcibly extract information from another person's brain. Although the ethics of it are not discussed much, the significant concerns presented by this sort of technology, such as blending of the minds of connected individuals or trading thereof, and forced invasive interfacing are brought up and form part of the core narrative.

Neuroethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics

Neuroethics refers to two related fields of study: what the philosopher Adina Roskies has called the ethics of neuroscience, and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience comprises the bulk of work in neuroethics. It concerns the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroscience, including the ways in which neurotechnology can be used to predict or alter human behavior and "the implications of our mechanistic understanding of brain function for society... integrating neuroscientific knowledge with ethical and social thought".

Some neuroethics problems are not fundamentally different from those encountered in bioethics. Others are unique to neuroethics because the brain, as the organ of the mind, has implications for broader philosophical problems, such as the nature of free will, moral responsibility, self-deception, and personal identity. Examples of neuroethics topics are given later in this article ("Key issues in neuroethics").

The origin of the term "neuroethics" has occupied some writers. Rees and Rose (as cited in "References" on page 9) claim neuroethics is a neologism that emerged only at the beginning of the 21st century, largely through the oral and written communications of ethicists and philosophers. According to Racine (2010), the term was coined by the Harvard physician Anneliese A. Pontius in 1973 in a paper entitled "Neuro-ethics of 'walking' in the newborn" for the Perceptual and Motor Skills. The author reproposed the term in 1993 in her paper for Psychological Report, often wrongly mentioned as the first title containing the word "neuroethics". Before 1993, the American neurologist Ronald Cranford has used the term (see Cranford 1989). Illes (2003) records uses, from the scientific literature, from 1989 and 1991. Writer William Safire is widely credited with giving the word its current meaning in 2002, defining it as "the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain".

Two categories of problems

Neuroethics encompasses the myriad ways in which developments in basic and clinical neuroscience intersect with social and ethical issues. The field is so young that any attempt to define its scope and limits now will undoubtedly be proved wrong in the future, as neuroscience develops and its implications continue to be revealed. At present, however, we can discern two general categories of neuroethical issue: those emerging from what we can do and those emerging from what we know.

In the first category are the ethical problems raised by advances in functional neuroimaging, psychopharmacology, brain implants and brain-machine interfaces. In the second category are the ethical problems raised by our growing understanding of the neural bases of behavior, personality, consciousness, and states of spiritual transcendence.

Historical background and implications of neuroscience ethics

Primitive societies for the most part lacked a system of neuroethics to guide them in facing the problems of mental illness and violence as civilization advanced. Trepanation led through a tortuous course to "psychosurgery".  Basic neuroscience research and psychosurgery advanced in the first half of the 20th century in tandem, but neuroscience ethics was left behind science and technology. Medical ethics in modern societies even in democratic governments, not to mention in authoritarian ones, has not kept pace with the advances of technology despite the announced social "progress"; and ethics continues to lag behind science in dealing with the problem of mental illness in association with human violence.

Unprovoked "pathological" aggression persists, reminding us daily that civilization is a step away from relapsing into barbarism. Neuroscience ethics (neuroethics) must keep up with advances in neuroscience research and remain separate from state-imposed mandates to face this challenge.

A recent writer on the history of psychosurgery as it relates to neuroethics concludes: "The lessons of history sagaciously reveal wherever the government has sought to alter medical ethics and enforce bureaucratic bioethics, the results have frequently vilified medical care and research. In the 20th century in both the communist USSR and Nazi Germany, medicine regressed after these authoritarian systems corrupted the ethics of the medical profession and forced it to descend to unprecedented barbarism. The Soviet psychiatrists and Nazi doctor's dark descent into barbarism was a product of physicians willingly cooperating with the totalitarian state, purportedly in the name of the "collective good", at the expense of their individual patients." This must be kept in mind when establishing new guidelines in neuroscience research and bioethics.

Important activity since 2002

There is no doubt that people were thinking and writing about the ethical implications of neuroscience for many years before the field adopted the label "neuroethics", and some of this work remains of great relevance and value. However, the early 21st century saw a tremendous surge in interest concerning the ethics of neuroscience, as evidenced by numerous meetings, publications and organizations dedicated to this topic.

In 2002, there were several meetings that drew together neuroscientists and ethicists to discuss neuroethics: the American Association for the Advancement of Science with the journal Neuron, the University of Pennsylvania, the Royal Society, Stanford University, and the Dana Foundation. This last meeting was the largest, and resulted in a book, Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, edited by Steven J. Marcus and published by Dana Press. That same year, the Economist ran a cover story entitled "Open Your Mind: The Ethics of Brain Science", Nature published the article "Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience". Further articles appeared on neuroethics in Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, and Brain and Cognition.

Thereafter, the number of neuroethics meetings, symposia and publications continued to grow. The over 38 000 members of the Society for Neuroscience recognized the importance of neuroethics by inaugurating an annual "special lecture" on the topic, first given by Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science Magazine. Several overlapping networks of scientists and scholars began to coalesce around neuroethics-related projects and themes. For example, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities established a Neuroethics Affinity Group, students at the London School of Economics established the Neuroscience and Society Network linking scholars from several different institutions, and a group of scientists and funders from around the world began discussing ways to support international collaboration in neuroethics through what came to be called the International Neuroethics Network. Stanford began publishing the monthly Stanford Neuroethics Newsletter, Penn developed the informational website neuroethics.upenn.edu, and the Neuroethics and Law Blog was launched.

Several relevant books were published during this time as well: Sandra Ackerman's Hard Science, Hard Choices: Facts, Ethics and Policies Guiding Brain Science Today (Dana Press), Michael Gazzaniga's The Ethical Brain (Dana Press), Judy Illes' edited volume, Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice and Policy (both Oxford University Press), Dai Rees and Steven Rose's edited volume The New Brain Sciences: Perils and Prospects (Cambridge University Press) and Steven Rose's The Future of the Brain (Oxford University Press).

2006 marked the founding of the International Neuroethics Society (INS) (originally the Neuroethics Society), an international group of scholars, scientists, clinicians, and other professionals who share an interest in the social, legal, ethical and policy implications of advances in neuroscience. The mission of the International Neuroethics Society "is to promote the development and responsible application of neuroscience through interdisciplinary and international research, education, outreach and public engagement for the benefit of people of all nations, ethnicities, and cultures". The first President of the INS was Steven Hyman (2006–2014), succeeded by Barbara Sahakian (2014–2016). Judy Illes is the current President, who like Hyman and Sahakian, was also a pioneer in the field of neuroethics and a founder member of the INS.

Over the next several years many centers for neurotics were established. A 2014 review of the field lists 31 centers and programs around the world; some of the longest running include the Neuroethics Research Unit at the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montreal (IRCM), the National Core for Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia in 2007, the Center for Neurotechnology Studies of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, the Wellcome Centre for Neuroethics at the University of Oxford; and the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania.

Since 2017, neuroethics working groups across multiple organizations have published a spate of reports and guiding principles. In 2017, the Global Neuroethics Summit Delegates prepared a set of ethical questions to guide research in brain science, published in Neuron. In December 2018, The Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative proposed incorporating Neuroethics Guiding Principles into the research advanced by the Initiative. In December 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) confirmed a set of neuroethics principles and recommendations; now this interdisciplinary group is developing a toolkit for implementation, moving from the theoretical to the practical. In early 2020, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed a neuroethical framework to facilitate the development of guidelines for engineers working on new neurotechnologies.

Sources of information

The books, articles and websites mentioned above are by no means a complete list of good neuroethics information sources. For example, readings and websites that focus on specific aspects of neuroethics, such as brain imaging or enhancement, are not included. Nor are more recent sources, such as Walter Glannon's book Bioethics and the Brain (Oxford University Press) and his reader, entitled Defining Right and Wrong in Brain Science (Dana Press). We should also here mention a book that was in many ways ahead of its time, Robert Blank's Brain Policy (published in 1999 by Georgetown University Press). The scholarly literature on neuroethics has grown so quickly that one cannot easily list all of the worthwhile articles, and several journals are now soliciting neuroethics submissions for publication, including the American Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience, BioSocieties, the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, and Neuroethics. The web now has many sites, blogs and portals offering information about neuroethics. A list can be found at the end of this entry.

Key issues

Neuroethics encompasses a wide range of issues, which can only be sampled here. Some have close ties to traditional biomedical ethics, in that different versions of these issues can arise in connection with organ systems other than the brain. For example, how should incidental findings be handled when a presumed healthy research subject is scanned for neuroscience research and the scan reveals an abnormality? How safe are the drugs used to enhance normal brain function? These are neuroethical issues with clear precedents in traditional bioethics. They are important issues, and luckily we can call upon society's experience with the relevant precedents to help determine the best courses of action in the present cases. In contrast, many neuroethical issues are at least partly novel, and this accounts for some of the intellectual fascination of neuroethics. These relatively newer issues force us to think about the relation between mind and brain and its ethical implications.

Brain interventions

The ethics of neurocognitive enhancement, that is the use of drugs and other brain interventions to make normal people "better than well", is an example of a neuroethical issue with both familiar and novel aspects. On the one hand, we can be informed by previous bioethical work on physical enhancements such as doping for strength in sports and the use of human growth hormone for normal boys of short stature. On the other hand, there are also some arguably novel ethical issues that arise in connection with brain enhancement, because these enhancements affect how people think and feel, thus raising the relatively new issues of "cognitive liberty". The growing role of psychopharmacology in everyday life raises a number of ethical issues, for example the influence of drug marketing on our conceptions of mental health and normalcy, and the increasingly malleable sense of personal identity that results from what Peter D. Kramer called "cosmetic psychopharmacology".

Nonpharmacologic methods of altering brain function are currently enjoying a period of rapid development, with a resurgence of psychosurgery for the treatment of medication refractory mental illnesses and promising new therapies for neurological and psychiatric illnesses based on deep brain stimulation as well as relatively noninvasive transcranial stimulation methods. Research on brain-machine interfaces is primarily in a preclinical phase but promises to enable thought-based control of computers and robots by paralyzed patients. As the tragic history of frontal lobotomy reminds us, permanent alteration of the brain cannot be undertaken lightly. Although nonpharmacologic brain interventions are exclusively aimed at therapeutic goals, the US military sponsors research in this general area (and more specifically in the use of transcranial direct current stimulation) that is presumably aimed at enhancing the capabilities of soldiers.

Brain imaging

In addition to the important issues of safety and incidental findings, mentioned above, some arise from the unprecedented and rapidly developing ability to correlate brain activation with psychological states and traits. One of the most widely discussed new applications of imaging is based on correlations between brain activity and intentional deception. Intentional deception can be thought of in the context of a lie detector. This means that scientists use brain imaging to look at certain parts of the brain during moments when a person is being deceptive. A number of different research groups have identified fMRI correlates of intentional deception in laboratory tasks, and despite the skepticism of many experts, the technique has already been commercialized. A more feasible application of brain imaging is "neuromarketing", whereby people's conscious or unconscious reaction to certain products can purportedly be measured.

Researchers are also finding brain imaging correlates of myriad psychological traits, including personality, intelligence, mental health vulnerabilities, attitudes toward particular ethnic groups, and predilection for violent crime. Unconscious racial attitudes may be manifest in brain activation. These capabilities of brain imaging, actual and potential, raise a number of ethical issues. The most obvious concern involves privacy. For example, employers, marketers, and the government all have a strong interest in knowing the abilities, personality, truthfulness and other mental contents of certain people. This raises the question of whether, when, and how to ensure the privacy of our own minds.

Another ethical problem is that brain scans are often viewed as more accurate and objective than in fact they are. Many layers of signal processing, statistical analysis and interpretation separate imaged brain activity from the psychological traits and states inferred from it. There is a danger that the public (including judges and juries, employers, insurers, etc.) will ignore these complexities and treat brain images as a kind of indisputable truth.

A related misconception is called neuro-realism: In its simplest form, this line of thought says that something is real because it can be measured with electronic equipment. A person who claims to have pain, or low libido, or unpleasant emotions is "really" sick if these symptoms are supported by a brain scan, and healthy or normal if correlates cannot be found in a brain scan. The case of phantom limbs demonstrate the inadequacy of this approach.

Memory dampening

While complete memory erasure is still an element of science-fiction, certain neurological drugs have been proven to dampen the strength and emotional association of a memory. Propranolol, an FDA-approved drug, has been suggested to effectively dull the painful effects of traumatic memories if taken within 6 hours after the event occurs. This has begun the discussion of ethical implications, assuming the technology for memory erasure will only improve. Originally, propranolol was reserved for hypertension patients. However, doctors are permitted to use the drug for off-label purposes—leading to the question of whether they actually should. There are numerous reasons for skepticism; for one, it may prevent us from coming to terms with traumatic experiences, it may tamper with our identities and lead us to an artificial sense of happiness, demean the genuineness of human life, and/or encourage some to forget memories they are morally obligated to keep. Whether or not it is ethical to fully or partially erase the memory of a patient, it is certainly becoming a more relevant topic as this technology improves in our society.

Stem cell therapy

Most of the issues concerning uses of stem cells in the brain are the same as any of the bioethical or purely ethical questions you will find regarding the use and research of stem cells. The field of stem cell research is a very new field which poses many ethical questions concerning the allocation of stem cells as well as their possible uses. Since most stem cell research is still in its preliminary phase most of the neuroethical issues surrounding stem cells are the same as stem cell ethics in general.

More specifically the way that stem cell research has been involved in neuroscience is through the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and brain tumors. In these cases scientists are using neural stem cells to regenerate tissue and to be used as carriers for gene therapy. In general, neuroethics revolves around a cost benefit approach to find techniques and technologies that are most beneficial to patients. There has been progress in certain fields that have been shown to be beneficial when using stem cells to treat certain neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease.

A study done in 2011 showed that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can be used to aid in Parkinson's research and treatment. The cells can be used to study the progression of Parkinson's as well as used in regenerative treatment. Animal studies have shown that the use of iPSCs can improve motor skills and dopamine release of test subjects with Parkinson's. This study shows a positive outcome in the use of stem cells for neurological purposes.

In another study done in 2011 used stem cells to treat cerebral palsy. This study, however, was not as successful as the Parkinson's treatment. In this case stem cells were used to treat animal models who had been injured in a way that mimicked CP. This brings up a neuroethical issue of animal models used in science. Since most of their "diseases" are inflicted and do not occur naturally, they can not always be reliable examples of how a person with the actual disease would respond to treatment. The stem cells used did survive implantation, but did not show significant nerve regeneration. However, studies are ongoing in this area.

As discussed, stem cells are used to treat degenerative diseases. One form of a degenerative disease that can occur in the brain as well as throughout the body is an autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases cause the body to "attack" its own cells and therefore destroys those cells as well as whatever functional purpose those cells have or contribute to. One form of an autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system is multiple sclerosis. In this disease the body attacks the glial cells that form myelin coats around the axons on neurons. This causes the nervous system to essentially "short circuit" and pass information very slowly. Stem cells therapy has been used to try to cure some of the damage caused by the body in MS. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been used to try and cure MS patients by essentially "reprogramming" their immune system. The main risk encountered with this form of treatment is the possibility of rejection of the stem cells. If the hematopoietic stem cells can be harvested from the individual, risk of rejection is much lower. But, there can be the risk of those cells being programmed to induce MS. However, if the tissue is donated from another individual there is high risk of rejection leading to possibly fatal toxicity in the recipient's body. Considering that there are fairly good treatments for MS, the use of stem cells in this case may have a higher cost than the benefits they produce. However, as research continues perhaps stem cells will truly become a viable treatment for MS as well as other autoimmune diseases.

These are just some examples of neurological diseases in which stem cell treatment has been researched. In general, the future looks promising for stem cell application in the field of neurology. However, possible complications lie in the overall ethics of stem cell use, possible recipient rejection, as well as over-proliferation of the cells causing possible brain tumors. Ongoing research will further contribute in the decision of whether stem cells should be used in the brain and whether their benefits truly outweigh their costs.

The primary ethical dilemma that is brought up in stem cell research is concerning the source of embryonic stem cells (hESCs). As the name states, hESCs come from embryos. To be more specific, they come from the inner cell mass of a blastophere, which is the beginning stage of an embryo. However, that mass of cells could have the potential to give rise to human life, and there in lies the problem. Often, this argument leads back to a similar moral debate held around abortion. The question is: when does a mass of cells gain personhood and autonomy? Some individuals believe that an embryo is in fact a person at the moment of conception and that using an embryo for anything other than creating a baby would essentially be killing a baby. On the other end of the spectrum, people argue that the small ball of cells at that point only has the potential to become a fetus, and that potentiality, even in natural conception, is far from guaranteed. According to a study done by developmental biologists, between 75–80% of embryos created through intercourse are naturally lost before they can become fetuses. This debate is not one that has a right or wrong answer, nor can it be clearly settled. Much of the ethical dilemma surrounding hESCs relies on individual beliefs about life and the potential for scientific advancement versus creating new human life.

Disorders of consciousness

Patients in coma, vegetative, or minimally conscious state pose ethical challenges. The patients are unable to respond, therefore the assessment of their needs can only be approached by adopting a third person perspective. They are unable to communicate their pain levels, quality of life, or end of life preferences. Neuroscience and brain imaging have allowed us to explore the brain activity of these patients more thoroughly. Recent findings from studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging have changed the way we view vegetative patients. The images have shown that aspects emotional processing, language comprehension and even conscious awareness might be retained in patients whose behavior suggests a vegetative state. If this is the case, it is unethical to allow a third party to dictate the life and future of the patient. For example, defining death is an issue that comes with patients with severe traumatic brain injuries. The decision to withdraw life-sustaining care from these patients can be based on uncertain assessments about the individual's conscious awareness. Case reports have shown that these patients in a persistent vegetative state can recover unexpectedly. This raises the ethical question about the premature termination of care by physicians. The hope is that one day, neuroimaging technologies can help us to define these different states of consciousness and enable us to communicate with patients in vegetative states in a way that was never before possible. The clinical translation of these advanced technologies is of vital importance for the medical management of these challenging patients. In this situation, neuroscience has both revealed ethical issues and possible solutions.

Pharmacological enhancement

Cosmetic neuro-pharmacology, the use of drugs to improve cognition in normal healthy individuals, is highly controversial. Some case reports with the antidepressant Prozac indicated that patients seemed "better than well", and authors hypothesized that this effect might be observed in individuals not afflicted with psychiatric disorders. Following these case reports much controversy arose over the veracity and ethics of the cosmetic use of these antidepressants. Opponents of cosmetic pharmacology believe that such drug usage is unethical and that the concept of cosmetic pharmacology is a manifestation of naive consumerism. Proponents, such as philosopher Arthur Caplan, state that it is an individual's (rather than government's, or physician's) right to determine whether to use a drug for cosmetic purposes. Anjan Chatterjee, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has argued that western medicine stands on the brink of a neuro-enhancement revolution in which people will be able to improve their memory and attention through pharmacological means. Jacob Appel, a Brown University bioethicist, has raised concerns about the possibility of employers mandating such enhancement for their workers. The ethical concerns regarding pharmacological enhancement are not limited to Europe and North America, indeed, there is increasing attention given to cultural and regulatory contexts for this phenomenon, around the globe.

Politics of neuromarketing

The politics of neuromarketing is this idea of using advertisements to convince the mind of a voter to vote for a certain party. This has already been happening within the elections throughout the years. In the 2006 reelection of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was double digits off in the voting in comparison to his Democratic opponent. However, Schwarzenegger's theme in this campaign was whether or not the voters would want to continue Schwarzenegger's reforms or go back to the days of the recalled governor, Gray Davis. In normal marketing, voters would use "detail, numbers, facts and figures to prove we were better off under the new governor". However, with neuromarketing, voters followed powerful advertisement visuals and used these visuals to convince themselves that Schwarzenegger was the better candidate. Now, with political neuromarketing, there exists a lot of controversy. The ethics behind political neuromarketing are debatable. Some argue that political neuromarketing will cause voters to make rash decisions while others argue that these messages are beneficial because they depict what the politicians can do. However, control over political decisions could make voters not see the reality of things. Voters may not look into the details of the reforms, personality, and morality each person brings to their political campaign and may be swayed by how powerful the advertisements seem to be. However, there are also people that may disagree with this idea. Darryl Howard, "a consultant to two Republican winners on November 2, says he crafted neuromarketing-based messages for TV, direct mail and speeches for Senate, Congressional and Gubernatorial clients in 2010". He says that these advertisements that were presented, show honesty and continues to say how he and other politicians decide which advertisements are the most effective.

Neurological treatments

Neuroscience has led to a deeper understanding of the chemical imbalances present in a disordered brain. In turn, this has resulted in the creation of new treatments and medications to treat these disorders. When these new treatments are first being tested, the experiments prompt ethical questions. First, because the treatment is affecting the brain, the side effects can be unique and sometimes severe. A special kind of side effect that many subjects have claimed to experience in neurological treatment tests is changes in "personal identity". Although this is a difficult ethical dilemma because there are no clear and undisputed definitions of personality, self, and identity, neurological treatments can result in patients losing parts of "themselves" such as memories or moods. Yet another ethical dispute in neurological treatment research is the choice of patients. From a perspective of justice, priority should be given to those who are most seriously impaired and who will benefit most from the intervention. However, in a test group, scientists must select patients to secure a favorable risk-benefit ratio. Setting priority becomes more difficult when a patient's chance to benefit and the seriousness of their impairment do not go together. For example, many times an older patient will be excluded despite the seriousness of their disorder simply because they are not as strong or as likely to benefit from the treatment. The main ethical issue at the heart of neurological treatment research on human subjects is promoting high-quality scientific research in the interest of future patients, while at the same time respecting and guarding the rights and interests of the research subjects. This is particularly difficult in the field of neurology because damage to the brain is often permanent and will change a patient's way of life forever.

Neuroscience and free will

Neuroethics also encompasses the ethical issues raised by neuroscience as it affects our understanding of the world and of ourselves in the world. For example, if everything we do is physically caused by our brains, which are in turn a product of our genes and our life experiences, how can we be held responsible for our actions? A crime in the United States requires a "guilty act" and a "guilty mind". As neuropsychiatry evaluations have become more commonly used in the criminal justice system and neuroimaging technologies have given us a more direct way of viewing brain injuries, scholars have cautioned that this could lead to the inability to hold anyone criminally responsible for their actions. In this way, neuroimaging evidence could suggest that there is no free will and each action a person makes is simply the product of past actions and biological impulses that are out of our control. The question of whether and how personal autonomy is compatible with neuroscience ethics and the responsibility of neuroscientists to society and the state is a central one for neuroethics. However, there is some controversy over whether autonomy entails the concept of 'free will' or is a 'moral-political' principle separate from metaphysical quandaries.

In late 2013 U.S. President Barack Obama made recommendations to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues as part of his $100 million Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. This Spring discussion resumed in a recent interview and article sponsored by Agence France-Presse (AFP): "It is absolutely critical... to integrate ethics from the get-go into neuroscience research," and not "for the first time after something has gone wrong", said Amy Gutmann, Bioethics Commission Chair." But no consensus has been reached. Miguel Faria, a Professor of Neurosurgery and an Associate Editor in Chief of Surgical Neurology International, who was not involved in the Commission's work said, "any ethics approach must be based upon respect for the individual, as doctors pledge according to the Hippocratic Oath which includes vows to be humble, respect privacy and doing no harm; and pursuing a path based on population-based ethics is just as dangerous as having no medical ethics at all". Why the danger of population-based bioethics? Faria asserts, "it is centered on utilitarianism, monetary considerations, and the fiscal and political interests of the state, rather than committed to placing the interest of the individual patient or experimental subject above all other considerations". For her part, Gutmann believes the next step is "to examine more deeply the ethical implications of neuroscience research and its effects on society".

Academic journals

• Neuroethics

Main Editor: Neil Levy, CAPPE, Melbourne; University of Oxford

Neuroethics is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical issues provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind, especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes high-quality reflections on questions raised by the sciences of the mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics.

• American Journal of Bioethics–Neuroscience

Main Editor: Paul Root Wolpe, Emory University

AJOB Neuroscience, the official journal of the International Neuroethics Society, is devoted to covering critical topics in the emerging field of neuroethics. The journal is a new avenue in bioethics and strives to present a forum in which to: foster international discourse on topics in neuroethics, provide a platform for debating current issues in neuroethics, and enable the incubation of new emerging priorities in neuroethics. AJOB-Neuroscience launched in 2007 as a section of the American Journal of Bioethics and became an independent journal in 2010, publishing four issues a year.