Ever since the development of brain mapping started, it has become the most contentious topic and always coupled with controversy. People debate and question the ethical issues regarding this latest technology but scientists retort by claiming that it is a necessary move to the advancement of the future. In order to maintain the moral values while not impeding the process of exploring brain mapping, there is a responsibility for researcher to predict and minimize potential unethical abuses of their work.
Firstly, researcher can predict the possible unethical abuses by fully examine and understand the applicability of this brain-mapping technology. It is understood that the research could eventually lead to the use of brain scans to identify thoughts. (A computer that can ‘read’ your mind, n.d.) It can be a serious matter as some industries, secret societies or even countries might use it to retrieve important information from human beings by manipulate their minds. Therefore, it should be regarded as unethical abuses and researcher can predict and study the repercussion of such technology.
Secondly, in order to minimize the potential unethical issues, researcher can first identity the target users and categorized them into different target groups. Then, rules and regulations must be set up to restrict the usage of such technology. For example, according to “Ethics and mapping the brain”, it is understood that brain mapping technology could be a big breakthrough into medical field and assist in crime investigation but it can have a catastrophic effect if it is misused by the users. Therefore, the authority of the use of brain mapping technology should be maintained and governed.
Thirdly, researcher can also implement the brain mapping technology into a particular field and study the side effects first before introduces it to the public and make it profitability. For example, brain mapping could have applications in the study of autism, disorders of thought such as paranoid schizophrenia, and semantic dementias such as Pick’s disease (2008). It might minimize the possible unethical issues by analyzing the impacts of such technology from the medical field before scientists stimulate further research.
In conclusion, it would be an uphill task to control the usage of such technology when it introduces to the public. Therefore, it will be a crucial challenge for researcher to predict and minimize potential unethical abuses of their work and it is up to them to relish it.
Reference
National Science Foundation. (2008, May 30). A computer that can ‘read’ your mind
[Press release 08-091]. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111641&org=olpa&from=news
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
clear paragraphing especially using firstly, secondly, thirdly and in conclusion makes it extremely easy for the reader to follow your argument.
However i feel that the use of 'then' in the 2nd sentence as the first word could be avoided.
I fully agree with your idea. It is rather crucial for researchers to predict and minimize potential unethical abuses. Besides, I think it is a great idea to apply brain mapping to the medicine domain, such as treating mentally disordered patients~
Post a Comment