Neuromodulation research and application in the U.S. Department of Defense.

BACKGROUND: Modern neuromodulatory techniques for military applications have been explored for the past decade, with an intent to optimize operator performance and, ultimately, to improve overall military effectiveness. In light of potential military applications, some researchers have voiced concern about national security agency involvement in this area of research, and possible exploitation of research findings to support military objectives. The aim of this article is to examine the U.S. Department of Defense's interest in and application of neuromodulation. METHODS: We explored articles, cases, and historical context to identify critical considerations of debate concerning dual use (i.e., national security and civilian) technologies, specifically focusing on non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). DISCUSSION: We review the background and recent examples of DoD-sponsored neuromodulation research, framed in the more general context of research that aims to optimize and/or rehabilitate human performance. We propose that concerns about military exploitation of neuromodulatory science and technology are not unique, but rather are part of a larger philosophic debate pertaining to military application of human performance science and technology. We consider unique aspects of the Department of Defense research enterprise--which includes programs crucial to the advancement of military medicine--and why it is well-situated to fund and perform such research. We conclude that debate concerning DoD investment in human performance research must recognize the significant potential for dual use (civilian, medical) benefit as well as the need for civilian scientific insight and influence. Military interests in the health and performance of service members provide research funding and impetus to dual use applications that will benefit the civilian community.

Failing ethics 101: psychologists, the U.S. military establishment, and human rights.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has long maintained a close, even symbiotic, relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). Herein we highlight these close ties and describe psychologists' participation in interrogations by U.S. military and intelligence entities. We then review the APA's statements about the permissibility of psychologist participation in the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists. These issues are significant in and of themselves and because the VA and DOD have been described as "growth careers" for psychologists of the future (1). Additionally, the Health Care Personnel Delivery System allows the drafting of civilian clinical psychologists into military service even in the absence of a general draft. In light of psychologists' extensive involvement in the interrogation process of suspected terrorists, and the possibility that psychologists without prior military experience may be drafted, we wondered how much psychologists have been taught about their ethical duties should they find themselves in military settings. The results of our pilot study of U.S. psychology graduate students, which assessed their knowledge of military ethics, raise concerns that psychologists receive inadequate formal training in these matters. This may leave psychologists vulnerable to misinformation about proper ethical conduct in their future work.