Task 5: Brain Mapping
As the two articles, "A computer that can 'read' your mind" and "Ethics and mapping the brain", indicate that nowadays, technology is so developed that it is possible to detect what a person is thinking about and make predictions from brain imaging. In fact, it is a two-side sword. On the one hand, it could help cure mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, and solve criminal problems. On the other hand, it could be inaccurate and be abused, leading to ethical controversial.
As a researcher of brain mapping, it is the responsibility to predict and minimize the unethical abuses of the technology. Just as Lou Marano stated in his article "Ethics and Mapping the Brain" (2003), such technology may be used to test an unwilling criminal defendant, an innocent child to determine his talent, and be controlled by some people who are not authorial enough. All these are the potential ethical problems.
In order to minimize these unethical abuses, firstly, I should try my best to improve the accuracy of the test and convince the public to accept the evidence in court. More importantly, it is necessary to convince the government to agree the evidences to be effective, such as by making laws or setting rules. That is to say, the police would have the right to test an criminal defendant using the brain mapping technology, just like the right to take notes about what a defendant says which are effective in court. Secondly, as a researcher, I would suggest a systemic access for brain mapping test. To be more detailed, the test should be done by those people who are professional on this technology; while the system must be run by the government officials to ensure the privacy. Furthermore, within such system, test should to be restricted to those with a reasonable need such as medical care or legal defense, rather than the personal predictions. Last but not least, in principle, the cost should be paid personally as it is for personal reasons no matter medical or legal aspects. However, as it is a large amount of money, it is unpractical for ordinary people to use. Therefore, the government needs to aid a certain percent of the cost to push such technology into market.
All in all, although the brain mapping technology is a two-side coin, we can try to maximize its advantages and reduce the unethical abuses by a legal, systematic and restricted policy.
As the two articles, "A computer that can 'read' your mind" and "Ethics and mapping the brain", indicate that nowadays, technology is so developed that it is possible to detect what a person is thinking about and make predictions from brain imaging. In fact, it is a two-side sword. On the one hand, it could help cure mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, and solve criminal problems. On the other hand, it could be inaccurate and be abused, leading to ethical controversial.
As a researcher of brain mapping, it is the responsibility to predict and minimize the unethical abuses of the technology. Just as Lou Marano stated in his article "Ethics and Mapping the Brain" (2003), such technology may be used to test an unwilling criminal defendant, an innocent child to determine his talent, and be controlled by some people who are not authorial enough. All these are the potential ethical problems.
In order to minimize these unethical abuses, firstly, I should try my best to improve the accuracy of the test and convince the public to accept the evidence in court. More importantly, it is necessary to convince the government to agree the evidences to be effective, such as by making laws or setting rules. That is to say, the police would have the right to test an criminal defendant using the brain mapping technology, just like the right to take notes about what a defendant says which are effective in court. Secondly, as a researcher, I would suggest a systemic access for brain mapping test. To be more detailed, the test should be done by those people who are professional on this technology; while the system must be run by the government officials to ensure the privacy. Furthermore, within such system, test should to be restricted to those with a reasonable need such as medical care or legal defense, rather than the personal predictions. Last but not least, in principle, the cost should be paid personally as it is for personal reasons no matter medical or legal aspects. However, as it is a large amount of money, it is unpractical for ordinary people to use. Therefore, the government needs to aid a certain percent of the cost to push such technology into market.
All in all, although the brain mapping technology is a two-side coin, we can try to maximize its advantages and reduce the unethical abuses by a legal, systematic and restricted policy.
References:
(1) Lou Marano, June 3, 2003, Ethics and Mapping the Brain, in the Washington Times. Retrieved on October 29th, 2008, form http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/brain_mapping_rthics.htm
(2) National Science Foundation. (2008, May 30). A computer that can 'read' your mind [Press release 08-091]. Retrieved October 29th, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111641&org=olpa&from=news
(1) Lou Marano, June 3, 2003, Ethics and Mapping the Brain, in the Washington Times. Retrieved on October 29th, 2008, form http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/brain_mapping_rthics.htm
(2) National Science Foundation. (2008, May 30). A computer that can 'read' your mind [Press release 08-091]. Retrieved October 29th, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111641&org=olpa&from=news
6 comments:
A quite balanced view of the issue (learnt from SSA right? haha)
As you concluded, several ways were suggested to maximize its advantages and reduce the unethical abuses. To make your points more powerful, you may enhance the chain of causes and consequences: how your methods can minimize the unethical usages.
Good luck to your finals and fight together lah hoho~ : ]
You raised good solutions. However, I do not understand why would the costs of using such brain mapping tests be borne fully by the people who are tested on, when your first two points suggest that the test is only allowed to be used by the government for legal reasons? If that is the case, personal reasons for using the test should not be allowed and the government would be the only one requesting the use of the test. Hence they should be paying the full cost of the test, not the people being tested on, right?
Grammatically wise your article has quite a number of mistakes. For example, it should be "On one hand" in your first paragraph.
Regardless, this is one of the harder tasks and I can tell you put effort into thinking what to write. Good job and good luck for the finals!
Actually what I was trying to say is that the legal reason is to prove the defendant's innocence rather than the evidence of his illegal behavior. As to prove that the defendant is a criminal, than the cost should be paid by the accusant. This is the logic i try to explain. Is that right? I should have explained clearer in my writing. thanks a lot~~ Good Luck for your finals~~~
Hello,
It is a good written essay.
However, I think more solutions should be done to prevent the unethical abuses, in the mean time promoting the uses of technology.
Personally, i think the technology can be made full use by private sectors, but should be controlled by some rules and regulations.
Overall it is well done.
Best wishes for you!
Post a Comment