Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
I'm Dr. James Giordano.
Professor in the Departments
of Neurology and Biochemistry
and Chief of the
Neuroethics Studies Program
at the Pellegrino Center
for Clinical Bioethics,
at Georgetown University
Medical Center
in Washington DC.,
The United States.
Join us this time, if
you will, for part two
our ongoing discussion
about the capabilities
and the contingencies
fostered by the methods
and tools of the brain sciences
as multinational enterprises.
0:27
We've been talking about what
the science and
technology can do.
In so doing, raised questions,
issues, capabilities,
and constraints
about perhaps what
the science and
technology should do,
and what we as the
developers and users of said
science and technology
should or should not do
to guide and govern the
technology on the global stage.
Join us today, the second
part of this two-part series
as we discuss the process toward
globally relevant neuroethics.
0:56
Our research group has
likened this to, if you will,
a superspeedway, a
Formula One race,
an international
Formula One race.
The neuro-engineering
superspeedway.
The analogy obtains.
Think of Formula One.
Think of the international
race circuit, the Grand Prix.
Think of it historically, from
the early part of the 1900s
through to the present.
Examine the entries, examine the
technology, examine the prizes,
examine the prizes and
examine those who are not
only on the track, but
those who are in the pits.
Those who support the
development of the race teams,
and the benefits
that are yielded
outside of the race track arena.
Not just the prizes
to those who win,
but the translation of the
science and technology
into the everyday driver.
The analogy obtains
and metaphor works.
The neuro-engineering speedway
of 21st century global stages
has multiple lanes
with multiple entries,
with diverse technologies.
The pace is fast.
At this point speaking to
you right now in 2022,
the developmental
trajectory, the time course,
to realize technological
readiness is anywhere
between 48-60 calendar months.
Let me explain what that means.
We can go from a
concept, an idea,
to a construct, a workable tool,
method, and practice,
within 4-5 years.
It's astronomically fast.
Contingent upon that
rapidity of pace
is not only cooperation
within the teams,
but competition between
various technologies
and between various teams.
Competition for very big prizes,
not at least of which
is the prize to be
able to affect the
human condition,
to be able to modify and
alter human flourishing
in some ways that are
more culturally specific,
and in others that are
interculturally broad.
But with any prize also
comes the relative
risk, if not threat,
of not just loss, not just
failure to achieve the win,
but the inherent
and, in some cases,
the derived dangers that go
along with multiple lanes
and multiple entries and
are at a very rapid pace
that's fueled by both
cooperation and competition.
