Customer Reviews

Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Basic science has always had military applications, but only relatively recently has the defense industry actively funded and solicited scientists to optimize war. In "Mind Wars," Jonathan Moreno analyzes the military's intense interest in modern neuroscience from historical, scientific, and ethical perspectives.

A famous historical example of military funding basic science is the British intelligence services' employment of thousands of mathematicians - including artificial intelligence pioneer Alan Turing - to decipher the Enigma encryption system during World War II. Both the simultaneous development of the ENIAC computer and the role of Vannevar Bush (another artificial intelligence pioneer) as Roosevelt's science advisor helped to solidified the defense industry's interest in advanced mathematics and computer science.

Far less famous is the long-standing interest of the military in the behavioral sciences, which Jonathan Moreno carefully traces back to its roots in the psychological analyses of American soldiers in the 1950s to improve training and recruiting techniques. Moreno estimates that the military - including KUBARK, the codename for what would come to be known as the CIA - was the real source of nearly all federal funding for 1950's behavioral sciences. More than a third of American research psychologists were funded through such channels (frequently without their knowledge). This startling conclusion is validated by the involvement of several 1950's psychologists in the development of interrogation techniques (involving psychological torture and humiliation) as well as even by contemporary psychology's involvement in the Abu Ghraib scandal (and refusal by the American Psychological Association to critcize such practices).

After this historical introduction, "Mind Wars" turns its focus to the potential military applications of neuroscience - a field that represents the convergence of medical, computer and behavioral science, into each of which the military has poured enormous sums for decades. Moreno covers several existing programs, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Augmented Cognition (AugCog) and Preventing Sleep Deprivation (PSD) programs, involving the use of "smart drugs" like modafinil and CX717, as well as the development of nonlethal weapons such as hypersonic "high intensity directed acoustics" or microwave-radiating "active denial systems." Moreno also cautiously discusses some of the military's future directions, such as "rapid onset brain-targeted bioweapons," with a careful eye towards what is technically feasible and what is merely hype.

In what is probably the best part of "Mind Wars" (and unexpectedly so, at least for me), Moreno discusses the ethical implications of neuroscience's involvement with the military. Moreno admits that he is no "loose cannon" - indeed, he has given invited testimony to Congress, has served on two presidential ethics commissions, and is an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security. Nonethelesss his analysis is incredibly even-handed, bringing up topics like the philosophy of "dual use" for military science, the history of the practice of informed consent (which actually began in the military decades before it was used in academia), and the privacy implications of new neurotechnology.

The book itself is written in a highly conversational tone, filled with interesting and relevant personal anecdotes (of which Moreno has many; his father was a psychiatrist involved in the military testing of LSD). Moreno's sources are well cited, where possible: many of his government contacts declined to be identified by name.

"Mind Wars" will likely be enjoyed by both neuroscientists, psychologists, and lay people alike, although experts are likely to be familiar with most of the existing technologies and programs that Moreno reviews. On the other hand, the historical and ethical treatment of military neuroscience are the most timeless contributions of "Mind Wars" to this debate, and will be interesting to anyone with an interest in science and its applications.

MIND WARS: BRAIN RESEARCH AND NATIONAL DEFENSE draws some important connections between psychological study and military objective, making it a recommended pick for both military and psychology collections at the college level. Here is a unique presentation of connections between natural security objectives and brain research, documenting ways in which U.S. security forces seek to manipulate the human nervous system to favor warriors and disrupt enemies. From virus-transported molecules called 'neuroweapons' to drugs which repress violent tendencies, neuroscience projects offer deadly potentials influencing not just battlefield applications, but civilians and freedom as well. Any concerned with democracy, warfare or connections between science and politics must read this.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

This is a great book, as long as you think of it as a book for laypeople, to get up to speed on ethical issues revolving around neuroscience research, especially as they relate to US military efforts. It is well written in a fairly conversational tone that keeps the reader interested. I was disappointed that, although it appeared to me at first to be an objective, academic book, it isn't really. I was misled because Moreno is an endowed professor of biomedical ethics, and there are 9 pages of "Sources" and an index. The trouble is that Moreno failed to link many of his points, facts, quotes, and opinions to any of the written sources; there are no citation numbers or other ways (except when he mentions names, which he often doesn't or can't) to trace something he said to the source. Given the highly speculative and controversial nature of the subject matter and how important it is to know where it came from, this would be inexcusable for an academic book. He might get 4.5 stars for his 2nd edition if he fixes this oversight.

Disclaimer: I am a neuroscientist and a pacifist. I wish Moreno had been clear about _his_ position, but we had to guess until p. 136 (out of 184), where he finally admits he finds himself "squarely in the middle" between Fukuyama's ("Our Posthuman Future") dread of all things new and the Futurists' transhumanism. I prefer Ramez Naam's stance, admitting often in his excellent book "More than human" that we ought to embrace, not fear, our ability to change humanity. Moreno's fence-straddling in many ways is a good thing; it allowed him to discuss both sides of a number of arguments rationally and in some detail. As a neuroscience insider (who does not accept military funding), I agree with him that too many researchers deny or ignore the ethical implications of their research.

Moreno's book is an important follow-up to Naam's, since Naam said we need to begin debating and planning for our transhuman future, and Moreno does a fine job of seriously beginning or expanding the parts of that discussion involving the nervous system. His final recommendation is that national committees be formed to make these debates more public. I hope that happens.

At first glance, most rational people would think that this book was written by a kook for kooks. I mean the title, subtitle and cover art are a bit far out. I was beyond turned off. I avoided this book like the plague while seeking books on neural prosthesis, yet this book kept coming up. I finally went to the library and checked it out and was surprised by the rational content of it. Yes, his style is a bit quirky, but it really is serious and informative and the quirkiness just makes it far from dry.

It is disturbing how much DARPA is mentioned in a topic about medical research , but considering the department of defense received $685 billion in 2010 while NIH only got 31 billion, I guess it really isn't all that shocking. But in all seriousness, how smart does a soldier really have to be? I can understand the Continued Assistance Program to figure how to keep them awake for prolonged periods of time, or even figure ways to tweak their amygdalas and make them fearless., but some of the other implants to turn them into Einsteins is just proof that our priorities are screwed up.

I don't think this book demonstrates a problem in medical ethics, but in political ethics and laziness and indifference amongst the voters.

To prove the content of the book is no joke, below are a couple of articles from a couple of legit sites. At Duke Uni, they have an article about Super Soldiers, and at DARPA, there is an article called remind. Believe it or not, at least to my knowledge, DARPA is fairly open about what they do, as long as you know what you're looking for. Just skimming and going through their stuff you wont find much. But if you research ahead of time, and know what to look for, then you can search for it, otherwise, it's what they choose to put on the front counter so to speak.

It's near thorough but not quite, but considering there are so few books of this type, that's what gives it a 5. We need more books like this.

This is an intriguing but speculative volume exploring the possible national defense uses of human brain research. The author, Jonathan Moreno, states his fundamental hypothesis. The idea behind this book (page 3): ". . .if national security agencies had so much interest in how the relatively primitive brain science of the 1950s and 1960s [e.g., testing the effects of LSD] could help find ways to gain a national security edge, surely they must be at least as interested today, when neuroscience is perhaps the fastest growing scientific field, both in terms of numbers of scientists and knowledge being gained." The author wonders at the lack of "ethical discussion among neuroscientists on the national security applications of their work" (page 5).

Moreno speculates about a number of possible links between brain research and national security. Among possible applications: (a) How to better interrogate possible intelligence sources; (b) brainwashing/mind control; (c) improving the performance of our own troops (e.g., how to deal with fatigue); (d) nonlethal weapons.

He concludes the book with a chapter entitled "Toward an ethics of neurosecurity," in which he argues that we need to explore the ethics of possible applications of brain research for national security. He also notes that (page 183) "We should be able to learn and apply the lessons of the new brain science for peaceful purposes. . . . The fields of conflict resolution and peace studies could enrich and be enriched by information from the neurosciences."

The arguments in the book tend to be speculative. The grounding of the argument is not always secure. However, the book does stimulate thinking about a cutting edge issue in application of contemporary science to national security. In that context, this book is useful reading.

I just started reading this book, but I'm very interested in the topic and impressed by the credentials of the author. What I have read so far makes me want to get some security clearance and start experimenting on live human brains. Fun!

I think the use of WAR in the title by Moreno,especially having read his earlier book Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans and the concerns it raises are valid, and results from the use of phrases from the Transhumanists like "WE ought to embrace", "OUR ability to change humanity", "WE need to begin debating and planning for OUR transhuman future".

A party of WE and OUR creates an Interest Group, and thus an Issue. By involving NGO's, professional associations, and governments, all of which have financial and power interests at stake, and by using media through publicity campaigns, they legitimize their issue by making their Issue, everybody's issue.

Then they propose their solution, which was created in Think Tanks fifty years ago, and impose it as Public Policy upon everybody else. This process they call GOVERNANCE. This is actually a process of herding the population like a trail driver and cattle to a destination that they have determined. Thus this is the true meaning of the term WE when it is used inclusively by them. I merely ask, as in the old Lone Ranger joke, where Tonto says "What You mean WE Paleface?"

The reality is, that at the highest levels of participation and decision making, the scientific and political "committees" always consist of "experts", who are incapable of admitting of a binding ethical obligation to refrain from imposing policies that they favor upon others who don't want them. Yet they artfully arrange things so that everyone is forced to subsidize their agendas through tax-supported initiatives while unaware of it. They can always rationalize why thisw is necessary.

After sufficient marketing, publicity campaigns and brainwashing which they call the "democratic process", their agenda is moved forward. Vocal opponents are often portrayed as traditionalists, conservatives, backward or as ignorant obstructionists...even diseased and defective, simply because they want to be left alone or are overall happy enough without being manipulated.

Terms like "We", and "Our" have always meant the "few, self-appointed "experts", the government and Foundation financed oligarchies, if you will, with their far reaching scientifically designed agendas. The "natural person" as opposed to some contrived invention called a "trans-human", as the these "experts" envision themselves to be someday, has a right to be left unmolested by these establishment psychopaths who are determined to drive them like herds to market, and cram an agenda of political domination disguised as scientific "advancements" down their throat.

Who gets to decide on which people get to benefit from these advances and which are denied once THEY are in control of it? Is it Dr. Mengele's Fan Club? The Militarists? Or our family Doctors, who are held hostage by this corrupt system? What are their qualifications? Will everyone benefit equally? Do those who view science as a means to dominate and control the weaker and less aggressive in society get this privilege? Where does it "end"? What is their End Game? Is it the ruling psychopathic elite who currently makes up the "WE, OUR"? What stops them now? from warring, stealing, exploiting, murdering, harassing, enslaving, and dominating most of the human race? From having peace? NOTHING.

Do THEY need super-human intelligence, strength and life extension to be better people? I doubt it. Furthermore...Why would they ever consent to allow "normal ethical" people this benefit? Why would we allow them to have those powers? Read the book Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski and it will put this issue in an entirely different perspective.
Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes)

I don't mind

* what they research
* what kind of fund they receive and research,

as long as the experiments and influence doesn't undermine
my own freedom.

In this arena, there are three parties:

* Pure Interested Researchers,
* Funder,
* and Victims.

Dr. Moreno juggled himself where he stands
through his book, is it important? No -
I have been a victim for 15 years.
What they do,

1) Under wireless MEDUSA,
which says every 5-6 seconds, 24/7 commanding me what to do.
(all these you can turn around and see the direction of the sound
coming.)

2) Fire the pulsed directed energy at me,
(my skin vibrates it. PPS(pulsed periodic stimuli) which
caused internal breeding while urination.)

3) while in the sleep period, they fired the words

-----> We will kill your family.

repeatedly and loudly, which caused the alternating
the dream.

4) while I was in bed for resting, the infra-wave fired
at my body and I felt I was floating on the sea water wave.
when my head goes up, my abdomen areas goes down.
I love this experiences but they never repeated.

5) Recently, they asked while I was supposed to be in sleep,
"Everything is finished except the visual perception part."
asking what I do know : They call it secret.

I myself studied neuroscience for two years.
So, I can be researcher side as well as victim's side.
Researcher's side could complain I have done nothing wrong.
And it is the right argument. However, now they have
just begun to learn the effect of what they have done.
That's good news.

The major agonizing issue is what the researchers did
is affecting the freedom in a great deal to the people in
the rest of the world.

All things are done REMOTELY and WITHOUT CONSENT.

The most interesting question that I would like to raise
is to the researcher,

To the funder, you are an asset to protect.
Once you are no longer an interesting asset,
never forget, in any minute, your place can
be switched from the observer of the remote human
experiment to the human lab-rats.

Can researcher's side possibly imagine it?
When funders think they are no longer useful as a
researcher... Perhaps, using another researcher's work,
the funder could kill remotely, but looked like a natural
death. I question what would be the last word of just
murdered researcher...