Jane’s Brain: Neuroethics and the Intelligence Community

By Jonathan D. Moreno, PhD



Dr. Jonathan D. Moreno is one of 14 Penn Integrates Knowledge university professors at the University of Pennsylvania, holding the David and Lyn Silfen chair. He is also Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, of History and Sociology of Science, and of Philosophy. Moreno is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. In 2008-09 he served as a member of President Barack Obama’s transition team. He is also a member of the AJOB Neuroscience Editorial Board.



In September I arrived in Geneva to keynote a conference at the Brocher Foundation on the banks of Lake Geneva, where the ghost of John Calvin still casts a long shadow over the stern ethos of the Swiss. It was a glorious day in that oasis of calm and cleanliness, where the sheer power of holding much of the world’s money in its vaults justifies a muffled smugness. Compulsively, I checked my email as my taxi glided past the Hotel President Wilson, the monument of grateful bankers to the American president whose ill-fated League of Nations nearly made Geneva the official as well as de facto capital of the world. (Its $81,000 a night penthouse suite is said to be the most expensive in the world; I didn't stay there.)



 The habit of holding meetings of the great and powerful in Geneva is hard to break. The UN has an important complex there, along with WHO of course, and many other global organizations. I was told that the city’s main business, besides banking, is international conferences. That week a few dozen bioethicists were to meet on one end of the lake, recognizing the impending 50^th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki, while at the other end of town (only announced after we arrived), Secretary of State John Kerry was to meet with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov to pencil a deal on Syria’s chemical weapons. I feel sure this was a coincidence, though there were some people at the bioethics meetings who could have told them a thing or two about chemical weapons. No word if the Secretary took time out for wind surfing on the Geneva, but it was reported that he did take a nice walk in the hills overlooking the lake after his meetings when he had a cell phone call with the President.



But about that email.



By far the most interesting item was an invitation from the deputy editor of a publication called Jane’s Intelligence Review (JIR), which specializes in news intelligence analysts can use. For their November issue they wanted to know if I would write an article about neuroscience and national security. I knew enough about the Jane’s journals to appreciate that they are the “go to” source for up to date information on developments in the field of defense and security. The company is a descendent of a late 19^th century Brit named Fred Jane, who combined his knack for sketch artistry with an obsession about the naval vessels docking in Portsmouth. The result was the famous illustrated compendium Jane’s Fighting Ships, still updated annually, along with a number of other publications under the imprimatur of the eccentric Jane.

Having been around the block called bioethics and national security a few times (my book Mind Wars appeared in an updated paperback edition in 2012), I saw the invitation as a modest milestone for neuroethics. So far as I knew this was the first time that JIR expressed a specific interest in the field, so I needed little persuasion. The intelligence world has shown other signs of tracking neuroscience, including relevant reports by the national research council in 2008 and 2009 and one forthcoming in the next few months, but Jane’s gives the subject a greater currency. So did the negotiations over Syria’s chemical weapons. The editors clearly appreciated the connection of developments in neuroscience to the control over the development, manufacture and use of toxin weapons. They were also aware of the brain-to-brain interface experiment reported by the team at the University of Washington, Seattle, which helped stimulate their curiosity about the links to more traditional chemical weapons with neurologic effects.



If you happen to have a subscription to Jane’s online you can read the piece here, otherwise you’ll have to wait for the print version in a few weeks.





Editor's note:



Want to read more about ethical issues related to brain-to-brain interfacing? Emory graduate student, John Trimper, in collaboration with Drs. Rommelfanger, Director of Emory's Neuroethics Program and Wolpe, Director of Emory's Center for Ethics also recently published an article on ethical issues related to brain-to-brain interfacing in Frontiers in Neuroengineering. The open access article can be viewed here.

Want to cite this post?



Moreno, J. (2014). Jane’s Brain: Neuroethics and the Intelligence Community. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/02/janes-brain-neuroethics-and.html

Brain-Boosting or Pulp Fiction?

It comes as no surprise that pulling all-nighters comes with the territory of being an undergraduate. It is the price that most of my peers and I have paid at one time or another for trying to get more work completed before a fast-approaching deadline. The sleepless nights ramp up during finals week while the use of caffeine and energy drinks fuels our self-induced, sleep- deprived zombie states.

                                                We all do it: study zombies 

                                      (Credit: zombiesandtoys.blogspot.com)                                 

Usually, our energy drinks do not purport to have cognitive-enhancing effects. However the drink Nawgan claims to be “What to Drink when you want to Think.” The label of the can states that it is powered with Cognizin, free of caffeine, taurine, gluten, carbonation and under 40 calories with natural ingredients. Now whom would this cleverly-branded Nawgan drink not appea tol? And how can Nawgan boast such wonderful claims?

Pretty packaging, but...?

Credit: fitblogr.com

According to the Nawgan website, Nawgan was co-founded and created by neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Paul. Dr. Robert Paul’s day job is as an adjunct assistant professor at Brown University. To his credit, he has had several publications from his work on cognitive performance and cognitive decline in subjects who have dementia or in subjects taking anti-retroviral medication for HIV. Dr. Paul’s joined the energy beverage industry because he “decided it was time to stop advising companies what to do and simply do it [him]self and make sure it is done right.” But did he accomplish his goal? Do Nawgan and Cognizin work? Or are the claims more substantiated in the minds of consumers because an Ivy League neuroscientist created and branded the drink?

Nawgan’s key ingredient is Cognizin, which ostensibly increases the cognitive performance of the user. After doing a little research, I found that Cognizin is the brand name for citicoline, a precursor to a neuropeptide known to be a dopamine agonist.

Citoline

Credit:http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB1343597.html

Outside of the U.S., citicoline has been given to stroke patients in countries such as Japan and England. However citicoline has not been administered in the U.S. due to a lack of clinical data supporting its efficacy in providing long-term neuroprotection in phase III clinical trials.

The method of administration of any drug meant to reach the brain is critical, due to the blood-brain barrier’s role in insulating and protecting the brain from pathogens. One major issue with Nawgan’s cognitive enhancing claims  is citicoline’s chemical structure, which would prevent it from appreciably crossing the blood- brain barrier. In 2000, Wurtman et al. found that citicoline orally administered to humans was metabolized rapidly even before fully circulating in the body [1]. Yes, citicoline has approximately 100% bioavailability when taken orally; however, studies also show that only (0.5%) of the original dose is taken into the brain when citicholine is ingested (Secades et al 1995, Adibhatla et al 2002) [2]. Although citicoline has not been found to have any major side effects when taken short-term, the long-term effects of exogenous dosages of this compound are still not understood.

That said, Nawgan appears to have an effective marketing campaign. The target consumer of Nawgan isn’t the ischemic stroke patient or the person with Alzheimer’s. Nawgan is continuously sold and distributed on college campuses as a cognitive enhancer. In fact, on Emory’s campus, free samples of Nawgan were given during finals week. In 2011 Nawgan received a $3 million dollar investment from the Japanese beverage company Kirin Holdings, to expand its distribution in stores such Walgreens. With the rapid onslaught of neuro-enhancing products, we need better measures to protect the consumers. A scientifically unsophisticated public enticed by scientific jargon might be convinced by the scientific evidence provided on the Nawgan website. Additionally, some consumers might see the Vitamin B complexes and Vitamin E listed in the ingredients and not realize the health complications that could come with product overuse and think “the more the merrier.”

For an otherwise healthy person, I’m not convinced that Cognizin works in the manner that Nawgan has reported. As a scientist-in-training, I realize that the dosage and the method in which a drug is administered is often equally as important as the compound itself. In an article in Discover Magazine, Dr. Paul Wolpe, Director of the Emory Center for Ethics and Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, expresses similar concern for consumers of beverages boasting neuro-enhancing properties - especially people that may have an underlying mental health condition.

The underlying issue at hand, then, is, “Why are we relying on energy drinks in the first place?” Even though a healthier solution might be to get a sound night’s sleep, there seems to be a certain appeal, perhaps especially amongst college students, to consume energy drinks and supplements is to keep us alert and focused. Sleep deprivation, stress, overexertion and poor nutrition are the real culprits to our fatigue and poor concentration.

Who, me?

Credit: http://www.everydaylifeandbalance.com/quick-tips-to-help-you-let-go-of-stress.html

Surveys show that Americans continue to cut back on sleep to prioritize work and other obligations. There is even a growing problem of ADHD medication abuse by women who feel the need to keep pace with the ever increasing demands of work and family, as well as college students who feel the pressure to have an edge over their fiercely competitive peers. In a society that devalues sleep for the sake of productivity, reliance on energy drinks and caffeine, and other substances can only increase. Yet, some individuals might ask, “why not encourage people to enhance their cognitive abilities?,” if doing so enhances their productivity and happiness in their daily lives, and their utility to society. Hypothetically, if a researcher were to develop a novel drug to cure multiple sclerosis, and did so with the aid of cognitive enhancers, is there anything wrong with that?

With such widespread use of enhancers, we have to wonder whether current governing bodies are keeping pace with regulating technological innovation. Obviously new discoveries in science are being made daily, and as neuroscience continues to advance, scientists and entrepreneurs alike will capitalize on and commercialize its information to the public. Although currently Nawgan likely does not provide the cognitive boosting abilities it reports to have, future biotechnological innovations may well provide the possibility of neuroenhancement beyond the effects of a cup of coffee.

Bioconservatives such as Dr. Leon Kass, of President Bush’s Bioethics Commission, hold the belief that enhancements of humans beyond therapeutic purposes can compromise the dignity of an individual and ultimately affect the welfare of humanity. Some might suggest that, in the process of utilizing drinks like Nawgan in order to feel more productive, students are dehumanizing themselves and even others. Other students might look to “enhanced” students as an example for how to balance work and family life, and strive for an ideal unattainable without the aid of the same or a similar cognitive/performance enhancement.  While some might say that an individuals should have the right and freedom to access any enhancer, the students’ use of the drinks like Nawgan might “un-level” the playing field and result in peer pressure for other students to follow suit.

Overall, I think that Nawgan does not deliver on its claims of being an effective neuroenhancer. Additionally, I believe that the messages advocated by this product and products like it are damaging to our views on health, wellness, and achievement. Until safe and effective neuroenhancements are produced and accessible to consumers, we will continue to wrestle with the consequences of maintaining habits that contribute to lack of sleep and alertness, including obesity, heart disease, and other co-morbid conditions. Sure, in the short-term, with the aid of energy drinks you might get through a hard day’s work, but then what? A chronic dependence on caffeine and Vitamin B12 shots? Ultimately changes in lifestyle habits such as sleep and a well-balanced diet offer sustainable and safe measures towards increased concentration and alertness. Yet for many, this advice will fall on deaf ears, if some of the benefits of sleep can be mimicked from contents in a can.

Want to cite this post? 

Shagarabi, S. (2012). Brain- Boosting or Pulp Fiction? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2012/09/brain-boosting-or-pulp-fiction.html

References

[1] Wurtman RJ, Regan M, Ulus I, Yu L. 2000. Eftect of oral CDP-choline on plasma choline and uridine levels in humans. Biochem Pharmacol 60: 989–992.

[2] Rao Muralikrishna Adibhatla , Hatcher, J. F. and Dempsey, R. J. (2002), Citicoline: neuroprotective mechanisms in cerebral ischemia. Journal of Neurochemistry, 80: 12–23. doi: 10.1046/j.0022-3042.2001.00697.x

Now Available! Videos of The Truth About LIes: Neuroscience, Law, and Ethics of Lie Detection Technologies Symposium

Did you miss this awesome event? Don't despair! We have the videos for all of our neuroethics friends who couldn't be there.

You
Can’t Handle the Truth! On May 25, 2012, the Neuroscience Program, Center for Ethics
Neuroethics Program, and the Scholars Program in Interdisciplinary
Neuroscience Research (SPINR) combined forces to hold a symposium
on the intersection of neuroscience and law pertaining to the use of
fMRI and other lie detection technologies in the courtroom.



Dr. Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford Law School, opened the symposium with a talk entitled, "fMRI-based lie detection: The Gap Between Lab and Life."

Dr. Daniel Langleben, a professor of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and pioneer of using fMRI to detect lies gave a talk entitled, "Brain Imaging and Deception: Research and Practice."

Dr. Steven Laken,
founder, president, and CEO of Cephos; a company that markets the use
of fMRI for courtroom lie detection, gave a talk entitled, "Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Lie Detection."

Following the talks, Emory’s Carolyn Meltzer,
Chair of the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, joined
the speakers in answering questions from the audience during a panel
discussion moderated by Julie Seaman
from Emory Law School. 

If you'd like to watch a quick 3-min video about brain imaging as evidence, you might want to check out this little gem by the Neuroethics Creative Team on Neuroscience in the Courtroom.





 

Neuroimaging in the Courtroom: Video by Neuroethics Creative Team

The undergraduate Neuroethics Program Creative Team embarked on making one of their first videos featuring Dr. Paul Root Wolpe.  This short 3 minute video discusses the ethical implications of using neuroimaging as evidence in the courtroom. This video is a teaser for our upcoming event on May 25th at Emory (see below for more information). 

Thanks to our Neuroethics Creative Team!

• Giacomo Waller


• Sabrina Bernstein


• Lauren Ladov

The Truth About Lies: the Neuroscience, Law, and Ethics of Lie Detection Technologies

You Can’t Handle the Truth! The Neuroscience Program, Center for Ethics Neuroethics Program, and the Scholars Program in Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research (SPINR) are combining forces to hold a symposium on the intersection of neuroscience and law pertaining to the use of fMRI and other lie detection technologies in the courtroom. Drs. Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and Biosciences at Stanford Law School, Daniel Langleben, a professor of Psychiatry at University of Pennsylvania and pioneer of using fMRI to detect lies, and Steven Laken, founder, president, and CEO of Cephos; a company that markets the use of fMRI for courtroom lie detection will be providing their expertise through a series of talks. Following the talks, Emory’s Carolyn Meltzer, Chair of the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, will join the speakers answering questions from the audience during a panel discussion moderated by Julie Seaman from Emory Law School. Mark your calendars for 1pm-5pm, May 25^th, 2012 for this thought-provoking event. More information to come.

"The Ethics of Designer Brains": Interview with Paul Root Wolpe on Big Think

Director of Emory's Center for Ethics talks about the ethics of designer brains on Big Think.

"Our values as a society will determine which psychopharmaceuticals and (down the road) which genetic enhancement technologies we choose to develop and how we use them.


That's what concerns Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, senior Bioethicist at NASA and a pioneer in the field of neuroethics. Peering into his children's and grandchildren's future, he sees an America that rewards competitiveness and productivity over relationship-building, and suspects that future generations will face intense pressure to enhance their minds and bodies in unhealthy ways.



The politics of technophilia vs technophobia aside, our power to manipulate our brains and genes is increasing dramatically – and it raises serious ethical questions."

Neuroethics Blog Post on CNN Blog by Dr. Paul Root Wolpe: No mind-reading allowed!

Director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University, Dr. Paul Root Wolpe puts his foot down on CNN's Belief Blog.

Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, neuroethics expert

"Throughout human history, the inner workings of our minds were impenetrable, known only to us and, perhaps, to God. No one could see what you were thinking, or know what you were feeling, unless you chose to reveal it to them."



Read more about it by following the link below.

My Take: Keep government out of mind-reading business

International Neuroethics Society: Careers in Neuroethics Session

Greetings from Washington DC! The Neuroethics Program is on the road attending the International Neuroethics Society Meeting and Society for Neuroscience.



Have you been wondering how to begin your journey toward a career in neuroethics?



The 2011 International Neuroethics Society (INS) Meeting featured a Neuroethics Careers Session.  INS meeting organizers, including Emory Neuroethics Program's Gillian Hue, put together a stellar panel of speakers including Alan Leshner, AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science); Paul Root Wolpe, Emory University; Emily Murphy, Stanford and Hank Greely, Stanford.

"You enter the field almost always obliquely," Paul Root Wolpe of Emory told the audience. "You get into bioethics through a story."



To learn more about his story, a summary of this panel discussion can be found on the Dana Foundation's Blog.