4 ms·

Any good link describing the research? Ethics considerations are irrelevant for technology that isn't yet proven

by ivankirigin 15y ago

HPBEggo 15y ago
Agreed. Discussing ethics when no one even fully understands what the technology is seems rather pointless.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  The fallacy here is "no one understands what the technology is". The research folks think they understand it enough to ask the question about the downsides. I continue to scan research in this area because I know that at some point there will be a recreational drug equivalent that runs off batteries. That is going to destroy a lot of wealth in the underground drug business. That will cause some violent changes in society. As for TDCS I expect it to move along to the point where this may be like a calculator, not "required" but an accelerator for people with ones.
aneth 15y ago
Really? If we waited until nuclear explosions were proven to consider ethical implications we might be in a very different place. Ethical considerations don't need to stop scientific advancement, but they always must be an ongoing part of the process. That said, I'm interested in a maker kit.
- ivankirigin 15y ago
  Yes you're right. I'm just tired of sensationalist stories far ahead of real technology. Another tiring example is pretty much any study of human-robot interaction. Mention sex and robots in the same article and you'll instantly get ridiculous attention.
mrsebastian 15y ago
I actually wrote about tDCS, back when the University of New Mexico published some findings back in April 2011: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/84232-boost-your-brains-power-with-a-9volt-battery-and-some-wet-sponges http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/84232-boost-your-brains-p...
mekoka 15y ago
It is said there was some very promising early results, enough to prompt them to consult with ethic experts.
gregsadetsky 15y ago
The story (blog article) refers to this short essay: http://download.cell.com/images/edimages/CurrentBiology/homepage/curbio9329.pdf http://download.cell.com/images/edimages/CurrentBiology/home... which mentions "The long-lasting effects of TDCS, which can persist for up to 2 months" with a reference to this paper: http://neuro.cjb.net/content/29/22/7271.full.pdf http://neuro.cjb.net/content/29/22/7271.full.pdf This last paper is quite interesting, as arguments can (will...) be based off of it posing that tDCS does provide a long-term benefit. Unfortunately, the gain (in response time and accuracy) over a sham tDCS (e.g., placebo) is quite modest -- 15% with an error bar of 10% for response time, and 5% with an error bar of 5% for accuracy... Check the Figure 4 on page 5.

Any good link describing the research? Ethics considerations are irrelevant for technology that isn't yet proven

HPBEggo 15y ago

Agreed. Discussing ethics when no one even fully understands what the technology is seems rather pointless.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
The fallacy here is "no one understands what the technology is". The research folks think they understand it enough to ask the question about the downsides. I continue to scan research in this area because I know that at some point there will be a recreational drug equivalent that runs off batteries. That is going to destroy a lot of wealth in the underground drug business. That will cause some violent changes in society. As for TDCS I expect it to move along to the point where this may be like a calculator, not "required" but an accelerator for people with ones.

aneth 15y ago

Really? If we waited until nuclear explosions were proven to consider ethical implications we might be in a very different place. Ethical considerations don't need to stop scientific advancement, but they always must be an ongoing part of the process. That said, I'm interested in a maker kit.

ivankirigin 15y ago
Yes you're right. I'm just tired of sensationalist stories far ahead of real technology. Another tiring example is pretty much any study of human-robot interaction. Mention sex and robots in the same article and you'll instantly get ridiculous attention.

mrsebastian 15y ago

I actually wrote about tDCS, back when the University of New Mexico published some findings back in April 2011: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/84232-boost-your-brains-power-with-a-9volt-battery-and-some-wet-sponges http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/84232-boost-your-brains-p...

mekoka 15y ago

It is said there was some very promising early results, enough to prompt them to consult with ethic experts.

gregsadetsky 15y ago

The story (blog article) refers to this short essay: http://download.cell.com/images/edimages/CurrentBiology/homepage/curbio9329.pdf http://download.cell.com/images/edimages/CurrentBiology/home... which mentions "The long-lasting effects of TDCS, which can persist for up to 2 months" with a reference to this paper: http://neuro.cjb.net/content/29/22/7271.full.pdf http://neuro.cjb.net/content/29/22/7271.full.pdf This last paper is quite interesting, as arguments can (will...) be based off of it posing that tDCS does provide a long-term benefit. Unfortunately, the gain (in response time and accuracy) over a sham tDCS (e.g., placebo) is quite modest -- 15% with an error bar of 10% for response time, and 5% with an error bar of 5% for accuracy... Check the Figure 4 on page 5.