Neuroethics

Neuroethics is most commonly understood to be the bioethicssubcategory concerned with neuroscience. A typical question in neuroethics might be: What is the difference between treatinga humanneurologicaldiseaseand simply enhancing the human brain? Another such question might be: Is it fair for the wealthyto have access to neurotechnology, while the poordo not? Neuroethical problems could complement or compound ethicalissues raised by genomics, genetics, genetic engineering. Image:FMRI.jpg

Rees and Rose (as cited in "References" on page 9) claim neuroethics is a neologismthat emerged only at the beginning of the 21st century, largely through the oraland writtencommunicationsof ethicistsand philosophers. They wrote that neuroethics addresses concerns about the effects neuroscience and neurotechnology will have on other aspects of humanlife: namely "personal responsibility", law, and justice. Further, they claimed neuroethical problems would become real by the 2020s.

Definitions

What is the scope of neuroethics?

Not surprisingly, no specific definition of neuroethics is universally accepted. Writer William Safireprobably coined the term, and defined it as "the field of philosophy that discusses the rights and wrongs of the treatment of, or enhancement of, the human brain." Dartmouth CollegeCenter for Cognitive NeuroscienceDirector Michael Gazzaniga(as cited in "References") argued definitions such as Safire's are inadequate, and posited instead that neuroethics studies "how we want to deal with the social issues of disease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living, informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms." He elaborated: "It is—or should be—an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life."

Two categories of problems

Neuroethical problems can be divided into two categories: those that result from engineeringadvancement, and those that result from philosophical(including scientific) advancement. Such engineering advancement includes developmentof functional neuroimaging, psychopharmacology, brain implants, and brain-machine interfaces. Philosophical advancement includes the biologicalstudy of ancient questions about the human person, relating to behavior, personality, and consciousness.

Important activity in 2002 and 2003

The years2002and 2003saw significant development of neuroethics as a subject of wide discussion. Judy Illes of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics(as cited in "References") claimed the neuroethical discipline "emerged formally" sometime in 2002or 2003, though she actually dates its development to 1989. Regardless of whether this is true, it is undeniable that neuroethics rose to new relevance during the early 21st century. Indeed, four major neuroethics conferences occurred in the year2002alone. The American Association for the Advancement of Scienceand the journalNeuron conducted a meeting in January. The Center for Bioethics(of the University of Pennsylvania) and the Center for Neuroscienceheld a conference in February. The Royal Institution of Londonconducted a conference in March, followed by one in Mayby the Dana Foundation. (All these meetings addressed concerns of neuroethics.)

External links

• "NeuroPolitics", an entry on NeuroWiki
• Neuroethics.upenn.edu
• Neuroscience, Identity and Society Seminar Series UKFurther links, research papers and news can be found on the background pages.

References

• Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). The ethical brain. The Dana Press.
• Illes, J. (2003, October 24). Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. In American journal of neuroradiology, 24, 1739 – 1741.
• Rees, D. & Rose, S. (2004). New brain sciences: perils and prospects. Cambridge University Press.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroethics Wikipedia article Neuroethics.