Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neuroscience Advances and Future Warfare

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Neuroethics

Abstract

This paper begins by recalling that advances in neuroscience were used for hostile purposes, for example, in the development of lethal nerve gasses, in the last century, and it is argued that in the kinds of asymmetric warfare likely to characterize coming decades, such advances could again be utilized to develop novel weapons. The paper then suggests that the idea that the problem is that bioterrorists will immediately be able to design and use advanced biological and chemical weapons is misguided and that the real question is how the wholesale militarization of the life sciences can be prevented. It is in that context that the paper examines the dangers of misuse that could arise from some current developments in neuroscience. It is argued, for example, that benignly intended civil work on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) has to be understood in the context of modern military interests in data collection and analysis from drones and the probable development of autonomously acting systems. The difficulties that such novel weapon-related developments will cause for our present understanding of morality and international law are reviewed, and finally, it is suggested that neuroscientists trying to adjust their concepts of responsible conduct in these circumstances will need the help of neuroethicists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 999.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andreasen, N. C. (2001). Brave new brain: Conquering mental illness in the era of the genome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. C., Ulam, P., & Wagner, A. R. (2012). Moral decision making in autonomous systems: Enforcement, moral emotions, dignity, trust and deception. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(3), 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Switzerland (on behalf of the “JACKSNNZ”) and Kenya, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. (2011). Revised: Possible approaches to education and awareness-raising among life scientists. BWC/CONF.VII/WP.20/Rev.1, Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansak, K. C., & Tucker, J. B. (2012). Governance of emerging dual-use technologies. In: J. B. Tucker (Ed.), Tucker (pp. 305–339). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. (2012) A draft treaty? The holes in the draft arms trade treaty. Global Policy Journal. http//:www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/draft-treaty

  • Bookman, T. (2011). Governing lethal behavior in robots: T&S interview with Ronald C. Arkin. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 30(4), 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowcott, O. (2012). US drone attacks threaten 60 years of international law, says UN official. The Guardian, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, P., Bianchi, L., Guger, C., Cincotti, F., & Schalk, G. (2011). Current trends in hardware and software for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). Journal of Neural Engineering, 8, 025001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R., & Frankel, M. S. (2011). Reshaping responsible conduct of research education. Professional Ethics Report, XXIV(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. (2008). World at risk. New York: Vintage Books/Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Champagne, F. A., & Curley, J. P. (2011). Epigenetic influence of the social environment. Chapter 10. In A. Petronis & J. Mill (Eds.), Brain, behaviour and epigenetics. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre. (2010). Global strategic trends – Out to 2040. London: Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doud, A. J., Luca, J. P., Pisansky, M. T., & Bin, H. (2011). Continuous three-dimensional control of a virtual helicopter using a motor imagery based brain-computer interface. PLoS One, 6(10), e26322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, M., Endy, D., Epstein, G. L., & Friedman, R. M. (2007). Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Washington, DC: CSIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottron, F., & Shea, D. A. (2012) Publishing scientific papers with potential security risks: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700. Washington, DC: US Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, J.-H. (2012). The promise and perils of non-invasive brain stimulation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35, 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horstman, J. (2010). The scientific American brave new brain. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinzelmann, N., Ugazio, G., & Nobler, P. N. (2012). Practical implications of empirically studying moral decision-making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6(Article 94), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICRC. (2011). International Humanitarian Law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts. 31IC/11/5.1.2, 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, C. (2012). Technological strategy in the age of exponential growth. JFQ, 66(3), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G. E., et al. (2012). International governance of autonomous military robots. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, XII, 272–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G., & Gulley, L. (2010). National security neuroscience and the reverse dual-use dilemma. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 20–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinley, R. A., Bridges, N., Walters, C. M., & Nelson, J. (2012). Modulating the brain at work using noninvasive transcranial stimulation. NeuroImage, 59, 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meselson, M. (2000). Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology. The Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions Bulletin, 48, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Defence. (2011). The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Joint Doctrine Note 2/11. London: Ministry of Defence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. D. (2012a). Transcranial magnetic stimulation, In: J. B. Tucker (Ed.), Tucker (pp. 223–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. D. (2012b). Mind wars: Brain science and the military in the 21st century (2nd ed.). New York: Bellevue Library Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novossiolova, T., Minehata, M., & Dando, M. R. (2012). The creation of a contagious H5N1 Influenza virus: Implications for the education of life scientists. Journal of Terrorism Research, 3(1), Special Issue – Assessing the Emergency Response to Terrorism: Novossiolova. http://www.ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/jtr/article/view/417

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2012). Consultation: Novel neurotechnologies: intervening in the brain. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petro, J. B., Plasse, T. R., & McNulty, J. A. (2003). Biotechnology: Impact on biological warfare and biodefense. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 1(3), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. M. (1997). The chemical weapons taboo. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, M. S. (2012). Moral machines? Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 411–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society. (2012). Neuroscience, conflict and security. Brain waves module 3. London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmaltz, F. (2006). Neurosciences and research on chemical weapons of mass destruction in Nazi Germany. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 15, 186–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2011). Governance of neuroscience: challenges and responses. In Brain waves module 1: Neuroscience, society and policy (pp. 87–96). London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tafolla, T. J., Trachtenberg, D. J., & Aho, J. A. (2012). From niche to necessity: Integrating nonlethal weapons into essential enabling capabilities. JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly, 66(3), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennison, M., & Moreno, J. D. (2012). Neuroscience, ethics, and national security: The state of the art. PLoS Biology, 10(3), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevan, T. (2012). Do not censor science in the name of biosecurity. Nature, 486, 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. B. (Ed.). (2012). Innovation, dual use and security: Managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom. (2012). The convergence of chemistry and biology: Implications of developments in neurosciences (Working Paper No 1). Meeting of states parties to the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction. BWC/MSP/2012/MX/WP.1. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, K. M. (2008). Framing biosecurity: An alternative to the biotech revolution model? Science and Public Policy, 35(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelis, M., Rozsa, L., & Dando, M. R. (2006). Deadly cultures: Biological weapons since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Alvero, P.-L., & Saxe, R. (2010). Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgement. PNAS, 107(15), 6753–6758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Peace Studies, School of Social and International Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

    Malcolm Dando

Authors
  1. Malcolm Dando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Dando .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Jens Clausen

  2. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

    Neil Levy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Dando, M. (2015). Neuroscience Advances and Future Warfare. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_139

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_139

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4706-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4707-4

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation