friedrich braun
01-25-2007, 11:18 PM
HOW TO CHANGE A PERSONALITY
By Francine Russo
Time
January 18, 2007
http://www.time. com/time/ printout/ 0,8816,1580389, 00.html
Deep brain stimulation, or DBS, is a treatment given to Parkinson's patients
who don't respond to medication. A neurosurgeon implants a set ofelectrodes
deep into the victim's brain, where they give off little jolts of
electricity to disrupt the involuntary tremors and other symptoms of the
disease. But according to Martha Farah, a neuroscientist at the University
of Pennsylvania, at least one patient routinely chooses which electrical
contact to activate depending on how she wants to feel: calm for every day,
more "revved up" for a party.
Devices like DBS and psychoactive drugs like Ritalin and Prozac are already
manipulating brain function in millions of people. And future
pharmaceuticals, Farah says, targeting very specific parts of the brain,
will be even more effective and will have fewer side effects. These new
brain-control tools open a Pandora's box of ethical and philosophical
dilemmas, including what kind of society -- and what kinds of selves -- we
want.
Indeed, where there once seemed to be a clear boundary between mental health
and mental dysfunction, it's now clear that these states lie along a
spectrum. "Thirty years ago," says Farah, "only seriously depressed people
took antidepressants. But I'm sitting in a coffee shop now where probably
half the people have taken them." Some ethicists argue that unless you're
ill, you're not really yourself when you're on these drugs. On the other
hand, says Farah, we change our brain chemistry no more with Prozac than
with coffee or tea.
With that in mind, Farah is studying modafinil, a drug developed for
narcolepsy that is prescribed off-label to patients with depression, ADHD or
even jet lag. In the military, it's used to sharpen soldiers' alertness and
cognition. Her research is attempting to determine how this chemical affects
normal people. "Is there a trade-off," she wonders, "between focusing
attention and reducing creativity? And if more workers use it to excel, will
we have a workforce of narrow, rigid thinkers?"
Neuroethicists are also worried that these new cognitive technologies could
widen the gap between those who can afford them and those who can't,
eventually creating different classes of human beings. Just as problematic
as unequal access, some say, is the prospect of people being forced,
implicitly or explicitly, to take mind-altering medications. Someday we may
all feel pressure to take -- or give our kids -- focus- or memory-sharpening
drugs to compete at school or work. In fact, says Richard Glen Boire, senior
fellow on law and policy at the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics in
Davis, Calif., "some schools require kids -- not diagnosed with ADHD by
doctors -- to take Ritalin to attend school."
Farah also imagines the day when we have what she calls a
"neuro-correctional system" that could transform criminals into
noncriminals. We already force sex offenders to take libido-dampening drugs
or face denial of parole. A drug to dampen violent impulses might someday be
similarly applied. That could, in theory, prevent crimes.
But so would the castration of rapists, and that is considered a nearly
unthinkable invasion of a person's body. Do we have a comparable right,
neuroethicists ask, to "freedom of mind"? The ethicists are raising the
questions, but it will be up to the courts -- and ultimately society at
large -- to decide when the benefits of this powerful but intrusive branch
of brain science outweigh the dangers.
By Francine Russo
Time
January 18, 2007
http://www.time. com/time/ printout/ 0,8816,1580389, 00.html
Deep brain stimulation, or DBS, is a treatment given to Parkinson's patients
who don't respond to medication. A neurosurgeon implants a set ofelectrodes
deep into the victim's brain, where they give off little jolts of
electricity to disrupt the involuntary tremors and other symptoms of the
disease. But according to Martha Farah, a neuroscientist at the University
of Pennsylvania, at least one patient routinely chooses which electrical
contact to activate depending on how she wants to feel: calm for every day,
more "revved up" for a party.
Devices like DBS and psychoactive drugs like Ritalin and Prozac are already
manipulating brain function in millions of people. And future
pharmaceuticals, Farah says, targeting very specific parts of the brain,
will be even more effective and will have fewer side effects. These new
brain-control tools open a Pandora's box of ethical and philosophical
dilemmas, including what kind of society -- and what kinds of selves -- we
want.
Indeed, where there once seemed to be a clear boundary between mental health
and mental dysfunction, it's now clear that these states lie along a
spectrum. "Thirty years ago," says Farah, "only seriously depressed people
took antidepressants. But I'm sitting in a coffee shop now where probably
half the people have taken them." Some ethicists argue that unless you're
ill, you're not really yourself when you're on these drugs. On the other
hand, says Farah, we change our brain chemistry no more with Prozac than
with coffee or tea.
With that in mind, Farah is studying modafinil, a drug developed for
narcolepsy that is prescribed off-label to patients with depression, ADHD or
even jet lag. In the military, it's used to sharpen soldiers' alertness and
cognition. Her research is attempting to determine how this chemical affects
normal people. "Is there a trade-off," she wonders, "between focusing
attention and reducing creativity? And if more workers use it to excel, will
we have a workforce of narrow, rigid thinkers?"
Neuroethicists are also worried that these new cognitive technologies could
widen the gap between those who can afford them and those who can't,
eventually creating different classes of human beings. Just as problematic
as unequal access, some say, is the prospect of people being forced,
implicitly or explicitly, to take mind-altering medications. Someday we may
all feel pressure to take -- or give our kids -- focus- or memory-sharpening
drugs to compete at school or work. In fact, says Richard Glen Boire, senior
fellow on law and policy at the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics in
Davis, Calif., "some schools require kids -- not diagnosed with ADHD by
doctors -- to take Ritalin to attend school."
Farah also imagines the day when we have what she calls a
"neuro-correctional system" that could transform criminals into
noncriminals. We already force sex offenders to take libido-dampening drugs
or face denial of parole. A drug to dampen violent impulses might someday be
similarly applied. That could, in theory, prevent crimes.
But so would the castration of rapists, and that is considered a nearly
unthinkable invasion of a person's body. Do we have a comparable right,
neuroethicists ask, to "freedom of mind"? The ethicists are raising the
questions, but it will be up to the courts -- and ultimately society at
large -- to decide when the benefits of this powerful but intrusive branch
of brain science outweigh the dangers.