wrist phenomenon: Thinking up a world ruled by neuroscience

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Thinking up a world ruled by neuroscience

Kayt Sukel, contributor

Kathleen Taylor raises questions about the impact of advances in neuroscience in The Brain Supremacy, but provides few answers

IN THE totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell in his dystopian novel, 1984, Big Brother is always watching. In her new book, The Brain Supremacy, University of Oxford research scientist Kathleen Taylor suggests that Orwell's take may not be far off the mark - and that instead of observing our behaviours through telescreens and carefully placed spies, governments will one day monitor our thoughts directly using brain scanners.

Sounds like an interesting bit of science fiction, doesn't it? Taylor argues that advances in science and technology, particularly in the field of neuroscience, are dramatically changing the future courses of medicine, law and society. As such, she endorses discussing the cultural implications of such a "brain supremacy" immediately - so we, as a society, can direct it before it starts directing us.

It's a valid and important point, and I applaud Taylor for encouraging this conversation.

Yet instead of providing some much-needed direction for a controversial subject, Taylor more often sets up what-if scenarios and then leaves the reader hanging with the words "It's more complicated than that". She uses that particular phrase so often, in fact, that she creates the acronym IMCOTT to save on word space. It's a safe approach to a thorny dialogue but it is, ultimately, unrewarding to read.

The book shines in presenting a thorough and illuminating analysis of neuroscience methods, past and present. Taylor's explanation is thoughtful, engaging and provides readers with a valuable understanding of what different approaches can offer to both science and society as a whole. This gives weight to her criticisms of "science lite" journalism, an important consideration in framing discussions, present and future, of the brain supremacy.

While advocating open debate about the future of neuroscience in society, Taylor fails to mention any of the organisations that are working to educate legislators, physicians and policymakers about the benefits and detriments of brain science. It is a glaring omission: the addition of comments from groups like the Dana Foundation or the American Association for the Advancement of Science would have provided more meat to Taylor's arguments.

As one might expect, The Brain Supremacy asks a lot more questions than it answers. And though Taylor contends that we need the right scaffolding to help shape discussions about where neuroscientific advances may take us, she only provides the basics. Her book is well placed to encourage provocative debates in university student seminars - yet it will probably leave the lone reader hoping for more.