Recognition -- 2019 Competition Piece for the International Neuroethics Society's Annual Essay Contest
“Invention...does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos”
-Mary Shelley
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein established itself as the first of its fictitious kind in introducing concepts associated with ethical, moral, social, legal, and spiritual principles. The novel, subtitled “The Modern Prometheus”, introduced limits to research and scientific technology alongside the responsibility that must be present towards the results of one’s zealous experimentation. The anguish with which Victor Frankenstein, the protagonist, is portrayed when approaching his creation dives into the intricacies of “Promethean” science—the subsection of science that highlights humans’ technological capability while understating concerns regarding the misuse of this technology. The growing amalgamation of the complexities of both technological and scientific pursuits can be noted in current and rather controversial examples. These examples include genetically modified human embryos adjusted to fulfill the desired traits of one’s liking; facial transplants; artificial organs; life extension research; and other medical integrations to heighten human potentiality. Scientists, aware of such advanced interventions available for usage, have grown to conduct and further develop their studies within a social context. A given expert’s published data generally impacts all that a society encompasses—customs, cultural patterns, prohibitions, sentiments, and expectations. The field of bioethics, which explores societal engrossment, is the confluence of both philosophy and life sciences. This field establishes a relation between what can be done and what should be done.
Neuroethics is a subdivision of this sphere of decision-oriented investigation. This subdivision is under which the concepts of right and wrong conduct; the neural basis of morality (how our understanding of the brain shapes our identity as mammals); examination policies (regulated research); the use of deception; animal experimentation; the three Rs—refinement, replacement, and reduction; and questions of privacy are collected.
Can we “predict” and “create” future “selves”? Can we “abolish” notions of pain, sorrow, and suffering? Can we expand moral, cognitive, and emotional capability? These are inquiries that arise with the fact that neuroscience will continue to grant, to those possessing the expertise, new methods of understanding, monitoring, and functionally manipulating the brain. The accompaniment of cautiousness is recommended by those in the field of neuroethics, as advancing techniques are persistently utilized in pursuing neurobiological endeavors. With regards to several sources, it is noted that, in the years to come, scientists will be able to narrow their approach to modifying biological activity in various areas of the brain, and, as a consequence, entire neural networks. These modifications in the brain can alter one’s behaviors and emotions, as desired by those conducting such experimentation. Fears among the public emerge alongside the overwhelming power that experts with this improved technology carry. Neuroethicists explore and publicly deliver assurance regarding the act of using technology in manifesting good for the human condition and not for the unacceptable. Who, however, is to decide upon which experiment is intended towards the betterment of the human race? This is a common point of discussion. Suppose a student with an average academic and athletic performance at school is accompanied by his dignified parents, who both attended the most prestigious of universities, to a pharmaceutical clinic. The clinician is given a briefing of the student’s current standing in class—as, under parental pressure, he must also be admitted to one of the Ivy League Institutions of the country. The parents advise the clinician to prescribe their child a dose of Adderall, a cognitive enhancer. This medication will allow their child to devote greater amounts of time towards his studies and may heighten his academic performance, despite the fact that he is mentally fit. Does this truly differ from an athlete’s intake of steroids or an individual's consumption of antidepressants?
Those belonging to science often claim that science has been scouted “for the pleasure of finding out”. Although not undergone frequently, research and societal views can be placed in separation. The release and actions of chemical messengers are known of. The responses of brain waves can be digitally processed and recorded. It is, however, of curious nature to begin conceptualizing real-world applications of this information. With chemical transmitters comes the introduction of smart drugs that may strengthen one’s memory. Inevitably, also comes the production of neurotoxins (nerve agents) that inhibit the process of recollection, as used in biological warfare. With a record of brain waves come advancements in brain-imaging procedures. It is quite possible for brain-scanning methods, excluding the lie detector, to soon be available for the military or judicial system’s disposal.
These neurologically invasive techniques yield concerns regarding cognitive privacy. “Brain fingerprinting” has led to the following questions: What conditions should be targeted for treatment? What should be kept confidential? Is it ethical to know of one’s plans, loved ones, and petty lies? What aspect of morality is involved in reengineering one’s brain even with informed consent? This informed consent is a legal requirement that must be received when experimenting with human participants. Participation follows an individual’s confirmation of their willingness in entering trials with procedures that they are entirely informed of. Consent, however, can only be given if the participant is in a state of doing so. Following the completion of the intended study, should the participant be acquainted with any undisclosed, neural abnormality that the administrators may later locate through a brain scan? Common sense suggests that the volunteer should be given all relevant, medical information detected during the trials only if informed consent was collected prior to experimental conduct. With these restrictions upon humans come the ethics of animal experimentation. Several nations, presently, have issued laws ensuring that unnecessary suffering does not transpire.
Advancements give rise to the idea of distributive justice—whether our society deems itself capable of presenting the necessary tools and technology to those who require such and limiting overuse among those who do not.
The continued emergence of innovations in the scientific field will persist in welcoming debate and apprehension. Although a relatively new domain, neuroethics will continue to establish science as a tenet-oriented process while simultaneously sustaining its contentious influence upon society.
References
British Neuroscience Association, Richard G. Morris, and Marianne Fillenz. Neuroscience: Science of the Brain : an Introduction for Young Students. 2003.
"Introduction To Neuroethics (Martha J. Farah, Ph.D)." YouTube. July 3, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifGBvMDaCHU&t=706s.
Issues and Challenges." PubMed Central (PMC). Last modified 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777303/.
“Neuroethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed June 12, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroethics/.
“Patricia Churchland on Neuroethics." YouTube. December 21, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHaMQ3tAXes.
Roskies, A. L. (2007). The Illusion of Personhood. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(1), 55-57. doi:10.1080/15265160601064256
Comments