If you wonder who is leading the neurotech revolution, you should definitely consider the organizations who are attending next week's Neurotech Industry Conference among them. The event is nearly sold out, so if you haven't signed up yet, I recommend you don't wait any longer.
Hear from investors, researchers and executives about next generation treatments for Alzheimer's, addiction, anxiety, depression, epilepsy, hearing loss, insomnia, multiple sclerosis, obesity, pain, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, stroke and other brain-related illnesses.
NETWORK WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:
Aberdare Ventures, Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure, Accera, Inc., Accuitive Medical Ventures, Acumen Pharmaceuticals, Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Afferent Corporation, Alatheia, Ltd., Allen Brain Institute, Amarin Corporation, Argolyn Biosciences, Athenagen, Avigen, Bay City Capital, Biotechnology Value Fund, Brain Resource Company, BrainCells Inc., BrainVital Corporation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Center for Cognitive Liberty, Ceregene, Chevron Molecular Diamond Technologies, CNS Response, CoAxia, Confirma, Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, Cytodome, Inc., De Novo Ventures, DNA Bridges, Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center, Electrical Geodesics, GE Global Research Center, GE Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Medical School, HealthPartners Research Foundation, Innovative Neurotechnologies, Intellectual Licensing Group, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Leptos Biomedical, Life Science Angels, Lighthouse Capital Partners, Limerick NeuroScience, Liverpool University, McGovern Institute for Brain Research, MDS Capital, Medtronic, MIT Technology Review, Nascent Enterprises, Neuro HiTech Pharmaceuticals, NeuroInvestment, Neurologix, Neuronetics, NeuroNova, Neuroscience Institute at Stanford, Neurotech Reports, NeuroVentures Capital, New York Times, NIH/ NINDS, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Novartis, NsGene, Pequot Ventures, Pfizer, Point Biomedical, Predix Pharmaceuticals, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, Prospect Ventures, Purdue Research Foundation, Research Corporation Technology, Revere Data, Rinat Neuroscience, Saegis Pharmaceuticals, Sanderling, Science Futures, Sound Pharmaceuticals, Stanford University, Stem Cell Sciences, Stem Cells, Inc., Stryker, Takeda Research Investment, Targacept, Technology Partners, Tessera, Inc., The Foundry, University of California, San Francisco, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, VIASYS Healthcare, Wachovia Securities, Woodside Capital, Wyeth...
To register and for more information, please visit the NeuroInsights website at: www.neuroinsights.com or call (415) 229-3225.
May 9, 2006
Imagine it was 1935 and you were at a gathering that was exploring the geopolitical implications of developing the A-Bomb. Last week I was afforded the opportunity to spend several days with 30 others discussing and debating the implications of developing neuroweapons. The conference was sponsored by Sandia's Advanced Concepts Group and was hosted by ASU's Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. There is too much to cover in a blog and a paper will be forthcoming later this summer that summarizes the discussions.
As part of the discussion we explored different policy scenarios along the following lines:
In the literature on technologies intended to promote the development of human capabilities in general, four broad perspectives emerge that will have differing implications for legislation, regulation, and allocation of public resources.
1. Laissez-faire on cognitive enhancements. In this view, the emphasis is on the freedom of the individual to seek and employ technologies that he or she judges would benefit his or her self or family. By and large, market mechanisms can manage the risks, and government should play little or no role.
2. Managed cognitive enhancements. Technologies for human capability enhancements promise great benefits to individuals and to society, but a supportive government role is needed to foster research and development increase the fairness of distribution, to assure the effectiveness of the technologies, and to manage the risks.
3. Techno-skepticism. The risks both to individual well-being and to a fair and just society outweigh the promised benefits of these technologies. Commercial values and interests in profit are likely to override broader social interests. Negative unintended consequences are likely, and enhancement technologies should not be made available until net benefits can be demonstrated. The government emphasis should be on regulation and fairness, not promotion.
4. Cultural conservatism. Technologies that may restore disabled people to normal function may be acceptable, but attempts at “transhuman” enhancement of undiseased people threatens to violate God-given or evolved human nature and to undermine the values that make us human. Government should carefully restrict when and how these technologies are used.
Where do you find yourself?
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: NeuroWave 2050
May 3, 2006
Brain Art from DeviantART
posted by Zack Lynch |
May 2, 2006
Mindhack's dug up a very interesting use of using Google Earth to plot psychogeographic information about cities - or - emotion maps:
"By combining a hand-held global positioning system with a galvanic skin response sensor (that measures the sweatiness of your fingers), London-based artist Christian Nold has created a gadget that measures your arousal as you walk around. Superimposing the data onto your route, using something like Google Earth, allows you to see a kind of 'emotion map' for where you've been.
Nold has tested the device on over 300 people so far (his data is publicly available), and is looking for academic and commercial research partners to explore the project's potential."
(Picture of Rotterdam, England Emotion Map) I wonder how a bit of mind styling would shape an emotional mapping of NYC?
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Culture & the Brain