NeuroEd Enrichment Materials: Ethical Issues
Are There Things We'd Rather Not Know?
By Donald Kennedy in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Dr. Kennedy addressed three areas: "whether we human are as neurophysiologically and behaviorally unique as we sometimes think we are;" "the customary and obligatory swing at free will" (and whether our view of it will be altered as we learn more about the brain); and whether the government ought to regulate brain-related and other studies on ethical grounds. This article is also available in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: conference Proceedings, 2002.
Are There Things We'd Rather Not Know?
By Donald Kennedy in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Kennedy addressed three areas: "whether we human are as neurophysiologically and behaviorally unique as we sometimes think we are;" "the customary and obligatory swing at free will" (and whether our view of it will be altered as we learn more about the brain); and whether the government ought to regulate brain-related and other studies on ethical grounds.
Brain Death in an Age of Heroic Medicine
By Guy M. McKhann in Cerebrum, 1998
When the technology of heart transplantation and life-support machines overtook the traditionally accepted criterion of death--cessation of heartbeat--an alternative criterion emerged. Irreversible loss of brain function, or "brain death" for all the debates and recent attacks it has provoked, has worked well as a determinant of death, argues Dr. McKhann.
Can We Cope with the Ethical Ramifications of New Knowledge of the Human Brain?
By Arthur Caplan in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Dr. Caplan's answer to the title question was "yes" provided we begin grappling now with ethical issues raised by advances in neuroscience. He went on to develop one such issue: Should we try to use knowledge of the brain to improve ourselves? If a drug or an implant, for example, could enhance our memory or teach us French, should we use it? He maintained that we certainly should, reflecting the time-honored human desire to make ourselves, and especially our children, better. Dr. Caplan acknowledged societal inequities in advantage and access, but argued that our goal should be to reduce unfairness, not eliminate beneficial options. This article is also available in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings, 2002.
Chapter 18: Neuroethics
By Richard Morris and Marianne Filenz (Eds.). in Neuroscience: Science of the Brain (2003)
Chapter Eighteen: This is a two-page primer that provides a brief overview of questions relating to the impact of neuroscience on society: the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, and ethics. Some issues raised in these pages are the use of smart drugs, brain-imaging to tell if someone is lying, and animal experimentation.
Embryonic Stem Cells Give Rise to Controversy
By Sandra Ackerman in BrainWork, Vol 11:2, 2001
Reviews the debate about the use of embryonic stem cells in research.
High Stakes in Human Stem Cell Research
By Michele S. Garfinkel in Cerebrum, Vol 2:3, 2000
Michele Garfinkel co-authored the AAAS' 1999 report, Stem Cell Research and Applications: Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research. She argues that the debate over research on embryonic stem cells is framed as moral principle versus research gains. Shunted aside is a balanced assessment of stem cell therapy's potential for treating specific diseases and saving lives. Will the controversy entirely shut out research on normal human development--without which stem cell therapy may never achieve its real potential?
Mapping the Future of Neuroethics
By Albert R. Jonsen in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Referring to Plato's Republic, Dr. Jonsen began by describing the downside of enhancement--among those of "gold" nature, along with the acquisition of wisdom comes greater insight into the world's imperfections and thus diminished personal happiness for them. He then discussed the three types of "mapping" available to bioethicists: tectonic, geographical, and locale. Mappers of each type must ultimately interact, often through Socratic dialogue, in order to produce results that are "rich and influential." This article is also available, along with notes from the discussion that followed, in Session V of the book: Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings, 2002.
Neuroethics
in A Progress Report on Brain Research: Visions of the Brain (2003)
A synopsis of the 2002 Neuroethics meeting (also see articles in Cerebrum, 4:3, 2002 and BrainWork, 12:5, 2002)
Neuroethics
in Gray Matters Audio Series (2003)
Research in the growing field of neuroscience holds exciting prospects for the treatment of neurological disease, but our increasing ability to manipulate the brain will pose grave questions for both scientists and society at large. This edition of Gray Matters will explore where we draw the line on manipulating brain function. Neuroethics, a new field of ethical study, examines the human and social implications that accompany contemporary brain research. Host: veteran journalist Garrick Utley.
Download (53 Mb)
Read transcript .
Neuroethics
in A Progress Report on Brain Research: The Brain/Immune Connection (2004)
Introduces the concept of "neuroethics" and gives a brief history of the terminology; reviews recent conferences and debates on providing drugs for memory/behavior enhancement to healthy individuals and looks at some recent legal cases.
Neuroethics: A Neuroscientist's Perspective
By P. J. Magistretti in A Progress Report on Brain Research: Visions of the Brain (2003)
Dr. Magistretti raises for discussion the use of functional MRI to "view" the neural basis of someone's emotions and questions how this information will be used in the future.
Neuroethics: Building a Relationship Between Scientists and the Public
By Ron Kotulak in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Mr. Kotulak noted how children's early life experiences, which a decade ago were deemed relatively unimportant in their education and subsequent fate, were shown by brain research to play a profoundly important role. Mr. Kotulak described the active interest of governors and other state officials, with the encouragement of august bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, in applying brain research advances to children's benefit. And he offered suggestions for more and better interactions between scientists and the media in order to improve the timeliness and quality of information and ideas--regarding brain science and all other science--communicated to the public. This article is also available, along with notes from the discussion that followed, in the Session IV of the book Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proeceedings, 2002.
Neuroscience at the Tip of the Ethical Iceberg
By Sandra Ackerman in BrainWork, Vol 11:2, 2001
Speaks to the issues of placebos, informed consent, and advanced directives for research as well as treatment.
Neurotechnology, Cyborgs and the Sense of Self
By Paul Root Wolpe in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Dr. Wolpe celebrated the potential of "bionic" technologies--throughout the human body but especially in the brain--to extend our abilities and our lives, but he also urged caution. He cited a wide variety of "physiotechnologies"--a few already in place but most on the way--"to be incorporated into our very flesh and become part of who we are." Some of these technologies, he noted, such as neuronal chips, could be new applications of what is already part of our flesh. Not everyone is looking forward to these changes, and in any case we all need to ask ourselves and each other, some serious questions about how we wish to direct our own evolution. This article is also available (along with notes from the discussion that followed) in the book Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings, 2002).
No Brainer: Can We Cope with the Ethical Ramifications of New Knowledge of the Human Brain?
By Arthur Caplan in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Caplan's answer to the title question was "yes" provided we begin grappling now with ethical issues raised by advances in neuroscience. He went on to develop one such issue: Should we try to use knowledge of the brain to improve ourselves? If a drug or an implant, for example, could enhance our memory or teach us French, should we use it? He maintained that we certainly should, reflecting the time-honored human desire to make ourselves, and especially our children, better. Dr. Caplan acknowledged societal inequities in advantage and access, but argued that our goal should be to reduce unfairness, not eliminate beneficial options. An extensive Question and Answer session is transcribed, as well as comments during the Open Session that followed.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self
By Jonathan D. Moreno in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
This is an introduction or outline of Session I.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self--Gaging Ethics
By Jonathan D. Moreno in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Moreno maintained that the assumption of self-determination is critical to our notions of bioethics. But is it a valid assumption, given that in many situations the exercise of free will or informed consent may not be reliable or even possible? He pointed out that bioethics has a particularly pragmatic and democratic American flavor--that Americans' beliefs in learning from experience and consciously shaping their own will depend on our notions of individual understanding and capacity for choice.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self--Neuroconscience: Reflections on the Neural Basis of Morality
By Patricia Smith Churchland in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Churchland discussed the proposition that the brain relies on "inner models" and "emulators" for promoting one's survival and well-being. In any given situation, these mechanisms simulate alternative options and predict their expected outcomes to enable an individual's decision making--that is, to take particular actions, or not to. She noted that the details of such computation still remain unknown to neuroscientists. Nevertheless, Dr. Churchland said, we can begin distinguishing in-control individuals from those who are out-of-control by analysis of their "parameter spaces" --the combinations of different parameter values that position the organism in one state or another.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self--Neuroethics: Reductionism, Emergence, and Decision-Making Capacities
By Kenneth F. Schaffner in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Schaffner dismissed sweeping reductionism and said that creeping reductionism is what neuroscientists do. He rejected sweeping determinism, but accepted the prospect of creeping determinism to address moral-choice problems. He proposed looking at moral choices in a practical way by generalizing the notion of "excusing" or "invalidating" conditions. He also proposed modifying the existing MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT) to include an evaluation of emotional capacity.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self--Question and Answer
in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
This is a transcript of the Question and Answer session that followed after the Session I presentations.
Session I: Brain Science and the Self--The Neural Basis of Social Behavior: Ethical Implications
By Antonio R. Damasio in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Damasio discussed the social and emotional foundations of ethics and pointed out that ethical behaviors are present not only in humans but also in other species. This indicates that ethics results in good measure from evolution, that it is another aspect of bioregulation. But he warned that there are no moral "centers" of the brain--though extensive neural systems are indeed involved--and that although genes impel our ethical behavior, they do not compel. Such behavior varies with our culture, our living situation, and the health of our brains.
Session II: Brain Science and Social Policy--Neuroethics and ELSI: Some Comparisons and Considerations
By Henry T. Greely in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Professor Greely compared some of the likely ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of neuroscience with similar effects, already being studied, of genetics. He discussed three subjects in particular: prediction, human cloning, and determinism/essentialism. Neuroethics issues will arise in each area, some of them similar to those of genetics, and others unique to the brain. Outcomes will depend heavily on future scientific results, as well as decision makers' belief systems. The Question and Answer session following this presentation is included.
Session II: Brain Science and Social Policy--The Seven Sins of Memory: Implications for Science and Society
By Daniel L. Schacter in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Schacter elaborated on four of what he calls the seven sins of memory that he said had particular relevance to neuroethics issues. If drugs existed that could reduce transience--the decreased accessibility of memories over time--they would raise equity questions in such settings as schools and workplaces. Absent-mindedness provokes legal issues of just who or what is responsible for a damaging oversight. ...Should drugs be administered to alleviate such memory disorders? The Question and Answer session following this presentation is included.
Session II: Brain Science and Social Policy--Traumatic Brain Injury and Legal Responsibility
By William J. Winslade in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Winsdale described what he considered to be a major omission in the criminal-justice system: the failure to take the accused's frequent condition of traumatic brain injury into account. He cited two cases--one of fifteen death row inmates, and the other of an unfortunate young man rendered behaviorally incompetent by an automobile accident--both of which illustrated the need for law and medicine to work together to produce more appropriate, humane, and fair outcomes. The Question and Answer session following this presentation is included.
Session III: Ethics and the Pracitce of Brain Science--Question and Answer
in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
This is a transcript of the Question and Answer session that followed after the Session III presentations.
Session III: Ethics and the Practice of Brain Science--Ethical Challenges in Alzheimer's Disease
By Marilyn S. Albert in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Albert discussed some of the ethical issues at each of the three basic stages--presymptomatic, preclinical, and actual clinical dementia--of Alzheimer's disease. She raised questions about false negative genetic tests (because many of the possible causative gene mutations are not yet known), and the absence of confidentiality in the presymptomatic stage. Dr. Albert observed that as prediction methods improve and treatments are developed, patients must be educated in the concepts of probability, as the test results are likely to only indicate risk and not offer a deterministic outcome. For the clinical dementia stage, she discussed issues of who might provide informed consent for the patient, and under what circumstances; this is a serious concern even for patients who appear to be only mildly impaired.
Session III: Ethics and the Practice of Brain Science--Ethical Issues in Pharmacology: Research and Practice
By Steven Hyman in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Hyman pointed out the general efficacy and safety of psychotropic drugs, but he noted that while their immediate benefits are well understood, we really know very little about their long-term effects on the brain. Still, he was concerned that the nonuse of a drug, particularly for a child in great need, could have long-term impacts on the child's life at least as serious as any of that drug's potential side effects. Dr. Hyman explored the particular case of treating children with a potential for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder with methylphenidate (Ritalin).
Session III: Ethics and the Practice of Brain Science--How Far Will the Term Enhancement Get us as We Grapple with New Ways to Shape Our Selves?
By Erik Parens in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Parens suggested that the treatment/enhancement distinction can be one tool among many that we employ as we contemplate how to use psychopharmacological agents to shape our selves. The distinction can be a place to begin--in deciding, say, what to include in health care coverage, or in affirming natural variation. He offered several examples of phenomena with the (negative) consequences of unfairness, complicity with unjust norms, and homogenization.
Session III: Ethics and the Practice of Brain Science--Neurotechnology, Cyborgs and the Sense of Self
By Paul Root Wolpe in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Wolpe celebrated the potential of "bionic" technologies--throughout the human body but especially in the brain--to extend our abilities and our lives, but he also urged caution. He cited a wide variety of "physiotechnologies"--a few already in place but most on the way--"to be incorporated into our very flesh and become part of who we are." Some of these technologies, he noted, such as neuronal chips, could be new applications of what is already part of our flesh. Not everyone is looking forward to these changes, and in any case we all need to ask ourselves and each other, some serious questions about how we wish to direct our own evolution.
Session IV: Brain Science and Public Discourse--From the "Public Understanding of Science" to Scientists' Understanding of the Public
By Collin Blakemore in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Blakemore briefly described his long involvement in activities related to public understanding of science to show that he has "a foot in both camps." He then listed some of the reasons it pays to have a scientifically well-informed public, and he gave a short history of efforts in the United Kingdom to realize this goal. Whereas the process of public understanding of science was essentially one-way (from scientists to the public), the emphasis in Britain is now on dialogue and debate--two-way interaction between scientists and the public.
Session IV: Brain Science and Public Discourse--Let's Start With the Brain
By Ron Kotulak in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Mr. Kotulak noted how children's early life experiences, which a decade ago were deemed relatively unimportant in their education and subsequent fate, were shown by brain research to play a profoundly important role. Mr. Kotulak described the active interest of governors and other state officials, with the encouragement of august bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, in applying brain research advances to children's benefit. And he offered suggestions for more and better interactions between scientists and the media in order to improve the timeliness and quality of information and ideas--regarding brain science and all other science--communicated to the public.
Session IV: Brain Science and Public Discourse--The Pope, The Rabbi, The Scientist and The Neuroethicist: Who Should You Believe and Why?
By Michael S. Gazzaniga in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Gazzaniga offered some lessons learned from his service on the President's Council on Bioethics--a group of accomplished and likable but highly diverse individuals who have altogether different ways of seeing the world. He described the need to learn some new vocabularies and how to "think in public." Neither one is easy, but the greatest challenge he seems to have faced on the panel was "moral equivalency" with regard to cloning. He finds that scientist-participants might find the process a little easier if nonscientists were more aware of three things: scientists' passion for learning nature's secrets, their intolerance for sloppy work or sloppy thinking, and their basic skepticism--even, or especially, regarding colleagues' ideas.
Session IV: Question and Answer Session
in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
This is a transcript of the Question and Answer period following the Session IV presentations
Session V: Mapping the Future of Neuroethics--Neuroethics: From Plato's Republic to Today
By Albert R. Jonsen in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Referring to Plato's Republic, Dr. Jonsen began by describing the downside of enhancement--among those of "gold" nature, along with the acquisition of wisdom comes greater insight into the world's imperfections and thus diminished personal happiness for them. He then discussed the three types of "mapping" available to bioethicists: tectonic, geographical, and locale. Mappers of each type must ultimately interact, often through Socratic dialogue, in order to produce results that are "rich and influential."
Session V: Mapping the Future of Neuroethics--Open Forum
in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
A transcript of the open forum that took place at the end of the meeting.
Session V: Mapping the Future of Neuroethics--Summary of the Conference
By William Mobley in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Going session by session and speaker by speaker, Dr. Mobley succinctly reviewed each individual presentation. He also specified the major conclusions derived from each session. This would be an excellent starting point for reviewing these topics.
Session V: Mapping the Future of Neuroethics--The Future of Neuroethics
By Zach W. Hall in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings (2002)
Dr. Hall began by pointing out that decisions are often made unconsciously, based on judgments so familiar as to be automatic, and that a basic task in a new endeavor like neuroethics is to carefully--consciously--examine the issues as an essential precursor to doing the right thing. For the field of neuroethics per se, he suggested that practitioners ensure it develops as a scholarly discipline, that it involve professionals (such as neurologists) who work at the front lines, and that the field not be "left to the experts" but actively include members of the larger society. He also urged that neuroethics focus specifically on two main goals at present: prevention of harm and protection of the vulnerable.
Stem Cell Research Takes Center Stage in Cloning Debate
By Brenda Patoine in BrainWork, Vol 12:4, 2002
Provides information on the debate in Congress on therapeutic and reproductive cloning; provides an explanatory figure for each method.
The Seven Sins of Memory
By Daniel L. Schacter in BrainWork, Vol 12:3, 2002
Dr. Schacter elaborated on four of what he calls the seven sins of memory that he said had particular relevance to neuroethics issues. If drugs existed that could reduce transience--the decreased accessibility of memories over time--they would raise equity questions in such settings as schools and workplaces. Absent-mindedness provokes legal issues of just who or what is responsible for a damaging oversight. ...Should drugs be administered to alleviate such memory disorders? This article is also available, along with notes from the discusison that followed, in Session II of the book, Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings, 2002).