Science has evolved and grown over centuries. From phrenology, where they measured craniums to determine personality types, to lobotomies, to many other emerging sciences. One technology has promise for the courts, and I'm jealous, but an article in the paper stole the best title ever, "Order in the Cortex!"
We all know about MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging), but there is something called fMRIs, which show functioning images of the brain. A series of questions are asked and as emotions arise or movement is made, parts of the brain light up. This can be used in the court of law eventually, once more parts of the brain are understood. Learning disability advocates believe that fMRIs could help children starting at a younger age. What if fMRIs were made mandatory at a young age? We could find out how to improve a child's quality of life. The brain doesn't stop developing until around age 25, what if these fMRIs were made mandatory at that age? We could learn quite a bit about the person from what is understood in neuroscience. Example? A sociopath has smaller limbic systems. This technology is too young to be considered a "good" or "bad" science.
Another form of science that doesn't seem "good" or "bad" is chromosomal testing before birth. Through the number of chromosomes, or any pieces that may be missing, we can determine if the fetus will have down syndrome, or any other disorder that may compromise this potential child's health and quality of life. What if this science were to be made mandatory? We would find fetuses who are predetermined to any possible genetic defects and make a decision, either abort or continue with life. But would this be considered eugenics?
Moral of the story: technology comes at a great price.
Ethics question of the story: who is to determine what is "good" and what is "bad"?
No comments:
Post a Comment