Should we use electronic devices to become smarter and more attentive versions of ourselves?
It is hard to imagine any person, however brilliant, who does not aspire to be even smarter. This wish may become a reality thanks to recent advances in neuroscience. Researchers are discovering previously unknown ways to strengthen the human brain. Only one question remains: do we really want to live in such a world?
It may be too late to ask. Modern society has already warmly embraced the basic idea of tuning the mind by artificial means, an idea that can be called "cosmetic" neurology. School-aged children are taking Ritalin, Adderall and other drugs to focus attention. Parents and teachers rely on anti-depressant and anti-anxiety drugs, and self-help books offer the latest innovations in the field of neuroscience, to sharpen and speed up the thinking of ordinary people.
These developments were joined by another method of cognitive improvement: direct current transcranial stimulation (tDCS). In this technique, electrodes attached to the scalp send tiny electrical currents to the brain. The electrical drip seems to cause increasing adjustments of the electrical potentials in the nerve cell membranes adjacent to the electrodes, and this increases or decreases their chance of firing. This in turn leads to measurable changes in memory, language, mood, motor actions, attention and other cognitive domains.
Researchers still don't know for sure if tDCS is capable of creating long-term neural changes. While most tests have shown only transient effects, there is limited evidence that repeated uses may achieve longer-lasting results. The procedure has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and most researchers agree that the procedure should not be performed without the supervision of a qualified person. However, when done correctly, the procedure is safe, portable, easy to apply and inexpensive.
The idea is so simple that some do-it-yourselfers have built their own devices for home use, ignoring the warnings. Such an irresponsible approach is not for everyone, but the electrical stimulation of the brain may become popular. In a recent online survey, 87% of respondents answered that they would agree to undergo tDCS treatment if it would improve their performance at school or at work.
Should we welcome this opportunity to become smarter, faster and more attentive versions of ourselves? Some neuroscientists do encourage the free use of this electric "thinking machine", but others (and we are among them) are less convinced. In any biomedical device, safety is of utmost importance. And what about justice for all? If tDCS becomes widespread, will the rich use it to further reinforce their enhanced status?
There are other, more complex issues. Brain manipulation techniques, such as tDCS, may allow users to rewire the neural mechanisms responsible for key aspects of their cognitive experience and sense of self. Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, the question is whether users might eventually discover ways to change themselves. Moreover, would it be acceptable to force others, for example students, workers or soldiers, to undergo such changes in order to strengthen certain skills? And what about the company itself? If people build themselves a moral backbone through dealing with their limitations, wouldn't something essential be lost when we can ease every cognitively demanding task, or every emotionally difficult moment, with the push of a button?
It is hard for us to believe that things will go this far. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to think about them before making decisions that may have unintended consequences. The techniques for improving the brain should be evaluated gradually, case by case, while the company studies in depth their advantages and disadvantages. If such procedures are made available to all, the scientists and users will bear the responsibility of educating the public on how to use the technology in a safe and appropriate way. Until then, we can only say that tDCS and similar tools are cause for excitement—and caution.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
About the authors
Roy H. Hamilton is a faculty member at the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania.
Jihad Zareik is a master's student in neuroscience at University College London, where he performs cognitive experiments in the Brain Stimulation Laboratory.
The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel
One response
As one who teaches students I see a contrast
Among: the students who don't really want to study.
And: the drugs that are supposed to target those students who don't really want to study.
The analogy for this matter is: the geese that suckle them before eating them.
The very fact that children in particular are not focused; Gives them the vision of the future
, or the burst of creativity that comes from children and is so important to them for their future.
So personally I don't like nutritional supplements or drugs because of breed and species
But very fond of listening and support without criticism
Or if you want: Enoch to a boy according to his own way.