As our knowledge of the human brain is advancing, researchers are optimistic that these advances will enhance the performance and lives of the UK’s armed forces. However, the researchers caution that how research is prioritized should be given careful consideration in order to avoid cost to other applications.

In addition, a study by the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, plans to clear up some prevalent myths surrounding how militaries may use this form of research.

The study, which examines neuroscience research in a civilian and military law enforcement context, considers 2 principal goals for brain research:

  • Performance degradation (weakening the performance of one’s enemy)
  • Performance enhancement (enhancing the effectiveness of one’s own forces)

Furthermore, the study examines the state-of-the-art technology being developed and in some cases already being tests or used, underscoring where legislation is required. The researchers urge that the UK government be as clear as possible, regarding studies being carried out for use by law enforcement bodies and the military.

Professor Rod Flower FRS, chair of the Royal Society working group that wrote the report and Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Queen Mary University of London, explains:

“The application of neuroscience research in the development of enhancement and degradation technologies for military and law enforcement use raises significant ethical considerations. Support for this type of research is potentially diverting funding and resources away from other important social applications such as the treatment of neurological impairment, disease and psychiatric illness. This is why it should be subject to ethical review and as transparent as possible.

The neuroscientists conducting this research also need to be aware that knowledge and technologies used for beneficial purposes can be misused for harmful purposes.”

According to Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security, which was written by a team of experts in psychology, neuroscience, ethics and international security, findings from the study could be utilized in order to enhance the stages that individuals in the military usually go through: recruitment, training, operational performance, and rehabilitation after injury.

For instance, it is in the interest of the military to screen individual abilities that are relevant to a particular task. While one individual may excel in decision making skills while under stress, another might be better at detecting targets in a disorderly environment. Progress in neuroscience, such as brain stimulation techniques and neuroimaging, may help identify these differences during screening and enrollment.

The prognosis for people with conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), paralysis, and severed limbs, has already improved thanks to neuroscience, including neuropharmacology (the study of medications that affect cellular function in the nervous system) and neural interface technologies (e.g. controlling a machine directly with a human brain). In addition, considerable research is underway surrounding medications that enhance attention, alertness, and memory of military personnel while in the field.

Furthermore, the researchers analyzed applications of neuroscience that may bring about potential weapons that could be of interest in a law enforcement or military context – especially progression in drug delivery and neuropharmacology leading to the possible development of incapacitating chemical agents.

The researchers highlight that even though comprehensive legal framework constrain the development of these agents, perceived doubt within the treaty prohibiting chemical weapons (CWC) may under certain interpretations, give freedom for their development.

According to current scientific evidence, it is not possible in the foreseeable future to develop a safe incapacitating chemical agent, the researchers highlight.

The report asks the UK government to make a public statement to explain the apparent shift in position on the interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention’s (CWC) law enforcement provision. According to the 1993 CWC, the development, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons is prohibited. This includes weapons that cause temporary incapacitation, but does not contain an exemption that permits producing and using toxic chemicals for law enforcement amd domestic riot control purposes that can be somewhat obscure.

The then Foreign Office Minister gave a statement to the UK parliament in 1992, which suggested that the only toxic chemicals permissible in the UK were considered for law enforcement purposes, however, according to a more recent, less restrictive interpretation of the CWC made in a statement in August 2009, using incapacitating chemical agents for law enforcement purposes would be in compliance with the CWC, providing they were in types and quantities consistent with that permitted purpose.

Professor Flower FRS explains:

“We know that neuroscience research has the potential to deliver great social benefit, researchers come closer every day to finding effective treatments for diseases and disorders such as Parkinson’s, depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy and addiction, However, understanding of the brain and human behavior couple with developments in drug delivery also highlight ways of degrading human performance that could possibly be used in new weapons, especially incapacitating chemical agents.

This is why it is so important that UK government is clear about its reasons for the changes made to its interpretation of the law enforcement exemption in the CWC. It’s absolutely crucial that countries adhering to the CWC address the definition of incapacitating chemical agents under the CWC at the next Review Conference in 2013.”

Written by Grace Rattue