Neuroethics and International Biolaw

My apologies for the delay in posting, but after reading what others had written I decided to incorporate an attempt to comment on what others had written rather than just repeat less eloquently points that others have made.

In reference to the first question I think that it is premature to talk about the neuro-centric age, while the study of neuroscience has made great advances in recent times,  we still have not yet developed a level of understanding that does more than scratch the surface of a detailed understanding of the mind. Although I agree that we are developing a fundamental  recognition of the potential importance of neurological issues I do not think that this alone is enough for us to consider it a “neurocentric” age at this time. For us to really talk of “neurocentrism” would need a much more detailed and exploitable understanding of neurology.

That being said, I agree that there has been a fundamental change in the public perception of neurocentric issues, and that public neuroethics has broadly failed to adequately explore this change. When Kevin talks of the need to educate and inform the public of the “true potential” of neurological issues I found myslef nodding in agreement. For me this is the crucial issue that emerges from the development of neuroscience: While Moreno and others highlighted many potential issues with regard to the ethical uses & exploitation of neurological techniques that do indeed resemble “Kafkaseque nightmares” I think that, at least in countries with strong legal frameworks for the protection of rights, such concerns are not likely to progress into reality.  Perhaps this is an overly optimistic reading of the state of the modern world, but it seems to me that the potential pitfalls  are obvious and malicious enough that at the very least they will be identifed and opposed by a vast majority of those who deal with neuroethics. For me the most disturbing ethical concerns raised by neruoscience are not the bioethical ones (question 2) but those of a public policy and public educational character, the bioethical and philosphical concerns of developing a “truth drug” for example concern me less than the way in which we educate and regulate ourselves about the effectiveness of such a drug. What would be tragic in my view is if neurological developments were to become another DNA evidence or another facebook – a tool we accept purely for its practical advantages without real academic consideration of the public perception of those tools as opposed to the reality of their usage.

Whether “ we are our brains” is a question that others are far more qualified than me to answer; I find the question something of a misnomer in that we have been tying ourselves up in existential knots over the nature of human existence since Aristotle & I doubt we are going to stop any time soon. (Incidentally, one thing I realised when reading others comments and this weeks reading is that my knowledge of philosophy is laughably basic, a philosophy crash course would be a great course for the next session of p2pu – until then I am re-reading russell’s “ a brief history of western philosophy” and hoping to offer more insightful comment in the legal sections of the course). Instead what concerns me more is again the practical implications of our decisions. In our reading the discussion of the legal concepts of duress, provocation and diminished responsibility was concerning, although I do not know how american law addresses these controversial and difficult topics; I felt that the discussion of them within the articles was simplistic and focused more on popular perceptions of the concepts than the legal realities than govern them. Neuroscientists must be as aware of developments in legal understanding of these topics as (some) lawyers are sensitive of scientific developments if we are to produce a coherent and reactive response to our understanding of the human condition.

The final question I feel was already more than adequately answered by others and in the reading that was posted, I would recommend interested readers especially read the article by J Illes and S Bird which gives a good overview of the topic.

Tags: 1st week, ajbpearce, neurocentrism