Electrical brain stimulation to boost creativity: What are the risks?
Transcranial electrical stimulation is increasingly being used to boost creativity. A new article reviews the ethical, legal, and social implications of this phenomenon.
Creativity might seem like too spontaneous and too messy a process to be dictated by precise brain mechanisms that science can unravel.
However, the latest advances in neuroscience prove that this is indeed the case.
Processes that science may be able not only to understand, but also influence, underpin the seeming unpredictability of the creative process.
For instance, we know that the brain's default network is involved in daydreaming, or focusing on one's inner emotions and ignoring the outside world. Activity in this brain network may be responsible for the first stage of creativity, where idle, free associations and experimentation bring forth original ideas.
Conversely, entering "editing mode" — where a creator might hone and polish an artwork, an article, or a song — requires the input of the executive attention network.
Does having such neuroscientific knowledge help bring forth creativity, however? Can we potentially use neurological data and neuroscientific tools to "cure" writer's block?
Can electricity be used to boost creativity?
Some researchers think so. For example, Adam Green — an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. — led a study that used a procedure called transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) to boost creativity.
In TES, a weak electrical current is applied to the skull via tiny electrodes that are placed on the scalp for a few minutes. Such stimulation is thought to modulate neuronal activity and implicitly behavior.
As a result, the technique has been used to help stroke survivors regain their motor and language skills, and to treat people with depression.
However, when it comes to using TES not to rehabilitate but bolster a skill such as creativity, there is a range of ethical, legal, and social implications that must be addressed. A new article co-authored by Green highlights and explores these implications.
Prof. James Giordano, chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program at Georgetown University Medical Center, is the senior author of the article, which was published in the Creativity Research Journal.
