The New York Times , 02/18/2013
The Obama administration is planning a decade-long
scientific effort to examine the workings of the human brain and build a
comprehensive map of its activity, seeking to do for the brain what the Human Genome Project did for
genetics.
The project holds the potential of paving the way for
advances in artificial intelligence.
The project, which could ultimately cost billions of
dollars, is expected to be part of the president’s budget proposal next month.
And, four scientists and representatives of research institutions said they had
participated in planning for what is being called the Brain Activity Map project.
The initiative, if successful, could provide a lift for the
economy. “The Human Genome Project was on the order of about $300 million a
year for a decade,” said George M. Church, a Harvard University molecular
biologist who helped create that project and said he was helping to plan the
Brain Activity Map project.
Scientists involved in the planning said they hoped that
federal financing for the project would be more
than $300 million a year, which if approved by Congress would amount to at
least $3 billion over the 10 years.
The initiative will be organized by the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, according to scientists who have participated in
planning meetings.
Common Sense Reivew
If this doesn’t freak you out… this article makes this sound
warm and fuzzy yet a little info about the
Human Genome Project, they bring up these questions:
Societal Concerns Arising from the New Genetics
Project goals:
· * identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000
genes in human DNA,
· * determine the sequences of the 3 billion
chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
· * store
this information in databases,
· * improve tools for data analysis,
· * transfer related technologies to the private
sector, and
· * address the ethical, legal, and social issues
(ELSI) that may arise from the project.
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml
·
Fairness in the use of genetic information by
insurers, employers, courts, schools, adoption agencies, and the military,
among others.
Who should have access
to personal genetic information, and how will it be used?
·
Privacy
and confidentiality of genetic information.
Who owns and controls
genetic information?
·
Reproductive
issues including adequate informed consent for complex and potentially
controversial procedures, use of genetic information in reproductive decision
making, and reproductive rights.
Do healthcare personnel
properly counsel parents about the risks and limitations of genetic
technology?
How reliable and
useful is fetal genetic testing?
What are the larger
societal issues raised by new reproductive technologies?
·
Clinical
issues including the education of doctors and other health service providers,
patients, and the general public in genetic capabilities, scientific
limitations, and social risks; and implementation of standards and
quality-control measures in testing procedures.
How do we prepare the
public to make informed choices?
How do we as a society
balance current scientific limitations and social risk with long-term benefits?
·
Commercialization of products including property
rights (patents, copyrights, and trade secrets) and accessibility of data and
materials.
Who owns genes and
other pieces of DNA?
Will patenting DNA
sequences limit their accessibility and development into useful products?
I know this sound like a SyFy movie. Yet from the lessons we have learn from
Margret Sanger and Hilter, there are those out there who want to put us in
categories and eliminate those they don’t like.
