A Tale of Two Brains: Are Two Really Better than One?

A recent study of brain-melding raises many important questions about ethics

Science is an amazing discipline and scientific research has taught us a staggering and continually growing amount of information about all aspects of our magnificent planet and the fascinating human and nonhuman animals (animals) who inhabit all sorts of places. 

We (my co-author Dr. Hope Ferdowsian(link is external)and I) have long been interested in what science is all about and also how we need to protect other animals from being used and abused in the pursuit of knowledge. Of course, there are myriad opinions of what scientific research consists of and what is worth studying. Researchers often are criticized and ridiculed by non-researchers because of the topics in which they are interested. 

Recognizing that there are a plethora of views on what should and should not be done, a recent study prompted us to write about it with the hope of generating motivated discussion about its merits, shortcomings, and whether or not it should have been done in the first place. Researchers have produced glow-in-the-dark pigs(link is external) and have performed head transplants(link is external), and it's important to ask if "science goes too far." 

Carl Zimmer's article in the New York Times titled "Scientists Demonstrate Animal Mind-Melds(link is external)" called our attention to research in which the brains of different animals were wired together. Mr. Zimmer's essay highlights a major problem in science today -- an absence of attention to ethics. The original research paper titled "Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains(link is external)" was published in the journal Scientific Reports by Miguel Pais-Vieira and his colleagues.

Mr. Zimmer writes, "the researchers report that rats and monkeys can coordinate their brains to carry out such tasks as moving a simulated arm or recognizing simple patterns. In many of the trials, the networked animals performed better than individuals." Karen Rommelfanger, director of the Neuroethics Program at the Center for Ethics at Emory University, notes, “At least some times, more brains are better than one.”

Dr. Rommelfanger also is quoted as saying, “I think that neural privacy is something we should worry about." She is also concerned that "brain networks could create a host of exotic ethical quandaries involving privacy and legal responsibility. If a brain network were to commit a crime, for example, who exactly would be guilty?" Right now, these are very interesting questions that deserve close scrutiny, however, it seems a long time off until we need to worry about two humans sharing their brains. Ethical concerns and limitations on the use of humans in invasive research preclude brain-melding any time soon. 

Indeed we share Dr. Rommelfanger's concerns, however, there are other worries as well, that focus on the animals themselves. Wiring the brains of monkeys and rats together to figure out whether two brains are better than one requires highly invasive procedures and causes great suffering. We also feel that brain-melding experiments are unnecessary. Others, including readers of Psychology Today, may disagree, and it would be worthwhile for them to weigh in. And, although there are problems with unlikely human applications, Mr. Zimmer's essay neglects to mention substantial harms to the animals, including water and sensory deprivation,social isolation, confinement, electric shocks, invasive surgeries, and death. 

Monkeys and rats aren't furry inanimate test tubes. They, like numerous other "research animals," are sentient and empathic beings who are vulnerable and who suffer much like humans, often displaying signs of posttraumatic stress, depression, and compulsive behaviors in the laboratory. It's safe to say they wouldn't be there by choice, and researchers well recognize that their lives are severely compromised and try to remedy this by developing all sorts of enrichments that "make their lives better" until they are sacrificed. 

So, are two brains really "better" than one? Existing data are not especially compelling, nor do they bear on any practical matters that would help other animals live a better life. We also need to ask, "better for whom?" The animals who are used surely will not benefit from this research, and it's highly unlikely that others will. Will humans benefit and will their lives be better? Once again this is unlikely, but the word "better" can be tweaked to mean just about anything. One thing for sure is that the practical applications of this sort of research, if they exist, are a long way off, and before more animals are used, this type of research needs to be more carefully scrutinized because of its incredibly invasive nature. 

Currently, billions of animals still have no real protection under the law. The Animal Welfare Act, which sets no actual thresholds on suffering, covers less than one percent of animals used in experiments. The Animal Welfare Act also does not keep up with research about the cognitive and emotional lives of animals, information that could and should be used on the animals' behalf and data that have been around for a long time. 

Science and researchers must take a real step forward. Scientific, technological, and medical advancements are hollow without legitimate moral advancements and concern for all the animals who are used. Just because we can do something does not mean we should or must do it. 

Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's story: Saving moon bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation, Why dogs hump and bees get depressed, and Rewilding our hearts: Building pathways of compassion and coexistence. The Jane effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson) has recently been published. (marcbekoff.com; @MarcBekoff)