Harbison
CM1090 Kyle Portfolio 3 Dehumanizing Implications of Neural Imaging Technology
The mechanisms involved in perception, cognition, behavior and emotion have begun to be pieced together through the efforts of recent neural research. Scientists have shown that people fitting into certain categories based on various personality tests have predictable neural responses to specific inputs. Even further, researchers have found correlations between brain activity to emotions such as empathy and pessimism, as well as specific differences between reasoning dealing with moral decisions and those that do not. Personality characteristics, political affiliations, sexual attractions as well as religious transcendence all have been convincingly shown to have linked patterns to specific brain activity. However, the strong correlations that have been asserted are often criticized by statisticians as being unbelievable. Also, many argue that these findings are unreliable because there are many factors other than neural activity that shape how a person turns out. The article Brain Scans Raise Privacy Concerns written by Steve Olson in the March, 2005 issue of Science, as well as Of Voodoo and the Brain by Sharon Begley written for Newsweek delve deeper into the whole concept of this technology. From these articles I have found many ethical issues that arise out of the possible extensions of current neural imaging studies. While some are quite obvious and come with this specific territory such as informed consent, others receive less consideration. The ethical issues I believe to be the most important are as follows:
Is it ok to categorize (predictive) ones mental, emotional and social capacity through neural imaging testing based on morphological or subjective feedback? Is it ok to allow the public access to knowledge about diseases they could possibly inherit in the future due to late onset gene expression discovered by means of neural imaging? Is it ok for employers to require neural imaging testing before hiring a potential employee, or to use on a recurring basis? Is it ok for physicians to inform the patient of incidental findings discovered during neural imaging? Is it ok for physicians to actively search, as in no longer incidental, for things other than what the test was being performed for in the first place? Is it ok to develop and use neural imaging technology if the same information can be revealed through other means? Is it ok to use neural imaging as a substantial form of legal evidence if the process is established on the reviewers presumed objectivity, and based on non-unique neural signals?
Although each ethical issue I have brought forth maintains their own relevant bearings towards many aspects of society as studies into this field further develop, the first ethical issue I presented is the one I believe to be the most critical. I believe that the issue surrounding the categorization of the public through what has always been thought to be every individuals free will has at least some relation to all of the other issues presented, and thus its comprehensiveness is why I have decided to make it the focus of this paper. There are dramatic differences in the positions that can be taken by different groups of people in response to predictive categorization based on correlations between subjective neural responses to stimuli. The intentions as well as consequences of actions must be taken into account when dealing with ethical issues,
and as such I will attempt to present each groups position as their relation towards both the motivations to develop this technology and what could happen thereafter. Classifying personalities is apparently moral enough because we have behavior assessment tests around today like what we took during freshmen orientation, however it is what is done with this information that determines its moral standing. The best place to start would be with the researchers and physicians involved because they are the professional societies that would be developing this technology and initially deciding its implementation. What other groups of people use this technology for is collateral since the purpose these medical professions would have to develop neural imaging further is completely different than the reasoning other groups would want it to be developed, at least as framed in the articles. On some level, the objective standpoint that all professionals in the research field ideally maintain leads them to view the patient not as a person with a distinct personality, but as a detached organism. It is not to say that the medical profession or the act of research is cruelly dehumanizing and inconsiderate of our presumed rights. However, in order to hold the health, safety and welfare of the public paramount, professionals in this field believe progression must constantly be made towards understanding and mapping out everything there is to know about ourselves as a species. In order to understand why an illness occurs, one must first fully understand the infrastructure that it affects. So in this sense of complete utter objectivity, instead of treating illnesses after the fact, ultimately it would be more beneficial to the public if the respective professionals were able to predict illnesses due to a complete knowledge of the systems involved. However, it just so happens to be that the system of interest here, the infrastructure that needs to be mapped out, houses ones personal identity. And the features of each persons identity, what we believe to be our own individual experiences, are the hypothetically-predictable data sets that are analogous to concrete empirical results which allow us to predict diseases in other biological systems. In other words, from the medical professionals perspective it is believed that the brains response (emotion) to any stimulus can be a correlated internal reaction. Just as how we know vessel endothelial cell re-alignment correlates with high blood pressure, which ultimately leads to atherosclerosis (Ives, Eskin and McIntire). Therefore, figuring out exactly how each biological system works is the best way to provide long-lasting healthcare for the public, and thus would be seen as morally obligatory from a professionals standpoint using either moral theory. If the use of this technology stopped here, I believe this would not be an ethical issue at all because moral theories such as Kantianism and Utilitarianism would have no profound role. However, since the articles presented delve deeper into the secondary uses of this technology, I feel I must also. I believe the general public would argue that if this technology develops to the point where what was once considered free will is predictable, that the moral theories and principles that regulate our actions today would no longer hold It bearing. was Kants assertion that all humans are autonomous decision makers. And as such, everyone should be treated as if they have the same intrinsic value. By not doing so would to be unethical from this standpoint, and is such the case if classifications occur from use of neural imaging. Because once classifications occur, ranking structures emerge also, as pointed out in the articles. Also, at least from this groups perspective, it would be hard to believe that we are independent decision makers when our cognitive abilities can be broken down into formulas in a dehumanizing nature. Rawls conception of Procedural Justice, where fairness should be taken into highest consideration, along with his idea of the Veil of Ignorance all revolve around the notion that we are all the same as a higher-order species, and so we should be treated as such. However, if our cognitive infrastructure is mapped out to the point where what makes us who we are as individuals is nothing more than an algorithm, then there is only room for discrimination. It is within the professional societies outside of the medical fields where such discrimination could occur. Whether colleges start using brain scans within their admission processes, or corporations use them towards their recruitment strategies, ultimately the use of neural imaging as definite predictions of the public would leave them vulnerable to said entities using such information as control mechanisms. Considering there are already corporations today that use behavioral assessments to determine whom to hire, it seems as if this
group of professionals already believe that they would positively gain from this type of technology. By having a definite way to categorize people, they would have a way to choose exactly the type of employee to fit their specific mold. For example, my personal interviews with Stryker proved that beyond having a certain GPA, for them behavioral analysis holds all bearing on who gets hired. However, I cannot actually find a moral theory that fits this type of reasoning. For instance, if I were to approach this with a Utilitarianism view, by using these predictive classifications as the reasoning behind hiring/admitting/etc, one cannot be sure if they made the best decision since certain people were excluded based on internal mental characteristics that have no concrete influences on actual outcomes. To look for the best result for whatever is being accomplished, everyone needs to be considered. To provide the greatest good for the largest amount of people, it is imperative to not discriminate against certain neural imaging results. As I have progressed through the presentation of each groups position, I have mentioned various analytical devices used in determining morality such as Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Rawls notions on fairness, to vast generalizations of the various professional codes of ethics studied in this class. As I come to my conclusion I would lastly like to state that Gerts common morality rule of do not deprive of freedom comes to mind. To absolutely predict the neural capacities of an individual, whether accurate or not, takes away ones freedom to be anything more than, and do anything against, being a subject to societys prejudices. I believe the complexity of freedom, free will, and what have you is oversimplified when it comes to discussing the ethics behind this technology, and by using neural imaging as an absolute means of classifying every detail of ones cognition would be grossly overestimating natures influence in the Nature VS Nurture balance. Even if this technology does develop to the point where it is easy to determine certain cognitive characteristics about people, there are still external factors (nurture) that play a role in the actual outcomes that are being predicted. And it is the complete exclusion of these external factors in predictions made that are what the various analytical devices mentioned point at being unethical. It is the external circumstances that shape our free will and determine the outcomes to any of our interactions. An example of this is that it is believed that 4% of everyone in the United States are sociopaths (Stout). This mental illness is characterized by the lack of emotional attachment towards others, and is heavily associated with murderers. The fact that 4% of this population are sociopathic means that we interact with people with this disease on a daily basis, however obviously just because they have specified responses to certain stimuli (or a lack thereof) does not mean they will do the certain acts or live the assumingly-predictable lives that are associated with this disease. In fact, if 4% of everyone I know are sociopathic, and all lead normal lives, then the predictions and stereotypes associated with this disease are actually founded around minorities. No matter how concrete the ability to predictively categorize the human cognition becomes, it is still inaccurate in nature because external circumstances shape our interactions. It is this whole concept of subjectivity that I believe allows me to use the moral theories, principles and concepts presented to conclude that this issue is not ethically sound. I believe it to be morally permissible to use such a technology to aid in illness diagnosis, or even in the legal system since determining if someone has lied is very different than determining if someone will. However, the collateral usages of this technology to classification have too great of an unethical influence to consider the predictive categorization of ones cognitive capacities to be overall morally permissible. The position the medical professions hold is moral enough in a Kantian sense. That being all knowledge holds intrinsic value no matter the outcome, however ultimately the primary benefit of this technology is informational and the resulting positions other fields of professionals would take cannot be ignored. And as such, my conclusion that this technology should never be used in a predictive manner is the best among the possibilities because ultimately to be a professional is defined to be serviceoriented. And the service to the public and the protection of their free will at highest consideration, in no way is the predictive categorization of ones mind justifiable when it can be used in such unethical manners. To use such abstract, subjective classifications as an absolute means of determination borders on discrimination, which is never justified by any moral theory, principle, code or ideal ever discussed in this class.
Citations
Ives, C. L., Eskin, S. G., McIntire, L.V. Mechanical Effects on Endothelial Cell Morphology: In Vitro Assessment. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology 22.9 (1986): 500-507. Stout, Martha. The Sociopath Next Door. Broadway Books: New York, 2005.