This last paper is quite interesting, as arguments can (will...) be based off of it posing that tDCS does provide a long-term benefit. Unfortunately, the gain (in response time and accuracy) over a sham tDCS (e.g., placebo) is quite modest -- 15% with an error bar of 10% for response time, and 5% with an error bar of 5% for accuracy... Check the Figure 4 on page 5.
The fallacy here is "no one understands what the technology is". The research folks think they understand it enough to ask the question about the downsides.
I continue to scan research in this area because I know that at some point there will be a recreational drug equivalent that runs off batteries. That is going to destroy a lot of wealth in the underground drug business. That will cause some violent changes in society.
As for TDCS I expect it to move along to the point where this may be like a calculator, not "required" but an accelerator for people with ones.
Really? If we waited until nuclear explosions were proven to consider ethical implications we might be in a very different place. Ethical considerations don't need to stop scientific advancement, but they always must be an ongoing part of the process.
Yes you're right. I'm just tired of sensationalist stories far ahead of real technology. Another tiring example is pretty much any study of human-robot interaction. Mention sex and robots in the same article and you'll instantly get ridiculous attention.
