That’s me again, trying to justify myself… I suppose that the grand difficulty when applying laws or The Declaration to neuroscientific issues comes from the idea that human beings are just a combination of physical and biological factors. That we may add certain properties to these physical and biological aspects but those adds would come from our  environment, our  moral values, motives and personal wishes – all imposed features, something that we shouldn’t be able to choose. That’s YOU! Not a random entity. Then, how an individual may be considered responsible for their actions if they can’t really have a control of their actions? Where does the concept of free will fit in? Aren’t free will just a command coming from my brain? But one can possibly consider some components that would resists to this supposed irresistible force in case the individual possess some rational strength to intervene. And these components should be taken in consideration. That’s why the psychopathy diagnose is not considered an attenuating in criminal judgments; it’s taken that those individuals are possessed by conscience of their actions. I suppose this illusional free will issue is really relevant, e.g. the prefrontal cortex when damaged by a lesion or a tumor may lead the person to have moral and ethical problems or even it’s decreased metabolism may lead to a violent behaviour, however, it’s not excused by a criminal or violent action even being an important factor in a criminal context.  The article 5 is about individual autonomy. But For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests. Which is the case. So, the article 7 and 8 should be applied and finally article 27 should provide the complementary interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Although, I must confess that I sometimes feel that the act should be judged only by its effects in others rather than the motives and intentions of the agent. :X

The accuracy of the Brain Imaging tool is still too imprecise and sensationalism as Christopher deCharms looks inside the brain helps to decrease even more it’s credibility. It reminds me of one of the Language and Cognition courses that we attended at graduation; course’s bibliography consisted of all the Oliver Sacks’s books, a great neurologist , but he suffers from the same “sensationalism” problem when it comes to report his clinical cases, he only shows the top of the iceberg. The fact that a man – who was blind basically his whole life – reaches almost insanity when regain his sight is not an extraordinary curiosity when you understand that vision as well as smell, hearing, are not properties of the eyes, nose and ears per se but first and foremost brain’s processes. But it was apparently so extraordinaire that it even reached Hollywood ! * although, I must admit that I’m still impressed by Sacks’s book The man who mistook his wife for a hat (yes, it is exactly what is seems), but I’m sure it’s just because I don’t have the biological knowledge of it’s mechanism * Another example of sensationalism affecting the credibility of a field is the misunderstanding of the neurolinguistics concept (the study of the neural mechanisms in the human brain that control the comprehension, production, and acquisition of language. As an interdisciplinary field, neurolinguistics draws methodology and theory from fields such as neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive science, neurobiology, communication disorders, neuropsychology, and computer science) turned to the horrid neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)  (a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them” and “a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour). Guess this is a case to proceed with ethics when reporting a research’s result and this is really well presented by Poldrack in the article Neuroimaging: Separating the Promise from the Pipe Dreams.

So, I suppose that we should talk about the problem that we are facing NOW – that we should be really careful when given an anatomical correlation to a feeling, a fact, etc for we still have not a single certainty when using this tool e.g.The fact that the amygdala, for example, responds to threat does not mean that activity in this area signifies that a person is feeling threatened. That would be true only if threat were the only thing that activates the amygdala, and we know this is not the case. I understand that all this noise may also come from a Brain-Imaging-for-Dummies effort  but the researchers must have not this attitude of David Copperfield with the naive public/audience. And right now, I’m not preoccupied with the future – Successful Brain Imaging and consequently Privacy – instead, I do get worried with all this colorful functional magnetic resonance imaging hanging by the  hands of precipitant researchers longing for a publication at Nature or Scientific American.

And finally, even if someday a physician could possible identify a killer with this kind of technology, would you think that society should be warned about it? Why? Why a criminal defense attorney knowingly does not warn the society of his guilty client? So yes, I do have a LOT of trouble applying all this law concepts , all this human rights concepts… HEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!!!!!!!

(I must confess that I wasn’t expecting this course posts – to be so massively “into humanities”, I mean, so much “ethics”, little “neuro”. I know that almost all colleagues are from Humanities Background) – I myself came from a Linguistics graduation, but at that time all that cognitive enhancement talk was given me the chill’s; I couldn’t help but had that Gattaca Feeling . But yes, Have no fear of perfection, you’ll never reach it – Salvador Dali! And I was just in need of a course on neuroanatomy or physiology to take me from my “wonder world of theory” and try to learn how the body works and what it is capable of. Now that I’m SUPPOSEDLY able to see theory and practice I agree with the authors when they said that we are not the same after a glass of wine, a trip, that we are already trying to improve ourselves by doing plastic surgeries – just loooooved Steven Pinker’s comments on modern, post-modern aesthetics notion – and the other part think that’s ok, but uh-oh, we shouldn’t improve further cause further is bad, is unworthy…based on what? Religion? False morals? We should close our eyes to a possible link between breast implant and risk of committing suicide but found it completely odd that a student may want to enlarge…his…work memory, cognitive capacity?! Well, I had an experience with a close friend who is really brilliant but the fact that “I’m the second best at my laboratory and I have this need to be the top first in everything not to feel miserable” lead her to try and get Ritalin… THAT is pathological and she should get to a psychiatry instead, as well as women that are more prone to suicide or start drug and/or alcohol abuse BEFORE receiving a breast implant.

The genomic technology is a marvelous contribution to neurosciences and it enables us to progress in the genetics of psychiatric disorders. The previous knowledge of biological markers in an individual helps to better diagnosis the psychiatric disorders. With such information:

• physiopathology and genetics may help to identify  diseases subtypes, increasingly the clinical homogeneity of the sample and defining phenotypes (any observable characteristic or trait of an organism) more accessible to the investigation, alas! selecting candidate genes;
• more efficient medication might be produced by pharmacogenetic;
• more knowledge of the biological bases and improvement of new treatments.

…ahhhhhh, all is marvelous, all is about theory and practice! And just let me give you an example of a friend’s PhD at neurosciences program; she’s studying IF there’s possible links  between sexual aggressors and genetic markers.  She’ll conclude it at the Faculty at Humanities Sciences of UFMG and she’ll probably receive death threats hahahah for people there would probably find it irresistible to assume she is a reductionist. No she’s not. She’s a neuroscientist and she’s just trying to verify if there’s a biological marker and a biological marker is almost nothing without the environment in which the individual is inserted. Suppose she finds it. Would that be a real harm to society? Would be fair to sacrifice human rights, human dignity, fundamental freedom  for the “sake” of the society? Concrete situations are indeed harder.

And Oh well… better I come back to laboratory again.

Dear friends,

                            You are free to join themes together and write two more posts and one final comment. As I said before, it isn’t necessary to write specifically about Weeks 2 and 3 (an introduction to International Law and Universal Declararion on Bioethics), but read the material and apply it directly to neuroethics field.  You can join themes together and write a single post (for example, brain enhancement can be seen as a matter of privacy and free will and then you could write a single post joining those topics).

                 Just choose topics and write about them on a single post.

Best regards,

Ana Rosa Amorim.

Just go to course’s webpage (http://p2pu.org/NE-Neuro%C2%A0Outline) and then click on Neuro chat. Or, if you prefer, click on Neuro Chat (in green):

“NE Neuro OutlinePage history last edited by Philipp Schmidt 1 mo ago

Navigate this course: Neuro Outline – Neuro Chat”

Verify if your browser accepts cookies, otherwise you can’t access the chat.

<a href='‘ >Monkey
 
That experiment was amazing: a monkey controlling a robot arm by using only its own brain waves. One of the most exciting videos I’ve ever seen. So many applications. This is what science means to me.

You can read the entire story here or here. Amazing!

Dear friends,

                     Confirming our new schedule and tasks:

                     a) We are going to use the first option I proposed. So, you can write two more posts, combining themes and then a final comment to conclude our course;

                    b) Our new deadlines are: October 23 and October 28. I changed the dates, so you can have even more time to write your two new posts. Final comments are due to October 30.

                   c) I’m going to run 3 chat sessions and you can come and talk about any subject discussed during the course, if you’re free. I’ll be there to help you with any doubt or to discuss any topic. The first session will be on October 24 (saturday), at 02:00 pm, GMT time. The second session will be on October 28, at 08:00 pm, GMT time and our third session on October 30, at 08 :00 pm, GMT time. Our chat sessions will occur on our course webpage. Just click on Neuro Chat to join our conversation (make sure your browser accepts cookies, otherwise you’ll can’t join the chat).

Cordially,

Ana Rosa Amorim.

Course Organizer.

Dear friends,
                

               Some of you have contacted me saying how busy they were with other previous commitments (jobs, college, papers), leading them to face some troubles writing their assignments in time. Some haven’t also undestood that we were going to use our chat room, on P2PU website and then our chat session could not have happened. Let me share some ideas to take us on path again!
                 P2PU courses were developed as open, free courses, attended by a community of learners interested in a particular subject and willing to work with peers to enhance their knowledge. So far, we have been doing great. Your posts were very insightful and enriching, always providing different perspectives and analysis. However, being caught in the middle of the semester with more assignments to do is a challenge indeed.
                 I have organized the course, establishing modules and deadlines just to give us some direction and clear points of departure. Our intention, in P2PU, isn’t to  overwhelm our “students” ( I prefer peers) with dozen of prohibitive tasks. Our commitment, in P2PU, is with learning itself. So, I was thinking about a plan to put us on our path again, without interfering so much in your previous agenda.
                 I think we can  analyse some neuroethical issues, relating them to Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. The main goal of our course is to see if a normativist approach to neuroethics is a possible and feasible task. In order to do that, I’ve proposed some specific themes: brain enhancing; brain imaging and right to privacy and finally informed consent. In my view, it isn’t necessary to write specifically about Weeks 2 and 3(an introduction to International Law and Universal Declararion on Bioethics), but read the material and apply it directly to neuroethics field. Instead of 5 other posts, we now have 3 others.                             
                 My first idea is considering the possibility of joining themes together and writing a single post (for example, brain enhancement can be seen as a matter of privacy and free will and then you could write a single post joining those topics). Another idea is asking one of you to write a post and then the others would just post comments, reflecting about the position defended in the post. In this last case, someone needs to volunteer and pick a topic of particular interest. Both ideas can work well to me, since I’m interested in the discussion itself, rather than in the format we are using to conduct our course. 
                Adopting the first proposal, we’ll have to write 2 posts and a final comment, which seems great to me. Adopting the second idea, we’ll have 3 more posts, each one written by a volunteer, and with all others making comments about what was said, and them a final comment. 
                Since this is a free learning community, and we see ourselves as peers, not as teachers and students, I would like to hear your opinion. I prefer the first proposal, with actually would make us finish our course in two weeks!                 

Best regards,
Ana Rosa Amorim.

I have received an e-mail from MBB informing about upcoming events. So, I would like to share them with you:

“The Mind/Brain/Behavior Interfaculty Initiative is planning several events this year that we hope you will find appealing. Some of our events are still in the planning stages, but we have confirmed the dates for two of our events, so please mark your calendars.

The Translational Implications of Cognitive Neuroscience
Monday, November 2 from 4pm to 6pm
Yenching Auditorium, 2 Divinity Avenue

Join us as Harvard Medical School Professors Albert Galaburda, Charles Nelson, and Alavaro Pascual-Leone discuss how theories and evidence in cognitive neuroscience have led to important translational findings. Hosted by Professors Alfonso Caramazza and Marc Hauser, co-directors of MBB.

MBB Distinguished Lecture Series
Three Evening Lectures with Professor Michael Gazzaniga
April 20, 21, and 22

Michael Gazzaniga is a Professor of Psychology and the Director for the SAGE Center for the Study of Mind at the University of California Santa Barbara.  He oversees an extensive and broad research program investigating how the brain enables the mind.  Over the course of several decades, a major focus of his research has been an extensive study of patients that have undergone split-brain surgery that have revealed lateralization of functions across the cerebral hemispheres. In addition to his position in Santa Barbara, Professor Gazzaniga is also the Director of the Summer Institute in Cognitive Neuroscience, President of the Cognitive Neuroscience Institute, and is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.”

Hello everyone!

                                     Just a simple question: is it Ok if I link our posts (using tweet feed) to my twitter account? In my opinion, you can do the same, if you would like to.

Ana Rosa Amorim.