Articles

The article by Wil McCarthy puts neural engineering in a very negative light. While any new technology should be open to scrutiny and we must put reasonable restrictions on its use, it does not help when biased, irrational speculation is put forward as serious questioning. To state that the ongoing debate as to whether deaf children who have cochlear implants should learn sign language makes the technology “loaded with difficult decisions” is tantamount to hysteria. As a legally deaf person for whom cochlear implants are not an option, I can assure you that deafness itself is far more serious than the mere nuisance of having to choose whether to learn sign language or not for the sake of social interaction with others with a similar condition. Also, as a person with a moderate to severe neuromuscular condition, I find it sad that neural engineering would be put in such light, making the benefits it will bring about seem negligible compared to the problems it may raise. Finally, as a researcher in brain-computer interfaces, I am disheartened to see such a biased, misleading (i.e., the article presents neural engineering as having very little ethical use) article published under the IEEE label.

The ethics behind only a few pieces of technology is simple. Guns, for example, were invented exclusively for killing (as far as I know). Most other things can and are used mostly for good. A balanced ethical discussion should thus convey that message in no uncertain terms. Absolutely everything in this world can be used for negative purposes. Even water, so vital to all living beings, can and has been used for harming people. Does this mean we should start questioning the ethics of using water in general? Shall we also ban the act of smiling on account of what politicians and sales people do with it? How far shall we go with choices based on fear? Do these questions seem unreasonable? Well, so does Mr. McCarthy’s article.

If even a serious technology magazine can portrait extremely useful research in such a misleadingly bad light, what hope is there that the general population will have an informed, balanced view of brain research? Can the IEEE please enforce higher standards (e.g., a rebuttal following the article) before publishing controversial material?

Wishing peace and good reasoning to all,

Dr. Francisco Sepulveda, Coordinator, BCI Lab, University of Essex, UK

Note: I'm reposting this comment as the original one referred to the wrong author, whose (wrong) name was under 'About the author' in the article's web page.
----------------------------------------------
This article puts neural engineering in a very negative light. While any new technology should be open to scrutiny and we must put reasonable restrictions on its use, it does not help when biased, irrational speculation is put forward as serious questioning. To state that the ongoing debate as to whether deaf children who have cochlear implants should learn sign language makes the technology “loaded with difficult decisions” is tantamount to hysteria. As a legally deaf person for whom cochlear implants are not an option, I can assure you that deafness itself is far more serious than the mere nuisance of having to choose whether to learn sign language or not for the sake of social interaction with others with a similar condition. Also, as a person with a moderate to severe neuromuscular condition, I find it sad that neural engineering would be put in such light, making the benefits it will bring about seem negligible compared to the problems it may raise. Finally, as a researcher in brain-computer interfaces, I am disheartened to see such a biased, misleading (i.e., the article presents neural engineering as having very little ethical use) article published under the IEEE label.

The ethics behind only a few pieces of technology is simple. Guns, for example, were invented exclusively for killing (as far as I know). Most other things can and are used mostly for good. A balanced ethical discussion should thus convey that message in no uncertain terms. Absolutely everything in this world can be used for negative purposes. Even water, so vital to all living beings, can and has been used for harming people. Does this mean we should start questioning the ethics of using water in general? Shall we also ban the act of smiling on account of what politicians and sales people do with it? How far shall we go with choices based on fear? Do these questions seem unreasonable? Well, so does this article.

If even a serious technology magazine can portrait extremely useful research in such a misleadingly bad light, what hope is there that the general population will have an informed, balanced view of brain research? Can the IEEE please enforce higher standards (e.g., a rebuttal following the article) before publishing controversial material?

Wishing peace and good reasoning to all,

Dr. Francisco Sepulveda, Coordinator, BCI Lab, University of Essex, UK