Kevin Wang Dr. Pearce Rhetoric 102 19 March 2010 The Brain Implant Dilemma In 2002, author M.T. Anderson wrote a novel called “Feed”, with a story envisioning a future where all human beings have implanted computer chips in their brains (Anderson 2002). It would be easy to dismiss such a bold concept as a product of fiction. However, many films and books with plots set in the future have successfully predicted the invention of many current technologies that simply did not exist at the time, including flat-screen TVs (Back to the Future II), unmanned aircraft (The Terminator), and video chatting (2001: A Space Odyssey). Suffice it to say, brain implants, as these embedded computer chips are called, are projected to become a reality. The past few years have already seen the integration of computer chip and organism, with millions of cats and dogs across the world injected with identifying microchip implants underneath their skin. Brain implants have also benefitted the medical field enormously, having in some cases cured blindness (Graham-Rowe 2007) and Parkinson’s disease (Harding 2009). However, developments indicate that brain implants for personal consumer use may see the light of day. IBM, the world’s largest chipmaker, recently announced their intent to research and develop brain implants capable of controlling gadgets via brain waves by 2020 (Hsu 2009). Toyota has already successfully demoed a wheelchair that can be controlled by its rider through brain waves (Hsu). In perhaps the most jaw-dropping development, Patti Maes, a professor at MIT, is currently developing a brain implant device named Sixth Sense that would allow its wearer to access the Internet, use programs and software (such as Word or Instant Messaging) through a mental interface, and integrate it with his or her interactions (Mistry 2009). What would this technology be capable of? Teenagers could change the channels or adjust the volume of their television without ever having to reach for a remote. A business professional on the go could check her email and fire off a couple replies without even pulling out her Blackberry phone. A college student at a bookstore could glance at the title of a novel and instantly gain access to reviews of the book from Amazon.com. The amount of utilities the personal brain implant would offer and its countless possible applications demonstrate the sheer power of the technology. However, to quote Spiderman (of all sources): “with great power comes great responsibility.” There is no denying this technology has the capacity to change the world as we know it; the question is whether or not we should allow it to. The implementation of personal brain implants would carry severe hazards that would endanger the very people it would be intended to help. The prospect of violated individual privacy, health risks, and potential disastrous social consequences ought to deter future generations from ever allowing personal brain implant technology to completely materialize. The personal brain implant would allow for a gross violation of an individual’s right to privacy. Previously, it was mentioned that many pets had had microchips injected into their bodies. Each chip has a unique code that represents its host pet’s identity. The injection process, known as microchipping, has allowed stray cats and dogs to be identified by their chips with a scanner and returned to their grateful owners’ homes (Stregowski 2010). It would be safe to assume that brain implants would, in a sense, be human microchipping. It would represent one’s digital identity, carrying all sorts of information about the individual, such as his or her name, birthday, ethnicity, religion, etc. Additionally, the way an individual used the Internet would create a more comprehensive digital identity. In a 60 Minutes special on search engine –giant Google, company co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that by examining an individual’s search queries, it was possible to understand his or her tendencies and gain additional insight into his or her life: for instance, it can be inferred that a woman Google-ing the search queries “cribs” and “parenting books” is expecting a baby (Bartiromo 2010). Finally, instead of activity being tracked to an IP address, activity conducted via brain implant could be traced to an individual (Nikolettos 2007). With so much information about the carrier of a brain implant available and so easily accessible, individuals and parties with harmful agendas could easily take advantage of the data. Imagine a hate group, such as the Nazi Party or the KKK, managing to gain access to the information and being able to locate every African American or Jew within their proximity in a matter of seconds. Imagine a Beijing teenager being interrogated for being a counter-revolutionary after the Chinese government traces an innocent Google search of “Tiananmen Square” directly to him. Imagine companies acquiring digital addresses and being able to bombard customers directly, abandoning email and instead spamming the brain with ads. A counterargument is that with such private information at play, strict regulation (perhaps by some sort of government or manufacturer-created agency) would safeguard over the private information. Plus, just as there are current rules and regulations limiting advertising (such as smoking ads marketed towards teens), rules and regulations would prevent or limit the amount of information advertisers have access to and/or the frequency with which they can distribute them. However, although private and sensitive information are protected at this present day, major breaches in security have occurred before, and identity theft remains rampant. In order to safeguard the extremely valuable data, the agencies would have to protect it like the United States Secret Service protects the US nuclear launch codes. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for them to do so; the agencies will most likely be run by either the manufacturer, which will be motivated by self –interest, or the government, with its duty to protect it’s citizens’ rights diluted by corruption and lobbying. With little hope of a committed organization effectively defending the private information from being infiltrated, the personal human implant inevitably would become a gateway into its host’s personal data, violating his or her rights. A wearer of a personal brain implant would carry significant health risks along with the computer chip in his or her head. The brain, as the center of the nervous system, performs a number of important tasks: it regulates the body, accepts information regarding an individual’s environment through his or her senses, controls physical movement, stores memory, and facilitates learning and thinking (Enchanted Learning 2009). To accomplish these tasks, it relies on a network of neurons all over the body with which it sends and receives data through electrical impulses. For a brain implant to work, it would need to be able to receive information from the brain or the neurons. Consider the real world examples given in the first paragraph: without a connection from implant to brain, the business professional would be unable to relay the intended words to her chip to compose her email message; without a connection from implant to neurons corresponding to the eye, the college student would be unable to relay the image of the book to his chip to obtain book reviews. Therefore, to successfully function as intended, the brain implant would have to act as a conductor of electrical impulses, wired to the human network between the brain and the body’s neurons. If the chip were to malfunction, it would disrupt the connection between brain and neuron and effectively affect electrical impulse transmission. A man attempting to wave his arm would find his body responsive only after a delayed amount of time, if it were to even respond. Of course, that would be the least of his problems: with his brain’s ability to regulate the body affected, his body temperature and heart rate would race out of control, killing him in a matter of minutes. Even if he managed to be resuscitated and his body regulated by an external medical device, he would still either be in a coma or a vegetative state, due to potential brain damage (Martin 2010). A number of factors could cause a malfunction, such as hardware failure and sensory overload (when too much information being spread inhibits the implant’s ability to process them). Additionally, brain implants maintaining connections to the Internet could expose the brain to the radiation from data communication networks, possibly leading to cancerous tumors in the nervous system (Daniels 2006). Now, supporters of a personal brain implant would be quick to point out that a majority of researchers have found no correlation between cell phone radiation and cancer, and that perhaps they suggest that wireless radiation does not affect human beings (Christensen 2004). They would also insist that a malfunctioning chip would be impossible, stating that health agencies (such as the FDA) would never allow a manufacturer to sell the brain implants without examining and declaring them safe for use. While a majority of researchers may have found no link between cell phone usage and cancer, that still does not rule out the fact that several researchers did arrive on an opposite conclusion. Additionally, a brain implant maintaining a connection to the Internet for long periods of time would generate significantly more exposure to radiation, not to mention directly to the nervous system (Daniels). Also, even if a manufacturer were able to pass a health agencies rigorous testing, human error, the mysterious workings of the brain, and other unforeseen problems could still nonetheless cause a chip to malfunction. With the means to possibly cause the loss of human life, the human implant represents a serious danger to its carrier. The introduction of personal brain implants to the general population would trigger undesirable effects in society. As new technologies integrate themselves into people’s daily lives, over time it can affect the way in which they live. The advent of the Internet, the search engine, and knowledge databases such as Wikipedia has simplified the process of acquiring information. However, this has also affected the manner in which one interprets information. A study regarding online research habits conducted by the University College London found that “users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse”…”(Carr 2008). In Plato’s “Phaedrus”, Socrates lamented the invention of writing, fearing that “people would come to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry around inside their heads…” (Carr). He suspected that greater access to knowledge would translate to less retention of knowledge. With the rise of Google and Wikipedia society sunk lower, for man traded away comprehensive understanding for shortened instant gratification. With personal brain implants representing the next technological advancement, users would continue down a dangerous path that would see their intelligence “flattened into artificial intelligence.” The brain implants would also reflect a more depersonalized society, with interaction heavily based upon the brain implants as a platform. Individuals capable of communicating wirelessly would find little reason or need to meet in person or ever open their mouths again. Proponents for personal brain implants would insist that they represent a step in the right direction, with speed, accessibility, and convenience resulting factors from the technological advancement. They would go on to say that the new technology could be used for good to benefit society as a whole: for example, firemen with brain implants could access Google maps and find quicker routes, saving precious time and lives. Independent blogger Alex White said it best: “everyone sheepishly falls head over heels for technology” (White 2009). Many of the features the brain implant would offer already exist in some shape or form; is it really worth upgrading to shave off a few seconds? A taxi driver with a street map and decent knowledge of the city theoretically could perform his or her duties just as well as taxi driver with a brain implant. As for the “good for society” argument, what’s not to say the opposite couldn’t happen? As mentioned before, couldn’t this convenient technology be abused? While a fireman may benefit from employing his implant to assist him in locating a fire hydrant, a thief could benefit from employing his implant to help him steal jewelry. While the personal brain implant may represent a step forward in technological advancement, it would simultaneously fuel social decline. Just because an opportunity presents itself does not mean one is required to take it. The buzz surrounding new ideas often tend to be exaggerated, as most people are quick to embrace something fresh without fully considering it. Brain implant technology is certainly an exciting concept with radical tools to offer; however, there exists no practical method that could fully integrate them into a future generation without generating chaos. With its health risks, invasion of individual privacy, and the potential to spark social relapse, personal brain implants simply bring up too many “what ifs”, and are too dangerous to ever see the light of day. References _Inside the mind of google _2010. , ed. Maria Bartiromo CNBC. The brain. in Enchanted Learning [database online]. 2009 Available from http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/brain/ (accessed March 18, 2010). Anderson, M. T. 2002. Feed. Miramax Books. Carr, Nicholas. 2008. Is google making us stupid? The Atlantic. August. Christensen, Helle Collatz, Joachim Schüz, Michael Kosteljanetz, Hans Skovgaard Poulsen, Jens Thomsen, and Christoffer Johansen. 2004. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. American Journal of Epidemiology 159, (3/18). Crosby, Kevin. Brain implants. 2008. Available from http://www.skewsme.com/implants.html (accessed March 18, 2010). Daniels, Nicki. 2006. Wi-fi: Should we be worried? The Times. December. Graham-Rowe, Duncan. 2007. Brain implants to restore vision. Technology Review (April). Harding, Anne. 2009. Brain implants better than meds for parkinson's disease. Health Magazine, January, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/06/parkinsons.deep.brain.stimulation/index.html (accessed March 18, 2010). Hsu, Jeremy. Intel wants brain implants in it's customers' heads by 2020. Popular Science (November 20, 2009), http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020 (accessed March 18, 2010). Martin, Alfred. Brain death. 2010 (accessed March 18, 2010). Mistry, Pranav. Sixth sense. 2009 Available from http://www.pranavmistry.com/projects/sixthsense/ (accessed March 19, 2010). Nikolettos, Greg. VeriChip fact sheet. 2007 Available from http://www.wethepeoplewillnotbechipped.com/main/viewpage.php?page_id=21 (accessed March 18, 2010). Stregowski, Jenna. Microchipping your pets. About.com, 2010 Available from http://dogs.about.com/od/toyssupplies/a/microchipping.htm (accessed March 18, 2010). White, Alex. 2009. Ideas worth spreading. TED q.