Research and Technology for Learning and Memory

Research and Technology for Learning and MemoryStacey ObispoEnhanced Learning expert advances in bioelectronics and applied neural control technologies produce enabled scientist to create machine assisted minds (McGee Maguire, 2007). The technological advances have been sought to improve the forest of volumes mental capacities by enhancing ones exponent to learn unless like pharmaceutical firements have done in the past (McGee Maguire, 2007). However, when enhancing ones mental abilities as both technological and pharmaceutical advances have done, many ethical questions arise. This paper bequeath address the available and future plans for learning enhancements and ethical implications for learning enhancements much(prenominal) as pharmaceutical enhancements that are acceptable and controversial, accustoms of brain/ data processor interfaces, equal availability of brain enhancements to all diverse groups, who controls how brains are enhanced, and who receives enhancement. These topics will be hike up explored by this authors ethical viewpoint.When one talks of brain enhancement certain images from futuristic movies displaying cyborgs may come to mind. However brain enhancements specifically for learning are nothing new. Doctors for many years have been prescribing pharmaceuticals to enhance ones ability to teach (McGee Maguire, 2007). These doses promise to improve general psychological and cognitive functioning by enhancing ones mood, memory, attention, alertness and other cognitive capacities (Fuchs, 2006).Increasing ones ability for attention and alertness has been accomplished over the endure two decades through psychostimulants such as methylphenidate and dextromphetamine (Fuchs, 2006). The legal drugs have been used to treat (ADHD) and enhance attention and other functions in healthy people (Fuchs, 2006). Another drug that has been reportedly used on mood and personality in healthy people is the use of selective serotonin inhibitors (SSRIs) (Fuchs, 2006). Healthy individuals who pretend (SSRIs) in absence of mental illness have frequently reported that negative feelings such as anxiety, sadness, disappointment, guilt or shame are hurt and self-esteem and confidence rise(Fuchs, 2006). In addition (SSRIs) may be attributed towards giving individuals a thought of well- be and offer positive influence on the fictional character of individuals social interactions (Fuchs, 2006).Pharmaceutical emergence in increasing ones ability to recover memories and block memories is currently in the works for future maturation (Fuchs, 2006). The pharmaceutical uses for recovering memories will be specifically targeted towards those who are cognitively impaired by the aging process and for those who develop dementia (Fuchs, 2006). The pharmaceutical development in blocking memories will be developed specifically towards blocking painful memories in those who suffer from PTSD (Fuchs, 2006). respectable considerations in dealing with the use of pharmaceutical enhanced cognitive abilities stem from improper diagnosis and misuse. The implications for methylphenidate and dextromphetamine drug misuses come from improper diagnosis. For instance, how preempt one surmise that a trouble with a childs academic performance is due to the childs inability to open attention or be alert when in fact the problem may be with the childs environment? Furthermore excessive use of methylphenidate in civilise boys has raised c at a timerns in the United States (Fuchs, 2006). Misuse of methylphenidate and dextromphetamine has accounted for 16 percent of college students using the drugs as study aids (Fuchs, 2006). As a result the use of these drugs has been very controversial.Ethical concerns in brain enhancement through pharmaceuticals include precaution (Fuchs, 2006). For example, methylphenidate idler increase the short term capacity of ones work memory at the expense of information adequately harnessed in meaningful, high er order knowledge (Fuchs, 2006). Furthermore unanticipated consequences and side effects from this drug are long term (Fuchs, 2006). What happens is that memory enhancement may impair memory retrieval in some individuals because the natural balance between store and forgetting could be interrupted by an overload of memories in the brain (Fuchs, 2006).Competition between individuals is another ethical concern for pharmaceutical brain enhancement. For instance once pharmaceuticals are more widely spread so individuals may try using this method for a competitive edge towards better grades at school or for keeping a job (Fuchs, 2006). In addition those who may be of lower socioeconomic levels may not be able to pay the competitive edge and are placed at an even greater disadvantage (Fuchs, 2006).Another ethical consideration for pharmaceutical brain enhancement is that it changes the human condition by manipulating our subjective experiences, cognitive abilities, and personality tr aits (Fuchs, 2006). Mind enhancement according Fuchs (2006) threatens to devalue human life and its imperfections, it fosters an illusion that one must be constantly happily and it villainies natural forgetfulness and negative moods. The use of pharmaceuticals for brain enhancement interferes with ones own personal development and ones ability to cope with their fears, failures and seatbacks. perhaps prescribing brain enhancing drugs just place the responsibility of solving ones problem on a drug rather than finding a sense of responsibility to oneself to come up with solutions to ones life problems.Brain/Computer interfaces (BCIs) have multiple uses. Pacemaker like brain implants help individuals with Parkinsons disease and those with tremors (McGee Maguire, 2007). Treating economic crisis has been shown effective in clinical trials with Vagus nerve stimulators constructed by Cyberonics (McGee Maguire, 2007). Experimentally in cases of spinal cord severage, systems for function al neuromuscular stimulation are being used (McGee Maguire, 2007). Patients with locked in syndrome have received brain to computer interfaces enabling one to communicate via computer by thinking about moving the cursor (McGee Maguire, 2007). Artificial vision systems enables the blind, using a cortical implant to navigate independently, to read letters, and through electronic interface it allows one to watch television, access a computer, and use the internet (McGee Maguire, 2007). The device Braingate has been used on a severely paralyzed patients, through a brain chip, to enable individuals to access e-mail, play computer games, control a television, and turn lights on and off by thought alone(McGee Maguire, 2007). Researchers have been able to restore hearing in deaf patients by inserting a penetrating device inside the brain stem (McGee Maguire, 2007). A clinical trial towards restoring speech is being used to restore speech from an implantable BCI (Alpert, 2008).The futur e of BCIs crosses from assisting the physically ill and handicapped to assisting government in their Department of Defense strategies. Neural prostheses will be used in future developments to enable users to drive mechanical devices with thoughts and monitor not provided the patients goals of what they want to reach for but also their motivation and mood(McGee Maguire,2007)( Alpert, 2008). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has allotted $24 million to support research into the proposals for brain machine systems in six different laboratories (McGee Maguire, 2007). These projects have the objective to control robots and airplanes through thought alone (McGee Maguire, 2007). British Telecoms Artificial Life Team is working creating a chip called Soul Catcher 2025 (presumably ready, 2025) which goes behind the eye and records the individuals thoughts, sensations, and experiences throughout their life (McGee Maguire, 2007). In order to record all experiences mul tiple chips would unavoidableness to be used (McGee Maguire, 2007). The technology would allow users to transfer or transplant memories and experiences from one user to the attached (McGee Maguire, 2007).Currently not all BCIs are available to all groups of people. Brain interfaces such as the Braingate costs 50,000 for the force and equipment used and follow up costs vary (Brown University, 2005).In the future, after FDA approval, and commercial marketing it is possible that private insurance and Medicaid may pay for BCIs like the Braingate (Brown University, 2005). Individuals who want the Braingate procedure pay out of pocket (Brown University, 2005).Not being able to offer enhanced learning procedures such as BCIs to all individuals raises the issue of fairness. Is it fair to only help the haves and not the have nots when both can benefit from a brain computer interface procedure due to their disease or handicap? If brain interfaces are not made available to individuals who meet the requirements for its uses (physical impairment, disease, etc.) then it could mean a loss of quality of life in individuals who come from low socio economic levels.BCIs should be correct for its potential uses for enhancement determinations in healthy individuals. BCIs used for the purpose of intelligence enhancing for people who have no disability, or BCIs used for controlling weapons or heavy machinery such as automobiles and airplanes like DARPA has proposed should be regulated. Perhaps international laws could be made to regulate the uses of BCIs so that this technology enhances only those who have a disability or disease and not individuals who just want to be enhanced for a job, acquiring a job, or performing better at school. When enhancements are made because a person thinks they need it rather than truly needing because of disease, illness, or physical impairment then inequality between those who have and have not will get larger.Regulating who can control BCIs i s an substantial consideration. Currently in the United States before a medical device can be marketed it must meet the requirements of the food and Drug Administration (FDA) (McGee Maguire, 2007). Although these devices are regulated to some degree the question as to whether the investigation of the FDA is adequate (McGee Maguire, 2007). For instance , required post market safety reviews on devices are rarely done and the focuses of FDA review is establishing the indications for use, methods of safe placement ,individual risks, to surgery and anesthesia, and compilation of adverse events related to device removals ( McGee Maguire,2007). Clinical trials are then implemented to assess the efficacy of the device and its safety (McGee Maguire, 2007).Regulations for BCI operators should also be mandated. For instance the capabilities of BCIs in the future could mean that individuals will not have control over their actions and that an operator can control the individual (McGee Ma guire, 2007). Individuals that control the operation of BCIs installed in patients have an enormous power in their hands. BCIs installed into patients could make these individual vulnerable to a doctor or governments control (McGee Maguire, 2007). For this reason BCIs should be regulated internationally.Learning enhancements through BCIs are quickly developing. BCIs can enhance the learning processes and experience of individuals who are disabled and increase their quality of life. conversely this same technology can be used to enhance healthy people and give one a competitive advantage. Enhancing healthy people can lead to making them robot like, or allow one to control robots, weapons, and heavy machinery through thought alone (McGee Maguire, 2007). Perhaps one of the most important concerns of using BCIS in healthy people is what will happen to humanity and the human condition? What will happen to ones concept of self? Would individuals with BCIs be responsible for their action s or empathetic towards others? Offering BCIs to enhance healthy people seems to be a very slippery slope and should be avoided. Technologies such as BCIs should be embraced to help individual with disabilities and illnesses have a better quality of life. However this technology should not be allowed to enhance healthy people. Consequences to the human condition could be affected negatively as well as society and environment. Proposing international regulation of such devices seems to be clutch form of action to prevent such detriments in the future.ReferencesAlpert, S. (2008). Brain-Computer interface devices Risks and Canadian regulations. Accountability in Research, 15, 86.Fuchs, T. (2006). Ethical issues in neuroscience (McGee Maguire, 2007, p. 291) (McGee Maguire, p. 291) . Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19, 607.McGee, E. M., Maguire, G. Q. (2007). seemly borg to become immortal Regulating brain implant technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 302.Brown University, (2005). Brain-chip interfaces. biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2005_Groups/03/impact.htmdemo