Emerging technologies: the ethical dangers of fixing what is not broken

The field of neuroprosthetics is rapidly expanding, and with it the controversy surrounding the use of such devices. Even seemingly uncontroversial devices such as cochlear implants are now engendering debate and dis-ease. As members of communities that many consider to be disabled (such as the Deaf) join together to defend those communities (and, by extension, their defining features), the question of what "normal" is and whose job it is to decide what counts as normal is arising with increasing frequency. Many argue against the standardization of the population towards a particular norm in favor of both physical and neurological diversity. At the other end of the spectrum are those who are fighting for their right to use neuroprosthetics as an enhancement tool. This is adding a new dimension to the traditional neuroenhancement debate, while incorporating the question of bodily autonomy. Should neuroprosthetic devices exist to allow new 'abnormal' experiences, as in the recent case of an implant allowing a man to 'hear' color? Or should they be banned so as to continue the push towards a standardized population and treat both sets of outliers equally? While ethicists argue the merits of each side, researchers are steadily developing neuroprosthetics with an increasingly diverse range of medical applications. Cognitive prosthetics are creating a new world of potential treatments for devastating brain and nervous system disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and paralysis. The potential of these devices is unparalleled and could change the face of these disorders. Even so, we need to be aware of the risks to certain communities of espousing the life-changing qualities of these enhancements. We as ethicists and scientists need to be careful to walk the narrow line between a device that cures or treats and a device that may disrespect a person's identity and potentially destroy a thriving community. While it is not a given that neuroenhancement technologies are immutably bad or dangerous, we need to be aware of the totality of both positive and negative aspects in order to aid those working in the field of neuroprosthetics in understanding the implications of their work. If a device the majority of society deems unquestionably positive -- the cochlear implant -- can stir such debate, it stands to reason that more controversial devices will certainly polarize the conversation. As such, we need to be prepared with the best answers we can provide to help reduce abuse and inappropriate application of new generations of neuroprosthetics.