Biological Approach - Contemporary Debate: The ethics of neuroscience Flashcards
What are all of the reasons why Neuroscience is ethical
- understanding consciousness
- treat/prevent criminal behaviour
- enhancing neurological function
- improving marketing techniques ‘neuromarketing’
- Brain organoids
- memory manipulation
What are the reasons why neuroscience isn’t ethical
- what are the implications if we are able to locate consciousness?
- is it ethical to punish/convict criminals preemptively?
- Kadosh et al. (Enhancing neurological function)
- neuromarketing limits our free will
- brain organoids being taken too far
- implications to the deaf community
What’s being assessed in these Qs
- AO1 (knowledge)
- AO3 (discussion)
—> means you need to have 4 paragraphs + conclusion
—> should go: agree, disagree, agree, disagree then conclusion
How do you write a good conclusion
- opening statement (in conclusion, it is/isn’t…)
- Explain your main position
- Wider consideration (think about developments in the future)
Explain how ‘understanding consciousness ’ proves that neuroscience is ethical
- Crick & Koch (1998) say that the claustrum (sheet if neurones found in the brain) is the seat of the consciousness. It orchestrates information from distinct brain regions
- Koubeissi et al, (2014) case study of 54 yr old woman who suffered severe epilepsy. Electrode was placed near the claustrum and electrically stimulated. The woman stopped reading, stared blankly and didn’t respond to visual or auditory commands. When stimulation stopped, she regained consciousness immediately with no recollection of the event
- this helps us make decisions about people in a persistent vegetative state to see if an electrode could wake them and see if they’re conscious or not —> then make decisions to withdraw life support or not
Explain the counter to ‘understanding consciousness’
- withdrawing life-support from individuals just because they have currently lost consciousness is unethical
- also — isn’t there a moral right to withdraw care? You can’t make that decision for them
- there’s also a debate about soundness of evidence drawn from Koubeissi et al because they only researched 1 ‘abnormal brain’. —> low generalisability
Explain how ‘treat/prevent and understand criminal behaviour’ proves that neuroscience is ethical
- explored by Quirk whereby he wanted to investigate the effects of neurofeedback treatment on 77 dangerous offenders who suffered from deep brain epileptic activity
- it was found that there was a significant decrease in criminal recidivism and impulsivity
- similarly, Cherek et al researched into the levels of impulsivity and aggression of male criminals who received an SSRI, and they showed that there was a decrease in aggression.
- This also showed how pharmacological treatment could be used in treating criminals alongside neurofeedback treatments.
- This is ethical as it gives a chance for the individual criminal himself to be treated rather than punished
Explain the counter to ‘treat/prevent and understand criminal behaviour’
- Farah (2004) argues that the use of neuroscience in the judicial system symbolises the denial of individual freedom.
- Additionally it can be argued that the crime is due to the social context rather than a biological factor.
- This makes the treatment unethical as it is not ethically right to base decisions about criminals on the findings based on biological factors if social factors (e.g. childhood trauma) are to blame for criminality instead
Explain how ‘enhancing neurological function’ proves that neuroscience is ethical
- neurofeedback has been an advantage in terms of enhancing neurological functionality
- Kadosh et al argued that the use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) involves sending small electrical currents to specific targeted areas of the brain
- when this was used on students it was found that their problem-solving skills and mathematical abilities had improved
- this depicts how ethical neuroscience is as it could benefit students, for example, in preparation for tests
Explain the counter for ‘enhancing neurological functionality’
- Kadosh also outlined how TDCS doesn’t require specific rules which clinicians need to follow when treating people
- this could result in poorly qualified clinicians administering TDCS which increase chances of ineffective treatment as well as chances of causing permanent brain damage
- this unethical side of neuroscience signifies its many disadvantage that could easily disrupt one’s life if not carefully used
Explain how ‘neuromarketing techniques’ proves that neuroscience is ethical
P: Neuromarketing, which uses neuroscience tools like EEG and fMRI to measure brain activity, raises ethical questions but has proven effective in understanding genuine consumer interest and optimizing advertisements.
E: Sands Research utilized neuromarketing techniques to create the highly successful Volkswagen advertisement “The Force.” By analyzing brain activity, they identified which elements of the ad captured genuine interest, leading to higher sales that year, as noted by Doug Van Praet.
T: This demonstrates how neuroscience can benefit the economy by helping companies create more effective marketing campaigns, driving long-term financial growth. However, it also raises ethical concerns about manipulating consumer behavior without their awareness, making the balance between benefit and ethics crucial.
Explain the counter to ‘neuromarketing techniques’
Point: While neuromarketing has economic benefits, it raises significant ethical issues regarding cost, deception, and exploitation.
Evidence: Hammond et al. argue that neuroscience techniques require professional training and supervision, which can be expensive and inaccessible. Wilson et al. highlight that neuromarketing manipulates free will by using personalized advertising to make it harder for individuals to make unbiased choices. Additionally, Nelson’s work on “incidental findings” shows that non-professionals conducting brain scans may fail to recognize serious abnormalities, such as tumors, and are not obligated to inform participants.
Explain: These practices are unethical as they exploit individuals by prioritizing marketing gains over their well-being. The potential for deception and neglecting serious health concerns for profit highlights the darker side of applying neuroscience to advertising.
Explain how ‘brain organoids’ proves that neuroscience is ethical
Point: The creation and use of brain organoids in research is ethical due to its significant potential to advance treatments for mental illnesses.
Evidence: Brain organoids are derived from stem cells that differentiate into brain cells and self-organize into structures resembling the human brain. Unlike traditional post-mortem brain studies, which have limitations, brain organoids allow researchers to study live brain tissue. This has enabled progress in developing treatments, such as Lancaster growing brain organoids to see how brains develop with specific psychological dysfunctions like schizophrenia —> determining the role that the brain plays. Furthermore, current research shows that brain organoids only respond molecularly and physiologically, without evidence of consciousness or higher-level thinking, resolving concerns about their sentience.
Explain: These attributes make brain organoids a valuable and ethical tool for scientific progress, offering significant benefits to society by advancing treatments for mental illnesses without raising concerns about consciousness or suffering
Explain the counter to ‘brain organoids’
Point: Despite its potential benefits, the use of brain organoids raises ethical concerns due to the lack of regulation and the implications of crossing species boundaries.
Evidence: Currently, brain organoid research is poorly regulated, which has already led to controversial experiments, such as human neurons being implanted into mouse brains. A study by Han et al. (2013) found that mice implanted with human glial progenitor cells exhibited enhanced memory and learning capabilities. If this research were taken further, it would raise serious ethical obligations, such as redefining our responsibilities toward animals with human-like cognitive abilities, potentially even challenging practices in the agricultural industry.
Explain: These developments highlight the need for stricter regulations to ensure ethical boundaries are maintained. Without oversight, brain organoid research risks crossing into morally ambiguous territory, blurring the lines between human and animal cognition in ways society may not be prepared to address.
Explain how ‘restoring hearing’ prove that neuroscience is ethical
Point: The use of cochlear implants to restore hearing is an ethical advancement in neuroscience that significantly enhances the quality of life for individuals with severe hearing loss or deafness.
Evidence: Cochlear implants are electronic devices surgically implanted into the inner ear, which stimulate the auditory nerve directly, bypassing damaged hair cells. This allows individuals with hearing impairments to perceive sound and engage in auditory experiences.
Explain: The ethical justification for cochlear implants lies in their profound impact on the lives of deaf individuals. By restoring hearing, these devices facilitate improved communication, greater social inclusion, and access to educational and professional opportunities, demonstrating the positive role neuroscience can play in enhancing human well-being.
