Bioengineering our brains
Ted Talk: American Journal of Bioethics, Neuroscience Editor, Paul Root Wolpe, says it’s time to question the bioengineering of animals, our brains and more.
It takes a while for Wolpe to get to the ethical questions, but after showcasing nearly every animal we have tinkered with in the last few year by either cloning, hybridising, genetically modifying or controlling them by wiring their brains he asks us to consider if we should have free range to do such things: do we we have the right to take over the autonomy of animals via brain control and what kind of planet and human bodies do we want for the future?
Also at Blog.bioethics.net
I found this video frustratingly manipulating, but am pleased that I saw it. It brought my attention to the reality of genetic engineering. As I watched I found myself asking how genetic engineering works, but my desire for this knowledge battled with my own ‘normalcy bias’*, triggered, I believe, by the animals. I wanted a more objective, balanced point of view. I wanted to see examples of positive uses of genetic engineering.
In order to make ethical decisions about how to regulate our behaviour, ways need to be found to communicate accurate information that do not trigger the Normalcy Bias. We face the same challenge when communicating climate change information. We all participate in shaping ourselves and our environment, so it’s important that we behave responsibly and work together to decide what is good and what is bad.
*Wikipedia explains that:
The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]
Ah yes, I too was left thinking that he had only just started to get into the meaty stuff then his talk ended. A little less of the animal show and tell and more on the ethics and societal implications would have been good. But I guess if the talk made you more aware and wanting to ask questions about the direction of research then it achieved something.
There are other forms of bias that affect how we perceive information and I talk about them in other TechNyou blogs here are links to two:
http://tinyurl.com/23lehhk
http://tinyurl.com/68dqu8y
Jason, TechNyou
there has been a comment and question asked in response to this video on our Facebook site, Talking Technology. I have placed an extended response on the TechNyou blog
http://tinyurl.com/4gnkzbx
Jason