Geekend: Predicting Your Future By Scanning Your Brain - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
IT Life
Commentary
1/9/2015
10:50 AM
David Wagner
David Wagner
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
100%
0%

Geekend: Predicting Your Future By Scanning Your Brain

Is your entire future locked up in a few brain scans?

Top 10 Social Network Blunders Of 2014
Top 10 Social Network Blunders Of 2014
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Give me a few minutes and an MRI and I'll tell you whether you're going to be good at math, or drink too much this weekend, or even end up in jail. Well, maybe I can't, but a review of research on brain scans done by functional MRI, published in the journal Neuron, is showing we're starting to unlock the keys to certain behaviors that will predict future days (and sometimes decades) in advance.

It makes sense. While we tend to think of a brain as a brain, we all have variations in size and shape and function. Scientists call those "neuromarkers." A neuromarker might be something as simple as the size of a portion of your brain, or a measure of the activity inside a section, or even the metabolism in a part of a brain. Really, it is anything we can measure and show there is deviation. Some neuromarkers don't mean anything at all, but we're starting to see some that can mean a great deal.

Just as an example, if you have a higher-volume striatum, a part of your forebrain, you're probably going to be good at video games. This isn't a real shocker. The striatum helps govern movement, and we think it might also govern some "executive functions" like task flexibility and memory. Since video games are all about physical skills and task flexibility, having a big striatum is obviously a good thing.

[Maybe you should've done a brain scan during the hiring process. See 10 Signs You've Hired The Wrong Person.]

But some are less obvious and a little more ominous. One of the least successful areas of human psychology is understanding whether a person is likely to commit another crime after getting out of prison. Simply put, we're really bad at it. However, a study reviewed in the paper was able to strongly correlate whether a person would return to prison within four years based on whether he had a high or low activation rate in the anterior cingulate cortex. The correlation was much stronger than any previous method used to predict recurring crime. You don't need to know what the anterior cingulate cortex does (it deals with cognitive conflict) to see the frightening implications of this.

While predicting whether someone will commit a crime again is a benefit to society, an increased likelihood is not a certainty. Making decisions on bail, parole, or sentencing based on probabilities is rather frightening. And God forbid we start scanning people to see if they will commit their first crime before they've done anything wrong.

(Source: NIH)
(Source: NIH)

The amazing thing is that this paper reviewed dozens of studies just like these two. We have studies showing we can predict your future success in reading and math from infancy, how you will respond to psychological and pharmacological treatments for depression, and even your chances of using sunscreen.

They all have varying levels of success. Some do not necessarily live up to existing or less-expensive methods of determining certain outcomes. But many do. Many (bearing in mind many still have small sample sizes) are showing an ability to predict, better than current methods, your very future. Taking a single test to see how well you will play video games is one thing. But as we pile up these tests something frightening happens. We get to know your whole future.

With ample testing we could tell if a baby is going to be good at reading, be good at math, be an alcoholic, be a good musician, be a drug addict, be a criminal, use sunscreen, or be able to quit (or start) smoking. And that's just some of the 20+ potential outcomes reviewed in the study. They will continue to add up.

So here's the thing: Your brain at birth is not your total existence. Your experience matters, too. You might have a great big striatum and never play a video game or be an athlete or whatever. You might waste your striatum without ever knowing it. You also might have a tiny striatum but play video games every day and get better at them than me. (Well, actually no one is better at video games than me, but you get the point.)

Not all of these things are dead certainties. Some are probabilities, correlations, peeks into our potential. In some cases we can actually intervene and "fix" you. If we know at birth you are more likely to be an alcoholic, we might be able to intervene before you ever drink a beer.

But some are a little more certain -- like your response to certain medications. You can't practice being susceptible to certain drugs (although your experience with drugs can alter your susceptibility). Heck, we even have a test that shows whether you are more likely to feel the effects of a placebo.

Navigating these probabilities and certainties is going to be a tough job. We've seen science say we're 100% going to destroy the Earth if we don't reduce carbon emissions, and a bunch of people don't believe it or act as if they don't. Imagine if a scientist says, "That man is 60% likely to commit a crime." The political and social response would be insane. And imagine if that scientist said something like, "People with a certain skin color are more likely to have a neuromarker that makes them 60% more likely to commit a crime." Pandemonium.

On the other hand, what if a neuromarker said that we could keep someone from killing herself if we put her on this drug today, and she would feel like a happier, healthier version of herself? Or if a neuromarker said, "This child has musical gifts" -- give her a violin?

We're only scratching the surface, but we're scratching it as fast as a cat falling off a couch. We're going to have to be ready for when this early neuromarker knowledge becomes mature enough that scientists can start making predictions we may or may not want to hear. What will you do when a test can tell you your baby isn't that smart, even before it says its first words? Or if it tells you he or she could be a genius?

Would you take these tests? How would you act, based on the results? Should governments make use of them in legal cases? In effect, how much of you and your future are predestined by your brain? Share your thoughts (assuming they aren't pre-destined) in the comments.

Attend Interop Las Vegas, the leading independent technology conference and expo series designed to inspire, inform, and connect the world's IT community. In 2015, look for all new programs, networking opportunities, and classes that will help you set your organization’s IT action plan. It happens April 27 to May 1. Register with Discount Code MPOIWK for $200 off Total Access & Conference Passes.

David has been writing on business and technology for over 10 years and was most recently Managing Editor at Enterpriseefficiency.com. Before that he was an Assistant Editor at MIT Sloan Management Review, where he covered a wide range of business topics including IT, ... View Full Bio
We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/16/2015 | 11:34:53 AM
Re: The end of crime?
@li tan- No, not at all. And it doesn't claim to. At best, what it can do is identify the characteristics of the brain that makes certain crimes possible-- like impulse control. The goal of the study was to simply make better parole decisions by seeing what were the characteristics of people who stayed out of jail a second time and who came back. There's a long way to go before being predictive. But the study was already more accurate than some existing methods we use. 
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2015 | 1:07:24 PM
Re: The end of crime?
@Susan- While I love the thought of nanobots, I still think the vaccine approach or increased early detection is goign to win out. There's no reason we can't train the immune system to do what we're planning on teaching those nanobots to do. And probably faster. Our immune system is amazingly good at adatping and killing things. 

Also, sending genetic signals to cancer cells to behave like "normal" cells has promise, too. I think we've got a better chance of doing either of those faster than inventing nanobots and teahcing them to kill only cancer cells.
Susan Fourtané
50%
50%
Susan Fourtané,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 10:15:09 PM
Re: The end of crime?
David, 

There were treatments left, but did it mean she had a chance, or was it more something to extend her suffering for a bit longer? That's the true thing to look into. Because, I am again assuming that if she was ready to die is because she was going to die anyway anytime soon, treatments or not treatments. Probably tolerating those treatments had become too much for her. 

I am assuming if she would have had a chance of survival --which is rare in cancer cases-- she would have kept fighting. Extending her suffering is not giving her quality of life. Forcing her to tolerate her condition is even worse, physical and psychologically speaking.  

If you have a link to this case, I would like to read more about it. So far, I am just assuming the reasons why she preferred to die. I would like to know the facts behind it.

A cure for cancer might come in the form of nanobots implanted into the patient, which could destroy the first cancerigenous cells as soon as they appear, not allowing them to expand to vital organs. Medicine doesn't seem to have advanced too much in cancer treatments. 

-Susan  
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/14/2015 | 11:02:22 AM
Re: The end of crime?
There were treatments left. That's the problem. But the horrible thing about cancer drugs is sometimes in the moment they feel worse than the disease. A lot of people suffering from cancer feel better (in the short term) without their medicine. It is just an awful disease and I suspect we can always assume some tragedy around it until we find a a true cure.
Susan Fourtané
50%
50%
Susan Fourtané,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 1:59:44 AM
Re: The end of crime?
David, 

Yes, yes. I see your point. I agree that courts are on a weird position. But I still think they should have respected the teenage girl. I am assuming there were no more treatments for trying, and/or everything was just too much for her. I read another story recently about a child being hit by a car. Is that the same case? 

-Susan
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/14/2015 | 1:42:57 AM
Re: The end of crime?
@Susan- To be honest, I don't know enough of the details to have an opinion. But courts ar ein a weird spot. If a parent doesn't do everything to keep their child alive, they could be shunned or even imprisoned. Imagine if a toddler walked into the street and all a parent did was say, "hey, maybe you should come back here" and the child was hit by a car.

Now imagine a parent tried three cancer drugs and there were three more. 

I don't know. But I think that's the problem courts are under. If a parent still has a shot to save their child, society usually says thay should try.
Susan Fourtané
50%
50%
Susan Fourtané,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 1:28:50 AM
Re: The end of crime?
David, 

The teenager's story is very sad. :( Most likely her pain was intolerable if she was ready to die. I believe the parents had a very selfish attitude thinking more about them losing a daughter than accepting the fact that their daughter couldn't tolerate the condition any longer. They should have respected her. The court also showed no respect toward the girl's will to end a painful and slow death. How sad. It's like if she were not the owner of her own body and wouldn't know what's best for her according to something only she can feel, and had no right whatsoever to decide on her own life.

The same I think about denying treatment to a child that could be saved otherwise.  

"And kids don't have protection in the cases where a parent makes a reasonable decision that goes poorly."

That's terrible. I said earlier that it's not easy to know what is right. I don't know how this is going to sound to you, but I believe in such cases, like the ones you mentioned, it's the child the one who should make the decision if the child has understanding of the situation; like the case of that teenager. 

Another thing is that each case should be taken individually instead of just following what the book says, which can work for some, but not for all. 

-Susan
Susan Fourtané
50%
50%
Susan Fourtané,
User Rank: Author
1/14/2015 | 1:05:30 AM
Re: The end of crime?
David, 

I remember the one on drawing and math ability. Yes, I'll put them on my reading list. :) 

-Susan
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/13/2015 | 6:05:23 PM
Re: The end of crime?
@GAProgrammer0 to be fair to the scientists in question, I don't believe any of them are offering tests right now for anyone who wants them. I just suggested that it might be possible in the future. So it may be that all we are doing is learning about the brain and there never will be tests to determine these things. But we have GMO food so I assume one day we'll have GMO babies. Or at least people who want to try to change the babies they've got.
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
1/13/2015 | 6:02:22 PM
Re: The end of crime?
@susan- for the most part, parents can give consent on behalf of kids for scientific research. And kids don't have protection in the cases where a parent makes a reasonable decision that goes poorly. For instance, if a child has a disease and the parent chooses to allow the child to take an experimental medicine to try to save the child's life, the child usually can't over rule the decision.

In fact, recently, a teenage girl asked to be allowed to die because she had cancer. The parents wanted her to fight on and try more potential cures. The girl actually sued her parents to let her die and the court ruled for the parents.

that said, in other cases, parents have denied treatment to a child (usually for religious reasons) and the government has ruled in favor of protecting the child. 

I guess if there is anything to learn from that, usually the government forces you to take your medicine. :)
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

Commentary
New Storage Trends Promise to Help Enterprises Handle a Data Avalanche
John Edwards, Technology Journalist & Author,  4/1/2021
Slideshows
11 Things IT Professionals Wish They Knew Earlier in Their Careers
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  4/6/2021
Commentary
How to Submit a Column to InformationWeek
InformationWeek Staff 4/9/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
The State of Cloud Computing - Fall 2020
The State of Cloud Computing - Fall 2020
Download this report to compare how cloud usage and spending patterns have changed in 2020, and how respondents think they'll evolve over the next two years.
Video
Current Issue
Successful Strategies for Digital Transformation
Download this report to learn about the latest technologies and best practices or ensuring a successful transition from outdated business transformation tactics.
Slideshows
Flash Poll