Search Results

After an introduction to the field of neuroethics and some critical remarks about the same brain-centrism in this nascent field as the one pointed out in the fields of philosophy and neuroscience, the author discusses two neuroethical issues. One is the problem of the moral acceptability of abortion, when this is assumed to depend on neuroscientific facts about fetal development. The author proposes an argument and a criterion in line with the so-called classical or moderate liberal view about abortion, that is, the view according to which there is a time in fetal development before which abortion is permissible and after which it is not. The second issue is the moral acceptability of satisfying Body Integrity Identity Disorder patient’s desire to have their bodies surgically mutilated. The author puts forward a novel principle, called “Peripheral Precedence”, according to which whenever possible, if any damaging intervention on the normal functionality of the nervous system is required in order to satisfy a patient’s desire, the more basic, more peripheral components should as much as possible spared.

Neuroethics traditionally pays little attention to neural degeneration and regeneration, areas central to much of current neuroscience. Underlying these interests is the ongoing plasticity of the mature brain, and the ability of stem cells to produce new neurons in adult life. Against this background there have been many attempts to tackle the motor deficits of Parkinson’s disease using neural grafts. The succession of clinical trials since the late 1980s is traced to assess the extent to which symptoms are alleviated by implanting fetal midbrain grafts. The results are ambivalent with some limited improvements in some patients. The part played by a paradigm of optimism is highlighted, while ongoing problems revolve around clinical equipoise, and the place of controls. Deep brain stimulation raises questions of authenticity and alienation. Both approaches to treatment point to the importance for ethics of an appreciation of fundamental understanding of brain connectivity, complexity, and ongoing neurogenesis.

In this commentary the authors stress the importance of clinical trials for brain therapeutic interventions, including those to treat Parkinson’s disease with fetal tissue transplantation, psychosurgical detoxification as well as ARV treatment for HIV prevention and “stem cell therapy.” Ethical issues arising from these treatments are also discussed. In addition, the authors provide information on neuroethics in China and the accompanying Chinese perspective surrounding this field.

The importance and effectiveness of public participation and upstream engagement have been emphasized in the field of STS (Science, Technology, and Society) studies. Here, the authors introduce these as potential tools to clear away unethical “optimism,” which Gareth criticizes in his target article. the authors present three cases (AIDS, muscular dystrophy research, and the shepherds of Cumbria) in which public participation proved to be beneficial. Participation of non-experts within fields in which experts are exclusively involved can potentially break biases and restricted perspectives, and views from non-experts may even lead to newer research directions. Incorporation of patient and subject perspectives into research may reduce unethical, or biased, optimism in clinical research and even basic experiments. the authors surmise that this argument holds true even in the research fields of nerve grafting and nerve regeneration.

This chapter explores uses of brain science for purposes of national security intelligence and defense, discusses the neuroethical issues that these approaches foster, and posits ways that such ethical concerns can be addressed. The chapter begins with a historical overview of military attempts to employ the tools and techniques of brain and cognitive science, and illustrates ethical problems generated by these attempts. It then focuses on the ways that ethical systems and approaches might be utilized or limited in neuroscience and neurotechnology for military and security operations. With recognition of the global trends and the power dynamics that such scientific capacity can yield, the chapter emphasizes the importance of neuroethical preparedness and provides a novel paradigm for neuroethical risk assessment and mitigation. The authors of this chapter offer their insights through their perspectives as American scholars engaged not only in American issues, but as scholars engaged through collaboration and cooperation on the global stage.