Media

March 16 , 2007

News Release

Contact:
Stephanie L. Tennyson
703-525-0770 x224
stennyson [at] potomacinstitute[dot]org
www.PotomacInstitute.org

Arlington , VA —“The brain is hot!” So proclaimed Dr. Jonathan Moreno at the inaugural session of the Potomac Institute’s Center for Neurotechnology Studies (CNS) seminar series. The science of the brain is moving at rapid pace, and policy must keep up if not anticipate it. Dr. Moreno commented that those engaged in neuroscience research “need to frame the agenda.” For this reason he was pleased to see the Potomac Institute host such an event as the first major event for the Center.

The March 16th seminar was attended by more than fifty neuroscientists, ethicists, policy makers, and other scholars from around the country. Dr. Moreno discussed his recently published book, Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense and the critical issues in this emerging, revolutionary field.

The event began with introductory remarks from Potomac’s CEO, Michael Swetnam, who thanked the audience for their participation and welcomed further dialogue with the group as the Institute progresses forward in the field of neurotechnology and policy related issues. Potomac Institute’s President, Dr. Dennis McBride, also expressed gratitude to those in the room for their early leadership in this burgeoning field and presented a brief overview of the Center for Neurotechnology Studies. He discussed future activities and the desire to continue to engage those forging new paths in neuroscience and neurotechnology on the science, the policy, and the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI). Potomac Adjunct Fellow and bioethicist, Dr. Evan DeRenzo, introduced her colleague and friend, Dr. Moreno.

Neuroethics, the largest growth area in bioethics, examines issues such as the meaning of free will, privacy, personal identity and clinical research concerns. Dr. Moreno began by situating himself in the ongoing neuroethics debate. He noted that he is not a luddite. Indeed, he is a fan of DARPA’s research and model, and is a historian of science.

Dr. Moreno examined the concerns about the use of neurotechnology that have been appearing more frequently in the popular press. He commented that the link between brain research and national security is not a new one, but it is one that has not been widely discussed. He began his research by Googling “brain research and DARPA” to see if there was enough material to support a book. There was!

Outlining the historical works of Murray, Lewin, Rhine and Beecher among others, he demonstrated the long standing interest from—and partnership between—the national security and intelligence communities and brain and related discipline researchers.

He also noted that public concerns on brain research related issues such as government mind control are cross-cultural—they are not specific to the United States. He observed that it has become a problem to have a serious discussion in a field once it seeps into popular culture. Dr. Moreno said, “We don’t have the vocabulary to deal with the issues. The science is outpacing our historic capacity to conceptualize what is going on.” Therefore, it is even more critical for scientists in the field to shape the agenda, and to engage in the public debate. If those working on neurotechnology do not address ELSI issues, others (advocacy and interest groups) will frame the debate.

There are many examples of technologies and pharmaceuticals on the market today that have benefits but that also raise some ethical questions. For example, modafinil, medication that can keep one awake for up to 80 hours, is a prescription drug but also is beginning to be used on campus as a “study drug.” Beta-blockers may be used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which could be a benefit to the soldiers who suffer. However, there are larger questions that must first be asked—do we want an “anti-conscience” pill? For example, a key question for neuroethics will be how to balance these benefits with questions about the technologies.

Policy, planning and ethics are needed for neurotechnologies, including and especially nonlethal weapons, to ensure appropriate use and prevent tragedies. In summary, Dr. Moreno offered some suggestions for ensuring that responsible work at the intersection of neuroscience and national security continues, which he supports. Following the model of the biosecurity advisory board for the Department of Homeland Security, he recommended that a National Science Advisory Board for Neurosecurity be established and that other guidelines analogous to those created in the embryonic stem cell debate be implemented.

The forum ended with Dr. Moreno answering questions from the audience on the future of brain-related science and technology. Many questions focused on what it means to be human and fears of moral relativism in science. What will happen to the rich/poor divide when only some will be able to afford “enhancements”? Will we become more or less empathic as a society for the have-nots? Closing the session, he encouraged the audience to continue the ELSI debate and stay engaged.

Dr. Moreno is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics. He was previously Director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia. He is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and an advisor to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. He has served as a senior staff member for two Presidential ethics commissions and is past president of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

The Center for Neurotechnology Studies at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies supports the responsible development of neurotechnology by providing information and policy options to researchers and policy-makers, participating in scientific research, and shepherding constructive public discourse to address ethical, legal and social issues associated with emerging neurotechnologies.

The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies is an independent, 501(c)(3), not-for-profit public policy research institute. The Institute identifies and aggressively shepherds discussion on key science and technology issues facing our society. From these discussions and forums, we develop meaningful science and technology policy options and ensure their implementation at the intersection of business and government.

###