Fifth Public Science Debat

The Office of Organization and Financing of the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) moved a step closer to resolving an emotional debate about Braintec’s research. After much wrangling with critics who raised ethical concerns about the "building of a super mind," the commission inserted several safeguards.

Does it matter that we spend billions on obscure science projects and only a fraction of that on understanding the human mind? Should ordinary people be given a serious stake in making decisions about science? These were some of the key issues at the fifth public debate organised by New Scientist.
The panel members were Steve Mattick, ethicist and member of the CMHS, Jeffrey Joe Hamilton, professor in neurophysics and director of the Braintec Institute, Bernard Dwight, member of the American Federation for Biotechnology's task group on public perception and editor of the journal Medical Science Research and Daryl Bowbrick, physicist and author of Leaving Reality Behind. Margot Howells, warden of the University of Washington, needed all her diplomatic skills to keep the show on the road.

BERNARD DWIGHT: The situation is not acceptable. We are facing a whole new challenge: the combination of the emergence of new technologies, and the emergence of new property rights on knowledge. These are fundamental shifts that deny people their rights to healthcare, food and water. We need a referendum about the future of science and technology.

JEFFREY JOE HAMILTON: We need more transparancy about the context in the way decisions about funding in science are made. It’s not always the case of one science project versus another science project.

BERNARD DWIGHT: The intelligent world out there needs to understand something of the economic holocaust in order to fully comprehend exactly why the Commission could never responsibly and objectively deal with the ethical and scientific issues involved in Braintec’s research.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How do we strive for progress in science while ensuring that we do not cause harm?

STEVE MATTICK: It’s very important that advice on the trade-off comes from people not involved with the experiment. We need to be able to monitor the consequences of scientific research once it has been allowed to go forward. Sometimes we seem to operate with an “all or nothing” strategy: we either allow it to go on indefinitely, or don’t allow it at all. We need institutional safeguards that allow us to say we’ve gone too far.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: "Think Big", "Market Forces", "Information Age", and now "Bio-tech Revolution" and "Knowledge Economy" - we have lived through them all without seeing them make one iota of difference to the general state of the nation and no one here believes the emerging Braintec Revolution will lead to anything.

JEFFREY JOE HAMILTON: Braintec’s research has not proved inherently dangerous. In addition, regulatory committees (many with public representation) have been set up to ensure that experiments are conducted in appropriately safe conditions. The regulators' task is not simply to allow research to go ahead unless potential hazards are obvious. It is to consider risks that could come to light later. All proposals have to survive positive vetting of this sort before they are sanctioned. The likelihood of unexpected consequences, and the margin of error, is correspondingly reduced.

BERNARD DWIGHT: There is a chance, however remote, that a memory introduced into another test subject might have adverse consequences. I believe most experts would agree.

JEFFREY JOE HAMILTON: We should not, however, overlook potential hazards in altering our mind with Braintec’s engineering. As with all other applications of science to human welfare, biotechnology is likely to have risks. As with all human endeavours, mistakes will be made. Nevertheless, any rational analysis of the new techniques must surely conclude that they are being applied and controlled more stringently than any technology ever before.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: The risks are not understood. And the livelihoods of dozens of test subjects are threatened.

DARYL BOWBRICK: Braintec’s research is not a precise science. It is a highly uncertain and imperfect technology. The ability to copy and story individual thoughts is not equivalent to knowing how the mind will respond. Memory transfers lead to unpredictable outcomes because the mind itself is continuously changing. In terms of ethical and social sustainability, security and equity, Braintec’s research is neither necessary nor desirable.

STEVE MATTICK: It will not take much longer before we realise that much of the current fear over the Braintec Institute is unnecessary. If their research and development are allowed to continue without unreasonable restrictions, the products will be there for all to see and appreciate.

BERNARD DWIGHT: What is required here is not more science, but either drastic redistribution or governmental subsides, or some other social science innovation. Some people accept the need to control or redirect the applications of science but claim nonetheless that pure research should be left untrammelled. But that’s simplistic. There is no sharp demarcation between the two. Science is moulded by technology and society.
Are there areas of academic research that the wider public should try to hold back? To some extent the answer is yes, if the work involves experiments to which there are ethical objections. But what if the experiments seem OK but the outcome could be mischievously and damagingly applied? I think the answer is yes here too. We could direct funds away from a field which although interesting might lead to problematic applications.

STEVE MATTICK: The scientific community often thinks that the problem with the public is ignorance and fear when in fact it is lack of participation. If we want to achieve benefits, we have to take risks. But it’s very important that we take advice on that trade-off from people who are not involved in science.