The ethics of neuroscience Flashcards
claustram
Neuroscience is ETHICAL as it provide answers: Understand consciousness
Philosophers have been attempting to understand consciousness for centuries. Neuroscientists Crick and Koch (1998) proposed that the claustram, a thin sheet of neurons in the brain, is the seat of consciousness. They believe the claustram acts like an orchestra, combining information from different brain regions. Evidence from a 54-year-old woman with severe epilepsy experienced regaining consciousness after being electrically stimulated near the claustram. This knowledge could help make decisions about patients in a persistent vegetative state and potentially determine their decision to end their life.
Neuroscience is NOT ETHICAL: Understand consciousness
If neuroscientists were able discover consciousness in the brain, this could lead to possible implications. One area of contention is whether those individuals in a persistent vegetative state should have life-support withdrawn. Just because a patient has currently lost consciousness, does that mean we have the moral right to withdraw care? There is also doubt about the soundness of the evidence as it is derived from the case study of one ‘abnormal’ brain (a person suffering from severe epilepsy)
reduce recidivism
Neuroscience is ETHICAL as it provides answers: Treat criminal behaviour
One role of The Criminal Justice System is to rehabilitate offenders and prevent further criminal behavior. Neuroscience suggests that criminal behavior may stem from abnormal levels of certain neurotransmitters. A study by Cherek et al (2002) found that paroxetine, an SSRI antidepressant, significantly decreased impulsive responses and aggression in males with a history of conduct disorder and criminal behavior compared to the other half given a placebo. Offering pharmacological treatments could reduce recidivism and make society safer.
Neuroscience is NOT ETHICAL: Treat criminal behaviour
Neuroscientists may link criminal behavior to neurological imbalances, but many view crime as a response to social context. The question arises whether mandatory neurological interventions for prisoners are acceptable if there is a neurological basis. However, Farah (2004) argues that such interventions signal the denial of individual freedom e.g. have their own personality, which even some prisoners have not experienced. Courts may offer convicted criminals the choice of a prison term or medication course, introducing the ethical issue of implicit coercion, as the criminal is left with minimal choice about medication.
TDCS
Neuroscience is ETHICAL as it provides answers: Enhance neurological function
Neuroscience could be used to improve the abilities of ‘normal’ individuals, such as improved performance on complex academic tasks. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) involves passing a small electric current across specific regions in the brain. Kadosh et al (2012) found that TDCS leads to improvements in problem-solving and mathematical, language, memory, and attention capabilities. Students could use the TDCS apparatus in preparation for examinations. It could be argued that neuroenhancement is not such a new thing for many students already ‘neuroenhance’ themselves whenever they use caffeine-based drinks to block adenosine receptors in the brain and are hence more alert to revise.
Neuroscience is NOT ETHICAL: Enhance neurological function
Kadosh et al. warn of ethical limitations to TDCS technology. First of all there are no training or licensing rules for practitioners. This could lead to poorly qualified practitioners at best administering ineffective treatments or at worst causing brain damage to patients. Although comparatively cheap, TDCS apparatus is not available to everyone. It may not be fair to allow some individuals to benefit from a treatment not available to all. Therefore it causes us to consider banning the use of neuroenhancing technologies in the same way as performance-enhancing substances are banned in sport. This might be especially important when using the treatment with brains that are still developing.
eye tracking
Neuroscience is ETHICAL as it provides answers: Improve marketing techinques
Neuromarketing, a recent application of neuroscience. When interviewed by market researchers we may not give our true opinions because we want to appear in a ‘good light’ This helps avoid social desirability bias in advertising and marketing by using eye tracking equipment to analyze neurological responses. This method was used by Sands Research to create the successful ad ‘The Force’ for Volkswagen, which increased website traffic by half and contributed to a successful sales year. EEG analysis also helps in av
oiding bias in opinions.
Neuroscience is NOT ETHICAL: Improve marketing techniques
Utilizing loyalty cards and individual online browsing records has significantly enhanced product marketing by gaining insights into consumer preferences and behaviors. However, there is a difference; neuromarketing has access to our inner thoughts. Wilson et al. believed that commercial integration of neuromarketing research could enable advertisers to deliver personalized messages, potentially influencing our free will by big brands. The question is whether we want corporations to create marketing messages that hinder our ability to make informed choices about our purchases or not. Currently neuromarketing firms aren’t obliged to abide by ethical codes of practice. Nelson found that 5% of the brain scans recorded by marketing firms produced ‘incidental findings’. For example, researchers may discover brain tumours or other brain function issues but they are not ‘board certified’ and therefore not required to adhere to ethical protocols, such as providing advice.
ETHICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC implications of the use of neuroscience
Neuroscience can enhance marketing techniques, potentially boosting economic growth and sales, but it also holds social and economic benefits that benefit all. For example, the Nuffield Trust points out that since the financial crisis started in 2008, there has been an incease in the amount of antidepressants being prescribed. The Trust also noted a greater rise in antidepressant usage amongst areas of unemployment. Thomas and Morris estimated that the total cost of depression in adults in England alone was £9.1 billion in 2000. According to Alzheimer’s Research UK, the cost to the UK economy of treating dementia is £23 billion per year. Neuroscientists’ contributions to treating or curing disorders could save the UK economy billions of pounds, and they must ensure their societies are informed about the implications of their work.
