Secrets of the mind must remain private property, says scientist

[emad]

From The Guardian

One of America's top scientists is calling for a ban on insurance companies and other businesses gaining access to the brain scans of potential customers. Donald Kennedy, of Stanford University and editor of the journal Science, said that the information contained in brain scans was too personal to be allowed into the hands of big business. Brain scans may not only be able to reveal whether a person will suffer from various mental conditions in later life, but in the future might give an insight into their moral values, intentions and even their propensity to behave in a certain way, he said.
"If my stored brain images said something about my tendency to anger under different kinds of stress, or accounted for the ways in which I make moral choices, or how strangely I perform on certain intelligence tests, then I would be troubled," he said. "I don't want anyone to know it, for any purpose whatever, including those offered in my own interest. It's way too close to who I am and it is my right to keep that most intimate identity to myself."

Some scientists believe brain scans can already be used to pick out people who are likely to develop multiple sclerosis and dementias such as Alzheimer's disease. But scans are also increasingly revealing more about people's minds. Earlier this week scientists announced they had used a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to detect people harbouring racial prejudice. America recently passed legislation preventing businesses from obtaining customers' DNA amid fears they could use it to discriminate against those deemed more risky. In Britain a moratorium is in place to prevent companies from accessing customers' genetic material.

Prof Kennedy told the Guardian: "There's a push to prevent genetic information being used by companies for adverse selection, and at least equal protection should be given to brain scan data." Laws barring companies from requesting brain scans may be premature, as it is unclear just how well the images will be able to reveal the secrets of a person's mind.

"There's been quite a lot of studies showing that different parts of the brain correlate with different types of behaviour, but the real issues are what does that data mean, how predictive is it, and who should have access to it," said Sandy Thomas, director of the Nuffield Council for Bioethics. "Perhaps we've reached the point where this kind of information is distinctive from other kinds of information insurance companies can request such as x-rays, and if so, we should be having this debate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1088925,00.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. i wonder if tinfoil hats block brain scans?

seriously, i agree. thought police are a no-no.

[izzie]

2. That is pretty far out. I always thought that my thought were mine only.

Best keep an eye on things like this I guess.They will start doing it at birth and every one will be more in the place they stated. As always it is who has the imformations and tells us what they think it means that is the all important item.Since they started saying people who do not wish to kill whales are terrorist one must worry about those things.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

3. Uh-oh. Pre-emptive sanctions based on phrenology.

This sounds like it could be horribly abused like the 19th century discredited study of phrenology-studying the shape and size of the skull to determine a 'criminal type.' This past effort to tie physical characteristics to morality helped reinforce ideas of racism and genocide.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. It'll be more evil if it actually WORKS than if it doesn't

Imagine. Studies shown a distinct correlation between liberal/leftist opinions and increased brain activity at so and so spots in the brain. Don't like Dubya --> no job.

[Paschall]

4. Medical data should remain confidential

Strictly between the patient and care giver.

If we had universal health care in the US, no private corporations would get their hands on any of this data. And if a European-type data privacy system were adopted, neither would (public health) insurance bureaucrats.

In France, the public health insurance authorities of course know when I see a doctor or when I get an X-ray or have lab tests done, because they reimburse those costs. But they have no access to any of the medical data itself, no access to diagnosis or prognosis. Nothing. Doctors, labs, and hospitals are prohibited by law from releasing any of that data without my express written consent. Period.

[truthisfreedom]

5. the FIRST people whose heads should be "analyzed" should be anyone who

allows anything like this to fall into the hands of big business... i.e. rethugs who introduce bills suggesting/protecting it or rethugs opposing bills against the use of this technology.

[fshrink]

6. This very, very, very largely overestimates

our current knowledge about anything concerning the brain, its functioning and behavior prediction. It's so largely overstated that I even wonder whether this wouldn't be some kind of PR operation. Or a scientist's grim fantasy.
This said, and of course, no business whatsoever should be allowed to have access to *anything* concerning any citizen.

[lostnfound]

7. I Disagree. Scans of BFEE & cabinet should be made public..

assuming they can find something to scan.

More seriously, the appropriation of power, by accumulation of information, to government and big corporations that is not available to ordinary people -- that is what has most endangered our liberty.

The most disturbing invasions of privacy are all the more disturbing because they are one-sided: we the people get to learn nothing about our government or the economic centers of power, but they get to pull all of our strings.