From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 10:12:30 MDT
There is no "we". Nothing is ever done by "we". But if
anyone wants to
step up and say "I will write a letter to _The Economist_,"
I'm sure we'd
all be grateful.
### I did.
Dear Economist,
I recently read your article on "The Future of Mind Control" and I must
admit to being somewhat disturbed by it.
I am a neurology resident with a special interest in neurodegenerative
disorders, currently at the University of Pittsburgh. With this background I
am quite sensitive to the freedom of scientific inquiry being curtailed. The
article sounds like incitement to commit yet more laws, which could
significantly interfere with the kind of work I want to clinically apply
throughout my career as a neurologist - the development of treatments for
neurodegenerative disorders, including electric brain stimulation, stem cell
implantation, and modification of cell genomes and organelles. Just as the
onerous laws regulating molecular biology which didn't help anybody, and by
slowing down technological progress harmed many, the enactment of yet more
rules specifically regulating brain science would do more harm than good.
The dangers are hypothetical or wildly overblown, and can be easily dealt
with by current laws protecting citizens' bodies and brains against unwanted
interference. A healthy ethical debate is of course needed, as in all fields
important to human well-being but always with the clear understanding that
when it comes to lawmaking, less is more and, as paradoxically as it may
seem, late is better than early.
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Department of Neurology
University of Pittsburgh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST