Imagine a world of streets lined with video cameras that alert authorities to any suspicious activity. A world where police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes. A world in which a suspect who lies under questioning gets nabbed immediately because his brain has given him away. Though that may sound a lot like the plot of the 2002 movie "Minority Report," starring Tom Cruise and based on a Philip K. Dick novel, I'm not talking about science fiction here; it turns out we're not so far away from that world. But does it sound like a very safe place, or a very scary one? It's a question I think we should be asking as the federal government invests millions of dollars in emerging technology aimed at detecting and decoding brain activity. And though government funding focuses on military uses for these new gizmos, they can and do end up in the hands of civilian law enforcement and in commercial applications. As spending continues and neurotechnology advances, that imagined world is no longer the stuff of science fiction or futuristic movies, and we postpone at our peril confronting the ethical and legal dilemmas it poses for a society that values not just personal safety but civil liberty as well. Consider Cernium Corp.'s "Perceptrak" video surveillance and monitoring system, recently installed by Johns Hopkins University, among others. This technology grew out of a project funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense -- to develop intelligent video analytics systems. Unlike simple video cameras monitored by security guards, Perceptrak integrates video cameras with an intelligent computer video. It uses algorithms to analyze streaming video and detect suspicious activities, such as people loitering in a secure area, a group converging or someone leaving a package unattended. Since installing Perceptrak, Johns Hopkins has reported a 25 percent reduction in crime. But that's only the beginning. Police may soon be able to monitor suspicious brain activity from a distance as well. New neurotechnology soon may be able to detect a person who is particularly nervous, in possession of guilty knowledge or, in the more distant future, to detect a person thinking, "Only one hour until the bomb explodes." Today, the science of detecting and decoding brain activity is in its infancy. But various government agencies are funding the development of technology to detect brain activity remotely and are hoping to eventually decode what someone is thinking. Scientists, however, wildly disagree about the accuracy of brain imaging technology, what brain activity may mean and especially whether brain activity can be detected from afar. Yet as the experts argue about the scientific limitations of remote brain detection, this chilling science fiction may already be a reality. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center reported that NASA was developing brain monitoring devices for airports and was seeking to use noninvasive sensors in passenger gates to collect the electronic signals emitted by passengers' brains. Scientists scoffed at the reports, arguing that to do what NASA was proposing required that an electroencephalogram (EEG) be physically attached to the scalp. But that same year, scientists at the University of Sussex in England adapted the same technology they had been using to detect heart rates at distances of up to 1 meter, or a little more than three feet, to remotely detect changes in the brain. And while scientific limitations to remote EEG detection still exist, clearly the question is when, not if, these issues will be resolved. Meanwhile, another remote brain-activity detector, which uses light beamed through the skull to measure changes in oxygen levels in the brain, may be on the way. Together with the EEG, it would enhance the power of brain scanning. Today the technology consists of a headband sensor worn by the subject, a control box to capture the data and a computer to analyze it. With the help of government funding, however, that is all becoming increasingly compact and portable, paving the way for more specific remote detection of brain activity. But don't panic: The government can't read our minds -- yet. So far, these tools simply measure changes in the brain; they don't detect thoughts and intentions. Scientists, though, are hard at work trying to decode how those signals relate to mental states such as perception and intention. Different EEG frequencies, for example, have been associated with fear, anger, joy and sorrow and different cognitive states such as a person's level of alertness. So when you're stopped for speeding and terrified because you're carrying illegal drugs in the trunk of your car, EEG technology might enable the police to detect your fear or increased alertness. This is not so far-fetched: Some scientists already are able to tell from brain images in the lab whether a test subject was envisioning a tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver or a dwelling, and to predict whether the subject intended to add or subtract numbers. Just last month, scientists announced a new study aimed at decoding visual imagery in the brain. Although brain-based lie-detection technology has been quite controversial and has only been tested on a limited basis, early researchers have claimed high accuracy at detecting deception. But there's a problem: Most brain-based lie-detection tests assume that lying should result in more brain activity than truth-telling because lying involves more cognition. So these lie-detection methods may fail in sociopaths or in individuals who believe in the falsehood they're telling. Whether such technology will be effective outside the laboratory remains to be seen, but the very fact that the government is banking on its future potential raises myriad questions
read more | digg story
UK government over science budget
Britain's most famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, has accused the government of making “disastrous” cuts to research funding that threaten the country’s international standing. Hawking has released correspondence accusing ministers of putting science at risk through basic “bookkeeping errors” that have led to an £80m budget shortfall and warning that several university physics departments may be forced to close. Separately, it has emerged that he has turned down the offer of a knighthood. “Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them,” said a spokesman. In the Queen’s birthday hon-ours this weekend, three respected but low-profile scientists are awarded knighthoods. The absence of a similar accolade for Hawking has long been one of British science’s minor puzzles.Now Hawking has cleared up the mystery by revealing that he first turned down a title more than a decade ago and since then his resolve has only hardened. His interventions on matters of public policy have been rare, but he has been angered by the cuts to physics funding that followed the government’s attempts to reor-ganise science. Last year ministers decided to merge the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which funded most of Britain’s physics research. The merged body, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), was set up with an immediate shortfall of £80m because of mistakes in calculating the running costs of new laboratories. This immediately threatened the jobs of 600 physicists and the closure of facilities such as the Jodrell Bank radio telescope. It could also force Britain to pull out of global projects such as the Gemini telescopes in Hawaii. British involvement in other major international projects – such as the new particle accelerator at Cern, the physics facility near Geneva – are not believed to be at risk. They do, however, further squeeze the cash available for spending in Britain. An independent inquiry is under way into the crisis, but this week Ian Pearson, the science minister, is due to publish a report replying to a select committee that was highly critical of the government’s actions. In his letter, Hawking said: “This bookkeeping error has disastrous implications. There is a possibility that very severe cuts will be made in the grants awarded to UK research groups. “These grants are the lifeblood of our research effort; cutting them will hurt young researchers and cause enormous damage both to British science and to our international reputation. They could well lead to several physics departments closing.” The threat to university physics departments has most angered Hawking and his fellow theoretical physicists. Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge and a close colleague of Hawking, has already decided to quit Britain to become director of the Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada, this autumn. “Experiments at the cutting edge of physics are designed to test theories, so theory is essential to their interpretation,” said Turok. “What the government is doing by cutting theory is consigning the UK to funding but not benefiting from these big experiments. It really is a dumb policy.” Brian Cox, professor of particle physics at Manchester University, who is closely involved with the large hadron collider project at Cern, said he supported Hawking’s comments. “The notion that scientists will make a more valuable contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the world if their research is closely directed by politicians is the most astonishing piece of nonsense I have had the misfortune to come across in a long time,” Cox said. Pearson has written to Hawking rejecting most such criticisms and has suggested the creation of the STFC has been a success. He said in a statement: “There was no deficit at the time of the merger; nor were there arithmetical errors. I can quite understand how those whose work is not funded may well question those who gave it a lower priority.” For Hawking such battles may soon seem remote. He expects to spend more time abroad in future, partly in California and partly with Turok in Ontario.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
