The Argument
On page 89, Shenk discusses the idea that as parts of the brain are damaged and stop functioning correctly, the other parts will compensate for the loss. Magnetic pulses can be used to temporarily impair parts of the brain, allowing "temporary savant-like tendencies" (90). Is it possible then to use this impairment to create a savant with out permanent developmental delay? Is it possible to temporarily impair parts of the brain using the magnetic pulses, allowing the other parts to excel, then impairing those parts and allowing the the other part to excel. Would going back and forth like that create a genius savant? Please discus a biology theme and previously studied concept in your response. Also, how does this relate to biological ethics? Is this inhumane?
Josh Gerber (grbr_jsh@yahoo.com)
Using current scientific knowledge of the brain, it is impossible to create a permanent savant without other repercussions occurring in the brain via impairing certain areas of the brain to induce a savant skill. The brain is highly specialized with hemispheres; “each hemisphere has functional specializations: some function whose neural mechanisms are localized primarily in one half of the brain” (http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/brain.html). Therefore, by disabling a region of the brain to induce a savant skill, the specialized function of that impaired region is now lost. Although the brain may attempt to compensate for the lost ability of that region by adapting and rerouting neural pathways to emulate the function of that region, as evident with many people with savant skills, the complete function of the impaired region is not recovered. In relation to the biology theme of the relationship between structure and function, the specialized structures of the brain such as the frontal lobe, which specializes in reasoning and planning, and the occipital lobe, which specializes in visual processing, have the optimal neural network which function for the efficient operation in that area; however, by impairing a region and having another region of the brain adapt to function as that region, the optimal and efficient operation is lost.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that alternating between impairing the left and right side of the brain in an attempt to a genius savant would not work. As stated before, essentially by alternating between impairing the left and right sides of the brain the unimpaired side of the brain would have to lose some of its specialization in order to partition some neurons to function as the impaired side. Furthermore, unless the one side of the brain is permanently damaged, only “temporary savant-like tendencies” (90) would occur from magnetic pulses because “shutting off portions of their brain did not suddenly transform them into amazing artists or brilliant thinkers” (90), which shows that after being impaired, the neurons that were rerouted to function as the impaired region would revert to what they were before.
Bioethically, this experiment would be bioethical and humane. In a study by the University of Sydney (90) the test subjects showed only temporary effect of electromagnetic pulses.
-Edward Wu (edwardwu0@gmail.com)
In response to Edward’s post, I definitely agree with his opinion that permanent brain damage is not worth temporarily gaining “savant-like tendencies.” However, I disagree with Ed’s statement that such an experiment would be bioethical and humane.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I cannot speak for anyone else, I think that to experiment on peoples’ brains definitely wouldn’t be bioethical and humane, because these “savant-like tendencies” will produce harmful side effects that the test subjects may not be aware of. For example, autistic people tend to have savant tendencies. According to “Autism and Pitch Processing: A Precursor for Savant Musical Ability?” children with autism “demonstrated a superior ability for single-note identification.” However, autistic people do not necessarily understand that they themselves are autistic. It seems unfair to risk such damage to a person’s mental facilities without they themselves even realizing it for the sake of seeing if we can genetically enhance ourselves in the future. Eventually, if temporary experimentation was allowed, people will definitely want to permanently increase their abilities through manipulating the brain with magnetic pulses. If we wanted to permanently enhance a child’s musical ability, I doubt that negative savant-like tendencies (like autism) would be “only temporary.”
In order to conduct such experiments and still call them bioethical, I would suggest conducting experiments where the test subjects just avoid certain activities and focus only on the subject they would like to improve in. According to our Chapter 51 of our Campbell textbook, we can manipulate types of “learning [that] establishes specific links between experience and behavior” (1125). As a side note, these experiments would affect an individual’s development in a particular subject more during certain periods in their life. According to the textbook, certain behaviors will “crystallize” after a sensitive period (1129). These “sensitive periods” would probably be the most opportune times to work on a behavior or skill we would like to improve.
Overall, this would be a more natural and safe way to test whether or not neglecting certain skills by avoiding behavior associated with that skill would improve the behaviors that we do want.
(Tina Ding: yuning.tina.ding@gmail.com)