Advertisement

Abstract

Is the human body a suitable place for a microchip? Such discussion is no longer hypothetical — in fact in reality it has not been so for some years. Restorative devices such as pacemakers and cochlear implants have become well established, yet these sophisticated devices form notably intimate links between technology and the body. More recent developments in engineering technologies have meant that the integration of silicon with biology is now reaching new levels — with devices which interact directly with the brain. As medical technologies continue to advance, their potential benefits for human enhancement will become increasingly attractive, and so we need to seriously consider where this may take us. In this paper, an attempt is made to demonstrate that, in the medical context, the foundations of more advanced implantable enhancement technologies are already notably progressed, and that they are becoming more science fact than is widely considered. A number of wider moral, ethical and legal issues stem from enhancement applications and it is difficult to foresee the social consequences, the fundamental changes on our very conception of self and the impact on our identity of adoption long term. As a result, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibilities and is timely to have debate to address the wider implications these possibilities may bring.

Keywords

Deep Brain Stimulation Multiple System Atrophy Cochlear Implant Breast Implant Human Enhancement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    McGee, E.M. and Maguire, G.Q. (2007) ‘Becoming borg to become immortal: regulating brain implant technologies’, Camb Q Healthc Ethics, Summer; 16(3), pp. 291–302.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeng, F.G. (2004) ‘Trends in cochlear implants’, Trends Amplif., 8(1), pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hossain, P., Seetho, I.W., Browning, A.C. and Amoaku, W.M. (2005) ‘Artificial means for restoring vision’, BMJ, 330, pp. 30–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olds J and Milner P M. (1954) ‘Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain’, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 47, pp. 419–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Talwar, S. K., Xu, S., Hawley, E. S., Weiss., S. A., Moxon, K. A., and Chapin, J. K. (2002) ‘Rat navigation guided by remote control’, Nature, 417, pp. 37–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moan, C.E., and Heath, R.G. (1972) ’septal stimulation for the initiation of heterosexual activity in a homosexual male’, J. Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 3, pp. 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delgado, J.M. (1977) ‘Instrumentation, working hypotheses, and clinical aspects of neurostimulation’, Applied Neurophysiology 40(2-4), pp. 88–110.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wichmann, T. and DeLong, M.R. (2006) ‘Deep Brain Stimulation for Neurologic and Neuropsychiatric Disorders’, Neuron, 52:1, pp. 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Romo, R., Hernandez, A., Zainos, A., Brody, C. D., Lemus, L. (2000), ’sensing without touching: psychophysical performance based on cortical microstimulation’, Neuron, 26, pp. 273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gasson, M.N., Wang, S.Y., Aziz, T.Z., Stein, J.F., and Warwick, K. (2005) ‘Towards a Demand Driven Deep-Brain Stimulator for the Treatment of Movement Disorders’, MASP2005, 3rd IEE International Seminar on Medical Applications of Signal Processing, London, UK, pp. 83-86, 3–4 November, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer-Hübner, S., and Hedbom, H. (eds) (2007) ‘A Holistic Privacy Framework for RFID Applications’, FIDIS. Available at: http://www.fidis.net/Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kessler, D.A. (1992) ‘The basis of the FDA’s decision on breast implants’. New Engl. J. Med. 326, pp. 1713–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graafstra, A. (2007) ‘Hands On’, IEEE Spectrum, 44:3, pp. 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gasson, M.N., Hurt, B.D., Goodhew, I., Kyberd, P., and Warwick, K. (2005) ‘Invasive Neural Prosthesis for Neural Signal Detection and Nerve Stimulation’, International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 19: 5, pp. 365–75.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warwick, K., Gasson, M.N., Hurt, B.D., Goodhew, I., Kyberd, P., Andrews, B.J., Teddy, P., and Shad, A. (2003) ‘The Application of Implant Technology in Cybernetic Systems’, Archives of Neurology, Vol. 60(5), pp. 1369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cosgrove, G. R. (2004) ‘Neuroscience, Brain, and Behavior V: Deep Brain Stimulation’, Transcript — session 6, June 25, The President’s Council on BioEthics. http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/june04/session6.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodotà, S., and Capurro, R. (eds) (2005) ‘Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body’, Opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, pp. 18-23D.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark N. Gasson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CyberneticsUniversity of ReadingReading, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations