Battery powered brains

Would you be comfortable with something that could alter your brain?

Deep brain stimulation has now been used as a potent treatment for Parkinson’s patients and has proved effective in its results, having successfully treated 80,000 patients worldwide. It is thought that in the next few decades, it will be one of the leading treatments for Parkinson’s. It helps reduce the involuntary movements and tremors of the disease. The cords are implanted under local anaesthetic; and an electric current is then passed through them, to see how the patient’s symptoms respond to the procedure, then it can be decided if the probes are in the correct position. Brain implants are used on disabled patients to assist their movement using thought control. This gives substantial new prospects for people with this type of disability, but are we resolving a matter, or mounting a somewhat spurious innovation, and essentially just creating human cyborgs?

Runaway robots?

In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly believes the evolution of technology is inevitable, but shaping its character is down to us. He explores the choices available in mastering our creations “has the enormity and cleverness of our creation overwhelmed our ability to control or guide it. As technology becomes more complex so do the choices and responses.” Kelly questions whether collective choice can work in today’s pluralistic society in choosing and refusing certain technologies.

Rebooting the mind

For instance this methodology has proved to be so beneficial for Parkinson’s patients, it is being considered as a potential treatment for depressed patients where a machine could be used to transform basic human emotions. Should it be rejected purely on its foreseen risks. Thomas Schlaepfer, from the University of Bonn Hospital a leading figure in researching deep brain stimulation discusses this in Scientific American,

“Deep brain stimulation has only recently, in the last decade, been actively researched as a putative treatment for very treatment resistant psychiatric disorders… Most likely deep brain stimulation for depression will be a transitional technology, which will lead to even more refined but less invasive treatments of the brain…It might very well be the case that the groundwork laid by neuroscientific discoveries enabled by DBS will lead to new targets and technologies of interacting with dysfunctional brain networks.”

Is it ethically appropriate to be using deep brain stimulation as a treatment in psychopharmacology, as well as in neurosurgery?  Is this not going to raise some serious issues; should we compromise our emotions and perhaps even our souls within the realms of science?

The film ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ (2004), gives us another perspective where this technology can be used without our knowledge or consent and illustrates science gone awry.  This implant sightsees genetic engineering, nanotechnology and memory replacement at its finest.

Transhumanism – elevating the human condition

Is depression maybe just a natural process for our brains to experience, and should it be treated with such an invasive procedure?  Transhumanists believe we should,

“that everybody should have the option to use such means to enhance various dimensions of their cognitive, emotional and physical well-being. Not only is this a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, but it is also a great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition.”

Francis Fukuyama an American political scientist and a fierce opponent of posthumanism argues,

“underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin colour, beauty and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project.”

He imagines that the transhumanist project will disrupt the foundations of equal rights, and it could even lead to humans who are more technologically superior being discriminated against, or equally, the other way round. Several books and films have surveyed and evaluated the philosophical perspective of the transhumanist project.

In Blade Runner the film explores the dark prophetic unexpected consequences of a new technology like transhumanism, as does Huxley’s Brave New World, which conveys a chilling vision of brain manipulation that profoundly changes society. Is the answer to choose what is perceived as safe technologies over what are seen as dangerous? “the remedy to this perceived evil is usually prohibition.” Kelly believes this isn’t feasible “as technology accelerates, so does the brevity of prohibition” because there is no certainty, even short term roles of an idea are unclear e.g. Viagra was initially tested as a drug for heart failure.

What the Hack?

Not only does this new technology pose a sociological risk but also remotely stimulated devices like pacemakers, or brain implants, lay the risk of being superficially abused by hackers. Whether the hackers are computer nerds or government officials, the devices are vulnerable to being externally controlled, and can be used as weapons. This is neatly depicted in the TV series ‘Homeland’; when Brody hacks the Vice-President’s pacemaker to assassinate him.

Barnaby Jack; a skilled computer hacker, had a developed curiosity in ‘embedded’ technology,and intended to demonstrate this hazard at a convention in Las Vegas, where he “planned to show how, using a wireless transmitter, he could trigger a deadly power surge and kill someone from up to 50ft away”, but he never arrived…

With a worldwide concern in the vulnerability and risks of such devices, we may question whether these devices be used at all. Is it all too much of a clumsy step toward becoming multi-dimensional individual beings?

“We are unable to address all risks, independent of their low probability, while efforts to address all improbable risks hinders more likely potential benefits.”

Kelly suggests we choose which risks we want to challenge, because “precaution becomes myopic“ whilst maximising on safety, we are undermining innovation. It seems therefore because of the inherent uncertainties, the only viable way to evaluate a new technology is to let it run it course.

Technological Incompetence

Big Bang Theory

Pre-natal DNA Sequencing

“I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status, or the colour of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.”

Do you want to know the genetic destiny of your unborn child ?

In a few years scientists will have finalised the Human Genome Project, the charting of all genes that make up a human being. One could speculate that we have reached a point where we have evolved enough to direct our own evolution.

Reading the DNA of foetuses looks like it’s going to be the next frontier of the genome revolution.  This year, Illumina, the producers of the world’s most widely-used DNA sequencing machines paid nearly half a billion dollars to Verinata, a company in California, which has the technology to sequence the DNA of a human foetus before it is born.

The testing is said to be non-invasive, safe and easy, and is seen as a breakthrough for Illumina, whose sequencing instruments have previously been used for lab research purposes. Jay Flatley CEO, Illumina, told investors he anticipates the tests will be offered to around two million women a year in the US.

This is likely to be just the start for the prenatal DNA sequencing programme, as pregnancy anxieties can be lessened, by enabling information through the mother’s bloodstream to present a foetus’s exact DNA code. Arthur Beaudet, Head of Human Genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston believes with early testing, patients wont need to have their genomes sequenced to shed light on potential genetic diseases, he says “we are already going to know the data at birth.”

Dennis Lo, a Hong Kong scientist, estimated in 1997 that DNA particles were present in pregnant women’s blood, carried through from the placenta, and predicted that these fragments contained a wealth of information.

All it would take is a simple blood test, resulting in the entire genome of a foetus, every gene and chromosome known about a baby’s genetic make-up, whilst still in utero. Positively, it could help to reduce carriers of terrible childhood diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, and Thalassaemia B.

Negatively, there are some serious ethical questions that need addressing. For instance, how would this available pre-natal genetic data affect our choices as parents? How far would we go to eliminate unwanted traits in our unborn child?

Is this already sounding like a scene in Gattaca?

In the film a genetic database uses biometrics to classify people. The story highlights concerns over reproductive technologies and their consequences. 

Arthur Caplan of the New York Medical Centre highlights and expresses why he is apprehensive over technology which appears to facilitate eugenics, “anyone who thinks that information that can lead to abortion, isn’t going to be controversial, has been asleep since Roe and Wade.”

How do we control a situation with issues already apparent?

David Collingridge’s well-established paradigm lies at the heart of all deliberation on new technology and its impact. As he suggests, when a technology is new, it’s hard to predict its negative consequences; by the time they’re known its either costly or the technology has become entrenched. It’s a double bind, early detection isn’t possible, and later it’s not feasible. He advocates a new approach in achieving control, by way of “corrigibility” whereby bad decisions can be easily corrected, by choosing systems, which can be simply controlled and by maintaining a wide range of alternatives.

A report written by scientists at The Hastings Centre, expresses concerns that demand immediate attention, such as privacy and genetic ownership of data,

“the ethical issues raised by the use of this technology in the research context have received some significant attention, but little has been written on its use in the clinical context, and most of the this analysis has been futuristic forecasting.”

Are we heading toward a Utopian world or Pandora’s Box?

Pre-natal sequencing raises some serious moral and ethical issues, and dilemmas. The main one seems to be whether we are heading towards social engineering and a eugenics programme, where only the perfect may be born.  Evolution in progress? As Henry Greely professor at Stamford says, “once you’ve opened Pandora’s Box its harder to close it.”

David Collingridge believes uncertainty and decisions made in ignorance can be assisted by choosing systems that respond to error, and by monitoring; more than just evaluating the effectiveness of a system, but by an ongoing “scrutiny of a decision’s real consequences with the aim of finding error.”  

Ilana Yurkiewicz,  Harvard student, takes up an interesting perspective in her post by asking is this unnatural selection – a triumph for freedom or just plain discrimination. She raises some valid arguments “are our prejudices so overpowering that we’d pick abortion over a child with the ‘wrong’ eye colour.”

What is it to be human?

Susan Lindee, in The DNA Mystique, examines how ‘gene talk’ has pervaded our society.  She suggests the biological structure has become a cultural icon, and ultimately this ‘genetic essentialism’ as she calls it, diminishes us as humans, to molecular entities.

Here Lindee also believes that genetic intervention could be potentially transformative, however  “long term damage, is also extremely likely, given the historical patterns of dramatic technological innovation.”  Maybe Collingridge’s idea of “incrementalism” where slower rates of development give a better understanding of the risks, could prevent grim consequences.

Kevin Kelly believes forecasting new technology is challenging because so many ideas develop on a daily basis,

“we think genetic testing is like blood testing, something you do once in your life, to get an unchanging score, when sequencing our genes may instead become something we do hourly as our genes mutate, shift and interact with our environment.”

A little food for thought…

If we are destined for a future where people’s life opportunities are principally determined by their genetic make up, will we ever see the likes of people like this: Abraham Lincoln – Marfan Syndrome; John F Kennedy – Addison’s Disease; Albert Einstein – Dyslexia; Ray Charles – Primary Glaucoma; Stephen Hawking – Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Smart Meter or spy box?

Will Smart Meters change our habits as consumers?

In the UK, the government announced that they aim to supply every home by the year 2020 with a Smart Meter, which allows us ostensibly, to monitor how much energy we are using. The information recorded is relayed to the utility for billing and updating our usage data. It can measure all the energy we consume, whether it be electricity, water or gas.

We are told, by the government, that they are sophisticated, high tech devices, that can save on bills, by giving accurate readings, and estimating how much energy we are using. There is also information telling us that the Smart Meter in the long term will make it easier, quicker to switch suppliers and change their energy-usage habits.

Are these wireless digital utility meters, that broadcast our energy usage, a huge technological advance, or are they really a potential ”hornet’s nest”? 

The meter’s two way communication facility is maintained by PMRF (RF) transmitters and receivers, in order to make it controllable and readable, remotely. Say the utility you are using in future decides you are using too much water for your showers, garden and washing machine, will it be asking you to use less?

Most people could see the impact of a Smart Meter as not only a worrying health threat, in spite of the government assurance, that there is no medical evidence to show they are unsafe, but also as an extremely invasive device that can control every aspect of our energy consumption. There are some larger ethical questions that are relative such as regulating our inalienable human need for water.

In the case of British Gas, the pressure group SMM has revealed after points raised to Ofgem, that they (British Gas), may be misleading their customers in their Charter. For instance, the failure to reference any health risks associated with the meter, even though they are designated as Class 2b carcinogens, by the WHO.

An Ofgem spokesman states in regards to British Gas,

“we have received their Charter and consider that some consumers may find it misleading. We will be asking them to seriously consider amendments to their Charter so it more accurately reflects that Smart Meters are not mandatory.”

So what are the long term implications of this technology?

If the Smart Meter is the prototype, and foundation, on which other wireless household appliances could use similar microwave frequencies, the possibilities are endless. One cannot deny, that this concept is open to misuse by governments, councils, and corporations, which could invade our privacy. Quite apart from the health implications of multiple microwave transmissions within our homes, every aspect of our daily lives will be open to being monitored. Is it time to stock up on candles, or a better idea, time for all of us to install solar power?

Jokes aside, there seem to be some rather more sinister aspects to Smart Meters, as was recently outlined in an article in the Guardian, by John Naughton. Apart from the obvious ones of the utility companies being aware of your energy consumption, if you fail to pay your bills, the utilities will be able to switch off your supply remotely,

“which means – and here’s the interesting bit – Kim Jong-un, the Chinese army or any number of unsavoury characters in the Middle East or Russia could do the same.”

In the same article Professor Ross Anderson, an expert on cyber-security, is quoted as saying,

“from the viewpoint of the cyber attacker- whether hostile government agency, a terrorist organisation or even a militant environmental group – the ideal attack on a target country is to interrupt its citizens’ electricity supply. This is the cyber equivalent of a nuclear strike.”

Smart Meter or Dumb Meter?

There appears to be little evidence to show us, that the Meter is as ‘smart’ as the utility companies propose. Firstly there are the health risks, as Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear scientist, says Smart Meter’s emit “100 times more radiation than cellphones.” Then there are the risks from hackers and terrorists as highlighted by the FBI who state that Smart Meters are so loose that hackers have easily been able to steal electricity.

Roger Helmer MEP, too, has quashed any notions that the consumer may have had about the meter being something we can benefit from. He said “I suspect that the benefits envisaged for consumers may prove illusory.” Ofgem estimates a reduction of 4% with a Smart Meter based on an average consumption of 3300 KWH and a bill of £500 a year, that’s roughly a saving of £20. Dumb or Smart?

Is this Smart Meter here to stay, with no apparent financial or practical benefits for us? Arthur 1989, argues that increasing returns lead to “lock-in” of mandatory technologies, preventing take-up of potentially superior ones, and that the technology that takes an early lead corners the market. He examines the circumstances and dynamics whereby the economy might become “locked-in” by ‘historical events’ to the dominance of an inferior technology.

Of course there is the other side of the argument, that maybe fear of the Smart Meter is symptomatic of our basic human suspicion towards any new technology, and that we are willing to surrender potential benefits by our need to protect our individual liberties. Adam Thierer discusses our ‘technopanic’ in his paper Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle. It’s an interesting analysis of our fear-based principles regarding technological change.

It seemed when 1984 came and went that George Orwell was another false prophet – maybe it was just his timing that was a little premature. This recent brainchild of technology is part of a larger Smart Grid framework agenda, where the government can have inroads into our privacy and freedom. As with any complex system, Brian Arthur shows us that the economy over time can be ‘locked-in’ to a technological route that is not necessarily efficient, and not able to predict from routine knowledge of supply and demand roles. Logical expectations about future technology choices can exacerbate the ‘lock-in’. In the case of the Smart Meter you could just say no and forget about it, but what if the government dictates that people must accept the meter and it becomes mandatory?