Eckert, 4:00-5:50
R05
REVERSE ENGINEERING THE BRAIN BEGINNING WITH THE MOTOR CORTEX
Nicholas Card ([email protected])
THE HUMAN RACE’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE
HUMAN BRAIN
The current state of the human race’s relationship to the
human brain is a strange one; the brain is far too complicated
for us to fully understand just yet, but if it were any simpler
we would not be able to understand it at all. In the last
century, as science and technology has made its largest leap,
scientists have made numerous and enormous efforts from
many different angles to reverse-engineer the brain, knowing
that successfully doing so would grant us the ability to more
easily and effectively cure diseases, heal traumatic injuries,
develop better artificial intelligence, and more. These efforts
to improve quality of life for many people via reverse
engineering of the brain are in accordance with the National
Society of Professional Engineer’s (NSPE) code of ethics,
which states that engineers should at all times strive to serve
the public interest as well as to hold paramount the public’s
health and welfare [1].
To be able to reverse engineer the entirety of the brain
and its many functions is a feat far too large to be tackled all
at once, however, so we must instead approach this issue in
pieces. Different sections of the brain have been firmly
established to perform different functions [2]. Additionally,
a system such as the brain can only be reverse-engineered,
modeled, and reproduced to the extent that the native system
is understood in respect to localization function and the
cellular mechanisms that enable that function. By these
criteria, the best brain system to start with in the quest to
reverse engineer the brain is the motor-movement system. It
is not only by far the most understood system of the brain,
but there are in fact already reverse-engineered clinical trials
going on currently, such as Pitt neurobiologist Andy
Schwartz’s mind-controlled prosthetics [3]. This is not to say
that we have already completely cracked the code of motorcontrol, but we are much further ahead in understanding this
section of the brain than others, such as memory. For this
reason, it is in our best interest to begin by strengthening our
quest to understand and replicate the brain’s motormovement system, and then using that knowledge, do the
same for the rest of the brain in a systematic manner.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
October 30, 2012
1
Ethics and Controversies
In addition to focusing first on reverse engineering the
motor system of the brain, we should ensure that our
methods of doing so are within ethical boundaries. Although
there is no widespread argument against the overall idea of
reverse engineering the brain, there is some controversy
surrounding the methods used to get there. This controversy,
primarily fueled by large organizations such as People for
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is based off of
whether or not it is ethical to use animals for research and
experimentation, which is a prominent and necessary
research technique in the study of the brain. This issue is
legitimate and understandable, but great care is being taken
to avoid traumatic experiences for animals in labs. There are
many laws and codes of ethics already in place to ensure the
humane treatment of research animals, such as the Animal
Welfare Act and the Biomedical Engineering Society’s
(BMES) code of ethics [4], [5]. Furthermore, animal
research
provides
unparalleled
opportunities
for
experimentation, making it a necessity to understanding how
our brains work.
In addition to the animal research argument, there is also
widespread weariness about some of the possibilities that
successful reverse engineering of the brain can open. The
most popular fear is the possibility of a cybernetic revolt
happening as a result of enhanced artificial intelligence, a
situation that has already been imagined for us by
Hollywood movies such as Terminator [6]. There are not
only several laws and codes of ethics that would be violated
by raising a robot army, but also a huge amount of other
large hurtles which would have to be cleared in order to do
so, all of which will be described in depth in later sections.
For these reasons, to deny the human race the key to solve
many of its toughest problems for concern about its impact
on a research animal or fear of a fictional tale is immoral and
wrong.
Educational Value
The multitude of hours that I have spent researching for,
writing, and editing this paper have certainly proven to be
very beneficial to me in a variety of ways. This assignment
forced me to spend a long time thinking about what I’m
Nicholas Card
definitive method of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
in a patient would be to surgically open their skull and cut a
cross section of their brain in search for an excess protein
that indicates the presence of AD [7]. This type of procedure
would almost certainly kill the patient, or at least leave them
in a vegetative state, and therefore quite obviously does not
comply with BMES’s code of ethics, which promotes the
safety, health, and welfare of the public [5]. It is important to
remember that our methods of research must remain ethical,
so in our current state of understanding we are not ready to
approach AD.
Our low level of understanding of the brain’s memory
system can be attributed to one main reason: the way our
brains handle memory is extremely complex. While it has
been firmly established and agreed upon that there are
different types of memory stored in our brains such as
declarative, procedural, and associative, there remains a
glaring hole in our knowledge of the subject; how can we
define the cellular mechanisms that store memory, how is it
harvested in support of behavior, and where are particular
types of memory stored [8]? To be able to pursue the answer
to these questions and others more effectively, I believe that
we should first examine the motor-movement system, and
then use the knowledge gained from that to strengthen our
approach to deciphering the memory system.
interested in, and provided me with lots of excellent
instruction and feedback on how to effectively write a
professional paper. The human brain’s mystery and
complexity is tremendously profound, and the research
required for this paper of the current progress of reverse
engineering of the brain and what the next step in doing so is
really highlighted the appeal of that mystery and complexity.
Reverse engineering the brain is not only an important
objective of mankind as a whole, it is also important to me
on a personal level. I don’t want to have to fear losing any of
my loved ones, or even myself, to diseases of the brain such
as Alzheimer’s-- a disease where the afflicted are unable to
retrieve memories-- when we could have made a more
effective push to understand and cure them, but did not. The
fact here is that in order to be able to cure neural diseases, or
to give a paralyzed person back their ability to walk, we
must make a larger effort to understand the brain, starting
with the motor cortex. It is our moral responsibility to make
this effort and if we do not, we have failed both one another
and ourselves.
DECIPHERING THE BRAIN: WHY NOT START
ELSEWHERE?
When considering reverse engineering of the brain, it is
important that we begin in a place where we have realistic
potential to make progress. In a select few of the subsections
of neuroscience and neural engineering, such as the motormovement system of the brain, there has been great a great
amount of progress made, and lots of potential for further
advancement. In many of the other more complex areas,
however, we do not have as great of an understanding. Two
areas that have attracted a particularly large amount of
attention, but have not had much substantial progress made,
are the memory and cognitive system. The way these
systems function in the human brain is quite unique, and are
consequently are very difficult starting places for reverse
engineering the brain.
The Cognitive System
Another recent demonstration of our progress in brain
systems other than motor-movement is the closest model of
the brain we’ve been able to create as of yet: IBM’s super
computer simulator of a cat’s brain. The process of
attempting to reproduce the brain not only requires a
complex understanding of the cognitive system, but also
biotechnology far more advanced than what we have
available today. IBM’s supercomputer stimulated over one
billion artificial neurons that shared more than ten trillion
synapses, or connections between neurons. At full power,
the computer was able to perform functions about 83 times
slower than a real cat’s brain is able to [9]. While it is
somewhat impressive that this was able to be accomplished,
we must remember that a cat’s brain is hundreds of times
less complex than the average human brain, which has over
100 trillion synapses [10]. Additionally, IBM’s super
computer model ran on about a million watts of electricity
[9]. This is about 50,000 times more than the estimated
power that a cat’s brain runs on; about 20 watts [10]. One
might say that we are much closer in understanding than we
The Memory System
Very little is known about how the brain handles, stores,
and recalls memories. Memory is one of the qualities that
defines the human race, and has therefore attracted lots of
attention and research. Unfortunately, however, that research
has yielded few definitive results. Consequently, we have
very little knowledge of how to go about curing, or even
diagnosing, diseases like Alzheimer’s. Currently, our only
2
Nicholas Card
systems. Animal’s brains, however, are much simpler than
our own, and thus easier to isolate systems within.
Therefore, it is much easier to understand the motor-system
in a research animal’s brain, and then look for parallels in
our own brain. We have already learned very much about the
motor-movement system through experimentation on rats
and monkeys, who are some of the more intelligent members
of the animal kingdom [11]. Once again remembering our
secondary requirement for our method of research to remain
ethical, the ethicality of animal research will be discussed in
a later section.
are in capability to creating a functional model of a brain,
but in both respects it is clear that we have a long way to go.
Why Brain Systems Unique to Humans are Bad Places to
Start
As stated before, the desire to understand how the brain
handles memories is widespread due to that fact that it
makes us human, and the same holds true for understanding
our cognitive ability. What I mean by that is that no other
species’ brain can perform those functions as effectively and
complexly as ours can. When you combine the human
brain’s extremely advanced cognitive ability with its
complicated memory systems, you are left with the aptitude
to systematically recall, analyze, and learn from memories.
Because these attributes are so advanced and specific to
humans, the memory and cognitive systems are a very bad
place to start in reverse engineering of the brain. You cannot
begin understanding the general qualities of a brain at the
most complex species, much as you cannot begin learning
Calculus in a Calculus 4 course. On top of this, what makes
these brain systems, particularly memory, an even worse
place to start in reverse engineering of the brain is the lack
of an effective and ethical method to conduct research and
gather information. If you can’t ethically collect information
on a system of the brain in order to fully understand it, how
are you meant to reverse-engineer that system?
The Hierarchal Motor Cortex
One of the earliest and most significant things we have
discovered about the motor-movement system of the brain is
the idea of a hierarchal motor cortex, originally proposed by
John Hughlings Jackson in 1882 [12]. The motor cortex,
which is the motor-movement system’s primary hub, is a
thin section spanning the top and sides of the brain. Jackson
originally proposed the idea of a hierarchal motor cortex
system after electrically stimulating different areas of it on a
patient during surgery. As he did so, he observed as different
parts of the patient’s body responded with myoclonic jerks.
After Jackson’s initial observation, further experimentation
was done on dogs to strengthen and reinforce and strengthen
this theory [12]. As is illustrated by the figure below, larger
sections of the motor cortex are dedicated to the muscle
groups that we use most often and precisely, like the ones in
our face and hands. Other less-precisely used muscle groups
take up smaller amounts of space on the motor cortex. This
demonstrates that the hierarchal system that Jackson
proposed is correct.
ADVANTAGES OF RESEARCHING THE MOTORMOVEMENT SYSTEM AND HOW IT WORKS
As mentioned in the introduction, a system such as the
brain can only be reverse-engineered, modeled, and
reproduced to the extent that the native system is understood
in respect to localization function and the cellular
mechanisms that enable that function. We have already ruled
out human-specific brain systems on the basis that they are
far too complex to start with, so we are now left with the
motor-movement system. This brain system is shared
between every single mammal on the planet, which is far
from being human-specific. Any creature that can move has
an active motor-movement system, and any creature with a
heartbeat or breathing pattern has an autonomous one.
Because animals’ brains are simpler than human brains, it is
easier to isolate systems such as the motor-movement
system and perform research and experiments on them. The
complexity of our own brains and our lack of a general
understanding of it prevents us from effectively isolating its
PROFILE OF THE MOTOR CORTEX
This illustration of the left-brain motor cortex demonstrates
the hierarchy of muscle groups proposed by Jackson [13].
3
Nicholas Card
MOVING FORWARD WITH SCHWARTZ’S DATA
CURRENT PROGRESS IN REVERSE ENGINEERING
THE MOTOR CORTEX
The ability to record, isolate, and make use of brain
signals through the BCI method opens many positive and
rewarding possibilities. As previously mentioned, clinical
trials of this technology are already helping restore natural
movement to amputee victims by way of mind-controlled
prosthetic limbs. Although this method is still not
completely perfected and requires invasive surgery, the
kinks will surely be worked out through additional research.
Further development of the BCI method and understanding
of how the brain’s motor cortex communicates with muscle
groups could provide insight into how to restore natural limb
functionality to victims of paralysis. The BCI method could
also be applied to the tracking and translation of the signals
that the motor cortex sends to the group of muscles involved
in speech. Successfully doing so could allow people in
vegetative states to communicate with those around them by
simply imagining talking, and having the BCI interpret and
translate the signals thus generated.
On an even broader scale, the greater understanding of
the brain’s communication methods with muscle groups that
the BCI method would provide can lead to a much more
profound understanding of how the brain communicates with
itself. If we had this knowledge, we could then use it to
analyze other systems of the brain. One of the great
mysteries of memory and cognitive skills is how information
is stored, recalled, and communicated throughout the brain.
Using the knowledge of brain communication processes
derived from the BCI method, we could solve this great
mystery, giving ourselves the ability to prevent and cure
neural diseases such as Alzheimer’s. We could also apply
this knowledge to enhancing teaching methods to be more
compatible with how our brain stores information. There are
many advantages and rewards to be had for understanding
and reverse engineering our own brains, and the path to
doing so begins with Dr. Schwartz’s research and his BCI
method.
Aware of the hierarchal structure of the motor cortex, Dr.
Andrew B. Schwartz, a neurobiologist at the University of
Pittsburgh, with the help of his lab team, has successfully
managed to reverse engineer the motor cortex of a monkey
so that it may control a robotic arm using only its thoughts.
Dr. Schwartz accomplished this by surgically implanting an
electrode array comprised of 100 sensors into the area of the
primates’ motor cortex that is dedicated to the arm and hand.
This area can be located in the above figure. The electrode
array was able to record action potentials from individual
neurons in that area of the motor cortex to a brain-computer
interface (BCI) as the monkeys used their arms and hands to
do things like reaching, grabbing, and drawing [14], [15],
[16]. Schwartz’s research over the last two decades has
found there to be “a very good representation of the arm’s
trajectory in the collective firing pattern of frontal cortical
activity” [3]. Additionally, Schwartz found that the speed
and strength of each movement could be predicted from how
rapidly the neurons in the corresponding area of the motor
cortex fired action potential signals [16]. Using this
information, Schwartz and his team analyzed the data
retrieved from the electrode arrays, and were then able to
extract the movement-related signals that those recorded
neurons relayed and apply them to controlling the
mechanical arm [14], [15]. Once all of this was done, the
monkey’s arms were restrained and the mechanical arm was
placed before him, along with a marshmallow. The monkey
quickly learned to control the arm to feed the marshmallow
to himself by simply pretending the mechanical arm was his
own. Because primate’s brains are more similar to human’s
brains than any other animal’s, the same BCI method could
theoretically be applied to us. When asked what the chances
are of this, Schwartz replied, “We think a human could do
much better!” [16]. BCI-based mind-controlled prosthetic
limbs are now undergoing successful clinical trials for
volunteer human participants. The surgery required to
implant the electrode arrays into the brain is relatively noninvasive, as far as brain surgery goes, and greatly benefits
the patient as it restores functionality to their limbs [14].
Therefore, this is an ethically sound procedure according to
the NSPE and BMES codes of ethics regarding the health,
safety, and interest of the public [5], [1].
THE ETHICS BEHIND ANIMAL RESEARCH
The use of animals for research and experimentation
purposes in the laboratory setting is a highly controversial
subject for lots of people and organizations, such as People
for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA’s
statement on animal experimentation is this: “Right now,
millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other
animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories
4
Nicholas Card
across the country. They languish in pain, ache with
loneliness, and long to roam free and use their minds.
Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next
terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on
them.” [17]. Before I offer my counter-argument to PETA’s
statement, let me first introduce the Animal Welfare Act of
1966 (AWA); this act is comprised of an ever-growing
group of very strict laws concerning the treatment of animals
in research environments, and is heavily enforced not only
by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), but
also by BMES’s code of ethics for engineers [4]. BMES’s
code of ethics states that all biomedical engineers involved
in research shall “comply with all legal, ethical, institutional,
governmental, and other applicable research guidelines,
respecting the rights of and exercising the responsibilities to
human and animal subjects…” [5]. From this we can clearly
see that animal research is a highly regulated process with
strict standards and rules.
Going back to PETA’s statement on animal
experimentation, while still keeping in mind the AWA and
its heavy enforcement by the USDA and BMES, it is clear
that the statement contains a number of fallacies, the first of
which is the description of the research environment [17].
PETA describes the animal’s cages as being cold, barren,
and lonely, but this is not the case. Research laboratories are
required by the AWA to provide all research animals with
shelter at a comfortable temperature [4]. Loneliness is also
not an issue because most animals are experimented on in
groups in order to provide a control data set as well as
verification that any experimental results can be reproduced.
Therefore, loneliness is not a concern for the animals, they
are constantly surrounded by one another, able to interact
and form relationships. PETA goes on to say in their
statement that research animals often languish in pain as a
result of experimentation, but another requirement of the
AWA is the use of anesthesia or other pain-relieving
medication on animals under any type of experimentation
that may otherwise cause them pain [4].
Rather than continuing to exaggerate the harshness of the
animal research environment, the second half of PETA’s
statement greatly dramatizes and personifies an animal’s
mind. As humans, it is natural for us to imagine that other
animals are able to think and feel in the same ways we do,
but this is far from the truth; animals have relatively simple
minds, and are unable to feel many of the emotions that we
do. For example, most animals are not able to become bored
in the same way that we do, no matter how much we would
like to think so. Humans become bored when things do not
meet their interests, but other animals, like rats, are not
capable of having interests. What these animals do have is
an inborn curiosity drive that compels them to seek small
varieties, and if that drive is not satisfied, they become bored
[18]. Because of this, a simple change in scenery every once
in awhile will keep a rat or other animal’s boredom at bay,
and therefor boredom should not be a concern to animal
rights activists. In response to PETA’s mentioning of the
animals’ longing to roam free, most research animals are
born in the lab and do not even recognize the existence of
the outside world. Therefore, they cannot miss it or desire to
roam free in it, which makes PETA’s statement even more
of an unrealistic and biased exaggeration.
The AWA is just one of the many laws that regulate
animal research to ensure that the animals are treated
humanely and not put through excessive pain and torment,
and these laws are enforced to the upmost extent in research
laboratories in accordance with the USDA’s regulations and
the BMES code of ethics [19][5]. Although I share PETA’s
love for animals, it must be recognized and accepted by
myself, the scientific community, and the critics thereof that
animal research is necessary to achieving greater knowledge
of our brains and theirs alike, and that the regulations set by
the AWA are enough to keep it a humane practice.
CYBERNETIC REVOLTS AND WHY THEY WON’T
HAPPEN
Unlike the animal research argument, a cybernetic revolt,
or robot apocalypse, is not a current issue, but rather a highly
feared conceivable outcome of successfully reverse
engineering the brain. As I mentioned in the introduction, a
situation such as this has already been imagined for us by
Hollywood in movies like Terminator and iRobot; where
robots gain the ability to think and revolt, and use their
ruthlessness, strength, and lack of emotion to attempt to
exterminate the human race [6][20]. Although it is factual
that if we were to successfully reverse engineer the brain,
then we could theoretically give computers cognitive
abilities, the claim of robot apocalypse is outlandish and
unrealistic for many reasons. Additionally, raising a robot
army would violate a variety of both federal laws and
engineer’s codes of ethics.
Difficulty of Exterminating the Human Race
Lets break down exactly why a cybernetic revolt could
never actually happen. First of all, robots do not naturally
desire to kill people, as many Hollywood titles might
5
Nicholas Card
create their robot army anyways. First of all, they’d need to
have an enormous amount of capital to buy the materials and
cover labor costs. Additionally, a project of this scale could
not be effectively hidden from the government, who would
surely and promptly put a stop to it. Raising a robot army
simply cannot and will not be done by anyone, sane or
crazed. Therefore, the robot apocalypse argument is not
valid and has no place in preventing scientific advancement
and the pursuit of reverse engineering of the brain.
suggest. In our current technological state, programmers
must explicitly tell a computer to perform an action and how
to go about doing so for it to be able to, so someone would
have to tell a robot to kill someone for it to “desire” to do so.
The argument and fear here is that once we grant robots the
ability to think after figuring out how we do it, they will
inevitably all decide that they would be better off killing us.
For the robots to be successful in killing everyone, they
would most likely require a very high population, and they
would also need to be equipped with machine guns or
something of a similarly lethal nature. Otherwise, the
extermination of the human race simply could not be
achieved. Wiping out the human race is not as easy as it
seems, especially because we already have a large advantage
with our population of seven billion and rising.
EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT
I’d like to step back from the subject of this paper for a
moment and talk about the effectiveness of this assignment.
Writing assignments two and three required me to invest lots
of thought into what I’m really interested in. After all, the
quality of my paper would inevitably be a clear reflection of
how much I enjoyed writing it, so it would be in my best
interest to choose a topic I enjoy a lot. After spending a lot
of time thinking about it and weighing out my options, I
decided that I had a great interest in the field of neural
engineering and the objective of reverse engineering the
brain to benefit mankind. Additionally, the requirement for
me to incorporate various engineering codes of ethics into
the paper forced me to educate myself on those codes, which
provided a valuable insight into the moral guidelines and
objectives of engineering.
BMES’s code of conduct states that an engineer should
“honor the responsibility… to train biomedical engineering
students in proper professional conduct in performing
research and publishing results….” [5]. In order to do so
effectively, this much start at the beginning of an engineer’s
college education, during their freshman year. It’s important
for an engineering student to be provided the motivation and
opportunity to really explore what field they’re interested in
and what some recent accomplishments in that field are.
Only after acquiring this information can you then develop
an engineer’s mindset to look into the future of the field.
Assignments two and three in combination with the entire
engineering 0011 course provide this opportunity and
motivation, and allow students to begin thinking about what
they want to do in the rest of their time at the university.
Further strengthening this point, a study done between
over 4,000 undergraduate students at 18 separate
engineering universities clearly related the students’ ethical
development to their curricular and co-curricular activities
[22]. The more a university’s engineering curriculum
focuses on real world ethics, the greater the student’s ethical
Ethicality of Exterminating the Human Race
Now let me ask you, what type of principled scientist
would build millions of untested prototype robots, grant
them the ability to think, motivate them to kill, and equip
them with lethal weaponry? Doing so would obviously
violate many laws, as well as two main codes of engineer’s
ethics: NSPE’s code and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineer’s (IEEE) code [1], [21]. Item number
one of NSPE’s code states “Engineers shall hold paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” [1]. Obviously,
if someone deliberately created an army of glorified killing
machines, they’d be endangering the safety, health, and
welfare of the public, which is a clear violation of this rule.
Next we turn to the IEEE’s code of ethics, because even if
the ability to create cognitive systems in a robot was made
possible by a neural engineer, it would have to be executed
by an electrical engineer. Items number one, two, and nine
of the IEEE code of ethics are all very similar to the NSPE’s
first rule, to avoid endangering of the public’s safety,
causing injury to others, and creating conflicts of interest
[21]. If someone created a robot army whose purpose was to
kill me, it would definitely conflict with my interests, which
primarily focus on not being ruthlessly murdered. Clearly,
the act of creating a robotic army granting them the ability to
wipe out the human race is morally and ethically
objectionable.
Difficulty of Raising a Robot Army
Suppose a particularly maniacal electrical engineer
decided that they really don’t care about violating codes of
ethics or federal law, and that they want to go ahead and
6
Nicholas Card
development will be, which will positively benefit them in
the future as they graduate and enter the real world.
As can be seen from this study as well as my own
personal experience, these assignments have been extremely
effective. They involve the writer’s own personal interests
and opinions in addition to uniform codes of ethics, which
helps develop the writer into the kind of engineer that they
want to be while keeping them within ethical guidelines. I
would certainly recommend that other institutions adopt this
type of assignment for their freshman engineering programs
if they have not already.
in helping to push me in the direction I want to go in in
regard to what type of engineering I will pursue.
REFERENCES
[1] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2012).
“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” NSPE (Webpage).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[2] L. Mastin. (2010). “Parts of the Brain.” Human Memory
(Webpage). http://www.human-memory.net/brain_parts.html
[3] A. B. Schwartz. (2012). “University of Pittsburgh
MotorLab.” University of Pittsburgh Department of
Neurobiology
(Webpage).
http://motorlab.neurobio.pitt.edu/
[4] USDA. (2012). “Animal Welfare Act.” USDA National
Agriculture
Library
(Webpage).
http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professionalresources/federal-laws/animal-welfare-act
[5] Biomedical Engineering Society. (2012). “BMES Code
of
Ethics.”
BMES
(Webpage).
http://www.bmes.org/aws/BMES/pt/sp/ethics
[6] Wikipedia. (2012). “The Terminator.” Wikipedia: the
Online
Encyclopedia
(Webpage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
[7] A. Park. (10-5-2010). “Alzheimer’s Unlocked.” Time
Vol. 176 Issue 17, p53-59 (Online Article).
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph
$AN=54463669&site=ehost-live
[8] L. Mastin. (2010). “Types of Memory.” Human Memory
(Webpage). http://www.human-memory.net/types.html
[9] M. Golde. (June 2010). “Artificial Intelligence: The
Brain-Computer Controversy. Strategic Business Insights
(Online
Article).
http://www.strategicbusinessinsights.com/about/featured/20
10/2010-06-aicontroversy.shtml
[10] Wikipedia. (2012). “Cat Intelligence.” Wikipedia: the
Online
Encyclopedia
(Webpage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_intelligence
[11] H. Davis. (1996). “Underestimating the Rat’s
Intelligence.”
National Center for Biotechnology
Information
(Webpage).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8806030
[12] G. K. York, D. A. Steinberg. (2006). “An Introduction
to the Life and Work of John Hughlings Jackson.” US
National Library of Medicine (Online Article).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2640105/
REINFORCEMENT OF WHY THE MOTOR CORTEX
IS THE PROPER STARTING PLACE
To successfully reverse engineer the entirety of the brain
would be extremely fruitful to all of mankind for centuries to
come. Diseases could be cured, those previously
immobilized could have their bodies’ functionality restored,
teaching and learning processes would be revolutionized to
become far more effective, and the general quality of life
could be raised. This feat, however, is far too large to be
accomplished all at once. Instead, we must break it down
and solve it piece-by-piece, using ethically sound methods of
research and implementation, starting with the system we
know most about: the motor-movement system. Not only
have we already discovered much of how this system
functions, we are also able to conduct research on it while
following the NSPE and BMES codes of ethics [5], [1]. Dr.
Schwartz and his lab team have already decoded a large
amount of the signals that the brain sends to move limbs and
have applied those signals to controlling prosthetics,
demonstrating how realistic the goal of reverse-engineering
the brain is and how closely within our reach it lies. Dr.
Schwartz’s research and BCI method has already provided
potential solutions for many of the issues we face today, and
is being applied in ethically sound clinical trials to restore
quality of life to amputee victims. Further development of
the BCI method would yield an even more refined and
accurate understanding of the motor-movement system,
which we could use in order to better understand other brain
systems. Eventually, through this procedure, we could reach
a full understanding of the entire brain and apply it to
solving many of our problems. The human race could make
great advancements with the secrets of the brain’s
functionality, and starting with the system we understand
best is how to go about discovering them. Taking a step back
once again, it is clear that this assignment has been effective
7
Nicholas Card
[13] M. V. Kuyen. (2011). “Motor Cortex.” Neuralmodel.net
(Webpage).
http://neuralmodel.net/library/brain/tour/motor_cortex.htm
[14] J. Brown. (5-29-2008). “Monkeys Learn to Control
Robotic Arm with Brainwaves.” PBS NEWSHOUR (Online
Article).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/janjune08/monkey_05-29.html
[15] A. B. Schwartz. (2012). “Andrew B. Schwartz Lab.”
University of Pittsburgh Department of Neurobiology
(Webpage).
http://www.neurobio.pitt.edu/faculty/schwartz.htm
[16] CBS Interactive Inc. (November 2008). “The Monkey
and the Robotic Arm.” CBS News (Video).
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4564188n
[17] PETA. (2012). “Animals Used for Experimentation.”
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (Webpage).
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-forexperimentation/default.aspx
[18] Wikipedia. (2012). “What Causes Boredom?”
Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia (Webpage).
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_causes_boredom
[19] Wikipedia. (2012). “Animal Testing Regulations.”
Wikipedia: The Online Encyclopedia (Webpage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing_regulations#Un
ited_States
[20] Wikipedia. (2012). “Cybernetic Revolt.” Wikipedia:
The
Online
Encyclopedia
(Webpage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_revolt#In_fiction
[21] IEEE. (2012). “IEEE Code of Ethics.” The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Webpage).
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[22] C. Finelli, M. Holsapple, E. Ra, et al. (2012). “An
Assessment of Engineering Students’ Curricular and CoCurricular Experiences and Their Ethical Development.”
Journal
of
Engineering
Education
(Webpage).
http://www.jee.org/2012/July/04
strengthened my argument. Dr. Newborg and the rest of the
department were extremely helpful by sending out so many
clarifications via email, so they also deserve my thanks.
Hans Mattingly, my writing instructor, provided helpful
feedback and criticism of assignment two, which allowed me
to fix those issues for assignment three. Lastly, I’d like to
thank my neighbor Matt P. and my group partner J. J. Petti
for editing my paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe much of my thanks to my mother and father, both
of whom are Neuroscience professors here at the University
of Pittsburgh. Their knowledge of current happenings and
progress in the neuroscience community helped to point me
in the right direction for the best approach to reverse
engineering the brain. I must also thank Dr. Andrew
Schwartz for developing the BCI method and making his
research so easily accessible to the scientific community. His
research played a large role in my paper and greatly
8