In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132 #00020

Submission Number:
00020
Commenter:
Sygal Amitay
State:
Outside the United States
Initiative Name:
In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132
If three peer-reviewed studies showing a specific application of perceptual learning works to improve human perception in a risk-free way, along with numerous studies showing the beneficial effects of more general perceptual learning methods, are insufficient evidence of scientific support for a method, what is? Is all the translational research work we do as scientists immediately suspect if we show an interest on capitalising on the intellectual property we produce? How many scientific innovations started out as experiments in the lab, published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals? If the scientists stand to benefit from the fruit of their research, does that mean their scientific integrity is immediately negated? Given the number of "training programmes" out there which are sold for thousands of dollars based on claims about their "scientifically-proven benefits", ultimately using the same peer-reviewed science channels, I find it ludicrous that the FTC would choose to focus its wrath on a $10 app which efficacy is supported by years of research. Perhaps it is the view of the FTC that only large corporations can capitalise on scientific findings, and that scientists should stick to the lab and see no benefit from their intellectual property. One can only conclude from the FTC complaint that if scientists stand to benefit from their inventions, even if these are based on years of research, the science behind them is immediately invalidated. I would strongly urge the FTC to reconsider its position in this matter. Scientists should be allowed to also be entrepreneurs. The benefits from new developments should go to those whose dedication to research for improving the human condition made them possible.