When researchers at the State University of New York's Downstate Medical Center recently announced that they could direct the movements of a rat, much like a child controls a toy truck, they knew their experiment would generate controversy. After all, even one of their own researchers called it "sort of creepy."

The reviews are indeed pouring in from across the country, even overseas, and the critics are concerned not only about the ethics of controlling another species, but also about future applications of this technology. Could it be used, Big Brother-style, to control human behavior, consumer spending, or even worker productivity?

A little background: The remote-controlled rat, dubbed "roborat," grew out of Downstate Medical Center's research into developing technology that would allow paralyzed people to regain control of their limbs. First reported in the scientific journal Nature, the researchers successfully "trained" the rats in a figure-eight-shaped maze for approximately ten days before directing the animals to navigate a number of obstacles, including, ramps, ladders, pipes, and trees—all activities that rats are normally reluctant to do.

The researchers accomplished this by implanting electrodes in the rat's brain, and transmitting signals to the electrodes from a laptop computer as far away as 1,500 feet. The research team implanted three electrodes into the animal's brain: one touching the medial forebrain bundle (MFB), which generates a feeling of happiness or reward, and the other two stimulating the rat's whisker bundles on either side of the nose. By triggering one of the whisker implants and then stimulating the rat's "reward center," scientists were able to direct the animal to turn in one direction or the other and then move forward.

The scientists believe that equipping rats with this technology will have a number of potential applications. Unlike traditional robots which have limited maneuverability, roborats could actually crawl into tight spaces to locate victims trapped under rubble after a natural disaster. The animals could also prove useful in land-mine detection and even spying operations. And the technology itself, scientists say, may one day be applicable to neural prosthesis—the use of electronics to bridge nervous system gaps caused by strokes and spinal injuries.

But others are saying, "not so fast." There are lots of ethical questions left unanswered, many coming from the animal protection community which feels the technology is demeaning to animals. What's more, animal welfare activists believe the technology causes pain and distress to the animals, regardless of how "happy" the present-day rats are said to be when released from their cages and directed by remote computer.

"This could be just the beginning of a trend to use technology to turn animals into little more than animated robots," says Martin Stephens, The HSUS's vice president of animal research issues. "If that happens on a wide enough scale, it could debase our view of animals and change the nature of our relationships with them."

Stephens' comments are echoed by Gill Langley of the Dr. Hadwen Trust in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England, which funds alternatives to animal research. "It's appalling," Langley told New Scientist on May 4, 2002, "and yet another example of how the human species instrumentalizes other species."

Several critics worry about the leap from rodent to human, which may not seem as far fetched as it sounds. A review of the scientific literature indicates that robotic research is now being performed in nonhuman primates.

"Today scientists can get a rat to turn right or left by hitting a computer key that activates electrodes implanted in the animal's brain," wrote The Boston Globe in a May 5 editorial. "Tomorrow there may be a brain chip for human beings—inserted the way a pacemaker or cochlear implant is now—that might help a person control an artificial arm or leg as well as simulating feeling in the limb.

"But what if some future implant, billed as a medical miracle, were also secretly encoded to direct thought, getting a person to think like Big Brother, or to work harder for managers at corporate control, or to follow the orders of Mephistopheles?" the editorial continued. "What if Madison Avenue got a piece of the supposed beneficial chip to direct the consumer to buy the expensive spread or the new cereal?"

The Tulsa World raised similar concerns in a May 12 editorial: "If a chip could control all these things, it could also control a person's desires. What big corporation wouldn't like to have a staff of chip-induced drones to make more widgets and like doing it?"

It would seem, given the flood of portentous words, that people fear the very thing they want to do to rats: control their every move.