Human augmentation tech requires dual use oversight

MoD thinking

In terms of UK government thinking on the issue, Burt noted the MoD’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) collaborated with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning in 2021 to produce a report called Human augmentation – The dawn of a new paradigm.

In it, the MoD identified four core technologies it believes will be integral to human augmentation in the future – including genetic engineering, bioinformatics, brain interfaces and pharmaceuticals – and likened the human body to a “platform” for new technologies.

It also indicated that ethical considerations may be trumped by other concerns around, for example, national security.

“Defence cannot wait for ethical views to change before exploiting human augmentation; it must join the conversation now to ensure it is at the leading edge of this field,” it said, adding that there may also be a “moral obligation to augment people” when it can promote well-being or protect against novel threats such as new virus strains.

“The need for human augmentation may ultimately be dictated by national interest,” it said. “Countries may need to develop and use human augmentation or risk surrendering influence, prosperity and security to those who will.”

It further added that “the future of human augmentation should not … be decided by ethicists or public opinion”, and that governments will instead “need to develop a clear policy position that maximises the use of human augmentation in support of prosperity, safety and security, without undermining our values.”

It concluded that “international dialogue and regulation of human augmentation technologies will be critical”.

Managing dual use

Commenting on the dual use nature of human augmentation during the same webinar, Ben Taylor-Green – awarded a DPhil in early 2023 for his work on brain-computer interface unmanned aerial vehicle (BCIUAV) technology – said BCIUAV use cases are posited as both an “assistive technology for severely paralysed patients” with, for example, motor neurone disease and a thought-controlled “neuroweapon” at the same time.

He added that, based on his extensive review of the scientific literature around BCIUAVs, “most of the research is not done in the knowledge of, or in immediate proximity to … the risk of weapons innovation. By which, I mean that most [scientific] papers do not declare military funding or association, and nor do they describe any weaponised uses.”

However, Taylor-Green was clear that, among researchers of this technology for non-military purposes, “there is no evidence” indicating serious ongoing discussions about “the moral risks and material realities of contributing to weapons innovation” indirectly.

He suggested there needs to be serious engagement in the communities of scientists, engineers an others working on human augmentation-related technologies, so there can be “earnest” conversations about the ethics of conducting research that can so clearly be weaponised.

Drone War itself has suggested government can start to be regulated by controlling specific use cases of neurotechnology, on the basis it potentially poses the highest risk of any technology under the banner of human augmentation. It has also suggested setting up a research monitoring network for any human augmentation technologies with dual use potential, to act as an “early warning system” around the creation of neuroweapons.