close this window
Science, Human Rights and the Military
The military commonly enlists science in its efforts. But when science is humanity, the relationship gets a little stickier.
Neuroscience and national security go together somewhat uneasily. Stick the two in a single sentence, and University of Pennsylvania historian Jonathan Moreno starts getting e-mails from all kinds of people who are sure they’ve been brainwashed by the CIA. (It might not help his inbox that he wrote a book called Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense.)
“It’s hard to talk about these issues in part because we have kind of a paranoid popular-culture background,” Moreno said. Maybe you’ve seen The Manchurian Candidate, or, more recently, The Men Who Stare at Goats.
Neuroscience and national security, though, sit at the forefront of the complex relationship between science and the military, bedfellows that have produced not just compelling fiction, but also real dilemmas for the researchers who bridge them.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a conference today of its year-old Science and Human Rights Coalition, a group whose joint concerns are embodied most starkly in the application of science to war.
“The human rights frame is almost completely missing from this discussion,” said Len Rubenstein, the former executive director of Physicians for Human Rights and now a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins. He spoke at the conference’s opening session. “The question of research for military purposes and scientific activity for military purposes is usually viewed either through the frame of professional ethics or scientific integrity. If human rights is introduced at all, it comes through the question of human subjects research with the Nuremberg Code.”
Scientists ought to consider, he argues, the broader question of human rights in work that ranges from weapons development to anthropology. As the science and potential military applications have grown more sophisticated, it follows that the ethics are now more complex, too.
Researchers, for instance, are already mulling whether beta-blockers could be used to reduce feelings of guilt in soldiers who do the unpleasant work of interrogation. Conversely, scientists wonder if oxytocin could induce trust in the interrogated. And what if neuro-imaging could help indicate what combatants are thinking? Or if brain monitoring could track how soldiers handle stress in training?
“We’re moving clearly more and more in the direction of being able to manage neural activity, manage behavior, attitudes and perception at a distance,” Moreno said.
Rubenstein, in response, pointed to the little-recognized Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It entitles a person to social security indispensable for both dignity and “the free development of his personality.”
“When we have weapons that are deliberately designed to change people’s personalities, to manipulate people’s personalities, we have a problem,” Rubenstein said. “Not only an ethical problem, not only a national security problem, we have a human rights problem.”
It’s not that human rights are opposed to national security, Rubenstein argues; this is why the Geneva Conventions attempt to regulate conduct in war, not oppose war all together. From there, the distinctions are important. Weapons incapable of discriminating between combatants and civilians — like land mines or cluster bombs — violate human rights, he said, suggesting scientists who contribute to developing them must bear this in mind.
The most public example of murky scientific involvement in warfare has come from the Pentagon’s Human Terrain System, a controversial program to embed anthropologists with soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Department of Defense billed the program, which was unveiled in 2007, as a path toward greater cultural understanding and, ultimately, less violence.
But the American Anthropological Association roundly denounced the program. The participating anthropologists typically wear military uniforms and sometimes carry firearms. The military has insisted the program isn’t designed to gather intelligence for combat, but the AAA questioned how the one can ever be separated from the other in the context of war.
The Human Terrain System, the AAA concluded, violates many of the association’s main ethical tenets, including the obligation to do no harm and to obtain “informed consent” from subjects — something it may be impossible to give when facing a scientist in uniform.
In the new worlds of asymmetrical warfare, counterterrorism and neuroscience, however, all of the ethical guidelines may not yet be written.
Sign up for our free e-newsletter.
Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.
Follow us on Twitter.
word on the street
- Anonymous User
- stealthbear
more in this section
Gender Wage Gap Skewed By Survey Flaws
‘Orcas as Slaves’ Argument Sinks
The Perceived Delicacy of the Female Conductor
Prop Planes: The Future of Eco-Friendly Aviation?
House Puts Transportation in Partisan Crossfire
A Perennial Epicenter, Now for Same-Sex Marriage
Prop 8 May Be Same-Sex Couples’ Least Worry
EarthScope: A Seismic Shift in Data Gathering
Pressure to Conform Can Inspire Creativity
Learning to Read When a School System Falters
also by this author
Better Super Bowl Makes for Better AdsA lot of people say they watch the Super Bowl mostly for the ads. But it turns out a good game surrounding those ads makes them seem better.
Overseas Troops Finally Get Fair Shot at VotingAfter decades of obstacles hindering the voting process, new laws will allow overseas and military voters to submit their votes in time for the 2012 election.
Traffic Solution: Make Drivers Less LonelyRather than moaning about too many cars on the road, the Ridesharing Institute says the real key to battling traffic congestion and pollution is filling empty passenger seats.
Conservatives’ Politics of Fear a Biological ResponseResearchers looking at how we fixate on threats uncover more evidence of a biological component to the red-blue divide.
Private Prisons Can’t Lock In SavingsA report from The Sentencing Project argues that a primary driver for privatizing corrections isn’t really paying off.

Receive 1 year (6 issues) of our print magazine for just $14.95. Miller-McCune features polished, in-depth reports on research and solutions across the policy spectrum — from health care, education and energy to international affairs, poverty and the global economy. It's a must read for well-informed and solutions-driven individuals.

follow us on:
from the source

World health leaders announce coordinated push to eradicate or control neglected tropical diseases.

A survey of award-winning children’s picture books from 1938 to 2008 suggests our increasing estrangement from the natural environment.

Various ways of assigning numbers to events, people, and actions is an ancient parlor game, but let’s not take it beyond that.

New research finds problems that require a flash of illumination to solve are best approached during the time of day when you’re not at your peak.

Texas Republicans won Friday as the Supreme Court rejected a judicially drawn redistricting map, but not for the reasons you might think.







