Interview with Dr. Imogene G., neuroengineer at MIT
Interview conducted by … Randy S. Meyers
Meyers: Dr. Imogen G.—I was told that’s how you prefer to be addressed. There must be an interesting story behind that, right?
…which you apparently won’t be sharing today, okay. First of all, thank you for agreeing to speak with us in response to Dr. Nicholas Morris’s recent remarks. Before we get to the controversy, let’s start at the beginning: could you explain to our readers, in very simple terms—what exactly is neuroengineering?
Dr. G: Imagine you’re four years old. You have building blocks, a few wires, and a battery. Your brain is exactly that. Neuroengineering helps you understand how to play with those parts to build interfaces that repair defects, improve signals, or enable new functions. So that tomorrow you can still build something beautiful with your blocks. Was that simple enough?
Meyers: That was delightful. But let’s talk about Dr. Morris. In a recent interview, he voiced concern that as technology advances, researchers are becoming less willing to respect ethical boundaries, spending their lives more with machines than with people. As examples, he cited your current project on BCI stimulation in a machine—one you supposedly even talk to. Could you—
Dr. G: You’re not about to tell me you don’t talk to your phone, are you? Or to your Alexa? Or that you don’t wish you already had a car with full self-driving? Talking to those is fine, but talking to a machine that likely has more brain than the people examining it isn’t?
Meyers: I’ll admit the self-driving systems have their appeal—and our fridge has a name. And yes, I think that’s perfectly normal. But back to Dr. Morris and his criticism of your stance and your BCI project. Please explain your position.
Dr. G: This isn’t a “position.” It’s my life and my research. And it’s facts—objective facts—and those aren’t a matter of opinion.
Another fact: I once shut down Dr. Morris’s studies because he exposed subjects to risks without their consent. Fact: that is precisely why the Association for Integrity and Truth invited me to become a member. Since then I have worked within that foundation to promote greater ethics and transparency in science. That is verifiable, not negotiable—and I’m quite sure none of my colleagues would claim otherwise.
Meyers: I think you’re right about that. Then let’s talk about ethics. When you build interfaces between brain and machine—who decides where the boundary lies? And how do you prevent healing from turning into manipulation?
Dr. G: Boundaries of what, exactly? Technology? Responsibility? Or do you mean the boundaries of your imagination? If you want to talk ethics, first specify what you want to evaluate ethically.
But I can tell you where the ethical boundary lies for me—boundary, singular; I’ve no idea why there should be several. One for Sundays, perhaps?
For me, the boundary is every person’s free will. If you ignore that boundary, you lose any moral foundation.
The boundary has nothing to do with the machine. The boundary is the human being. Healing and manipulation differ by only one thing: consent. If someone allows me to repair their brain, that’s medicine. If someone is altered without their knowledge, that’s abuse. There’s nothing in between.
Meyers: But who decides whether someone truly consents freely? People can be influenced—by fear, by promises, by pressure. Is that still free will?
Dr. G: But that, too, is their own decision. What difference does it make to the freedom of the decision whether the motive is fear or courage, love or hate? It is still a decision. To stick with the BCI-chip example: suppose a patient is told that without a “brain pacemaker,” they will very likely die soon from one of their seizures—but implanting the chip could kill them as well, while a successful operation might allow them to live a completely normal life. The patient decides which path to take—and perhaps you or Dr. Morris presume to judge which decision is based on courage and which on fear. I do not. But I respect the decision the patient makes.
Meyers: I have nothing to add except to thank you for your clear words, Dr. G. I would not wish for you to give a speech at my wedding—or at my funeral, for that matter—but when it comes to defending my rights as a human being to my own free will, you have my vote.
Kommentar hinzufügen
Kommentare