5th e-Post

Topic : Should institute or government regulate the use of computational modeling?

Government should not regulate : Wei Ling , Yi Xiang

Government should regulate : Liu Min, Phyllicia, Ei Hong

Moderator - Lance

Computational modeling in brain study, detecting and mapping of brain activity, has provided the world a clearer understanding of how the human process information. Despite the promising advantages it will bring about in the future, many feel that there's a need for government regulate this technology.

Government should not regulate the use of computational modeling because:

1) there are many advantages brought by this technology such as detecting the causes of mental illnesses, which allow the executions of a more suitable treatment for the patients. This technology also provides communication and control to people who are totally paralyzed by transmitting their brain waves to the external motional devices. Hence this restores motion to paralysis.

2) regulation may impede the development of such technology since there are more constraints, limiting the areas of research. Hence, this may lead to fewer discoveries improvements made.

Government should regulate the use of computational modeling because:

1) The accuracy of the result of computational modeling is questionable, so it should not be widely use. Hence, the result of this technology cannot be used as substantial evidence in the court. Also, there is a possibility of the people to out win the technology. Thance the result may not be reliable.

2) The ethical issues involved in the use of computational modeling. The intrusion of privacy of the technology is the main concern for the majority since the neuroscientics will be able to decipher the thoughts of the subject.

3) Regulation is required to prevent any form of abuse of such technology. This brings us to ponder the controversy of the use of computational modeling as a lie detector. The US actually has used the lie detector during interrogation on the terrorist suspects to see if they are lying. Unlike those subjects who voluntarily participated in the research, these suspects were forced to undergo such brain scan. The result may be used as an excuse to justify the abuse of the detainee.

Conclusion

Hence, computational modeling should be regulated by government and should only be used for therapeutic purpose.

The 4th Entry

Read, summarize and evaluate two 500-1000 word articles related to yur group roundtable discussion issue/problem. Your post should include a brief summary of the articles' main ides, their APA citation, your evaluation of their usefulness, 5 relevant vocabulary words/phrases and their definition.

Brain machine interfaces (BMIs), the direct communication between the brain and artificial devices, have already been greatly utilised and constantly under development for medical purposes. For example, the straight-to-brain cochlear implants that aid hearing of the deaf and retinal implants help to regain the sight of the blind. By implanting neuroelectronics into the brain, information can be transmitted to brain from external devices or vice versa. As far as we can see, BMIs have a promising future for patients with physical disadvantages, providing them the bridge of communication to the society. Not only so, BMIs are also used as deep-brain stimulators which are cater to the need of the patients with neurological or psychological problems.

As this technology becomes more advanced, it is possible for BMIs to liberate paralysed people from their body’s restrictions in the future. (1) However, this will definitely lead to the expansion of the usage of such technology beyond medical domain, such as human body enhancement, which will bound to arise more ethical arguments. According to Brandon Keim, the U.S. military has expressed it interest in implementing such technology on its soldiers to enhance their performance. Such deliberate enhancement of a physically fit body for military purpose is undeniably against the moral right as it has deprived the human right of the soldiers, treating them more like a tool. From here, we can see the rising of a controversial issue with more advancement in BMIs and wider availability. Hence, there is an absolute need to regulate such technology to prevent any form of abuse beyond therapeutic purposes.

Reference:
Keim, Brandon. "Brain-Machine Interfaces Make for Tricky Ethics". 25 Feburary 2009. WIRED Science. 12 March 2009. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/brainmachine.html
________________________________________________

This article reveals the use of non-invasive brain computer interfaces (BCIs) for entertainment purpose, particularly, gaming. Several companies such as Emotiv Systems and NeuroSky have mentioned that they have released the BCI-based-software-development kits into the market, which allow the brain to be the videogame controller. Scientists have voiced out their worry with regards to this change in the application of BCIs, mainly the use of electroencephalography (EEG), from medical domain to commercialized gaming sector.
There is a fine line between using the technology in games for clinical purposes and for sheer leisure purpose. Those games, which serve for medical purposes, mainly aim to treat psychological illnesses such as attention deficit disorder, depression and addictions. One of the examples of such promising new treatments is neurofeedback games. However, according to Michelle Hinn, chair of the International Game Developers Association’s Game Accessibility Special Interest Group, the games are beneficial to gamers with disabilities but not good for the majority. (50) Scientists have expressed their concern over the side-effects on general public playing such games involving BCIs as these devices may force gamers to slow down their brain waves, affecting their concentration. (13)

Hence, this highlights the benefits of games involving the use of BCIs to treat patients with psychological illnesses and the possible consequences if such technology is abused for pure entertainment. Hence, there is a need to regulate such technology to prevent any undesirable effects.

Reference:
Cole, Emmet. "Direct Brain-to-Game Interface Worries Scientists". 9 May 2007. WIRED. 11 March 2009. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/09/bci_games?currentPage=all