Neuroethics & Law Blog

Ethics of Invasive Brain Testing: Limits and Responsibilities

Sunday, October 3, "Ethics of Invasive Brain Testing: Limits and Responsibilities" at the Cleveland Clinic.  Here's some information from the website:

Paul Ford, PhD - Symposium Organizer
8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

In celebration of the first year of the NeuroEthics Program, the Epilepsy Center and Department of Bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic present a cutting edge symposium on neuroethics issues surrounding invasive brain testing.  This one-day symposium is intended to engage neurologists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, advance care nurses, physician assistants, neuropsychologists and ethicists in addressing practical ethical challenges related to invasive brain testing. Each session will include a facilitated audience discussion that will challenge some of the traditional ethical questions.

A Judge's Guide To Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction

From the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project and UCSB's Sage Center:

A Judge's Guide To Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction

Important Study on Kindergarten Education

The NYT reports here on what looks to be an important study on kindergarten teachers.  If the interpretation of the study holds up, it appears that kindergarten teachers can have a long-lasting affect on the earning potential of their students.  The study may be an important contribution to debates about the value of investing in early childhood education.  Here's the takeaway at the end of the article:

Mr. Chetty and his colleagues — one of whom, Emmanuel Saez, recently won the prize for the top research economist under the age of 40 — estimate that a standout kindergarten teacher is worth about $320,000 a year. That’s the present value of the additional money that a full class of students can expect to earn over their careers. This estimate doesn’t take into account social gains, like better health and less crime.

Obviously, great kindergarten teachers are not going to start making $320,000 anytime soon. Still, school administrators can do more than they’re doing.

They can pay their best teachers more, as Pittsburgh soon will, and give them the support they deserve. Administrators can fire more of their worst teachers, as Michelle Rhee, the Washington schools chancellor, did last week. Schools can also make sure standardized tests are measuring real student skills and teacher quality, as teachers’ unions have urged.

Given today’s budget pressures, finding the money for any new programs will be difficult. But that’s all the more reason to focus our scarce resources on investments whose benefits won’t simply fade away.   

"Preserving Human Potential as Freedom: A Framework for Regulating Epigenetic Harms"

"Preserving Human Potential as Freedom: A Framework for Regulating Epigenetic Harms" 

Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, Forthcoming
UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-08

FAZAL KHAN, University of Georgia Law School
Epigenetics is a rapidly evolving scientific field of inquiry examining how a wide range of environmental, social, and nutritional exposures can dramatically control how genes are expressed without changing the underlying DNA. Research has demonstrated that epigenetics plays a large role in human development and in disease causation. In a sense, epigenetics blurs the distinction between “nature” and “nurture” as experiences (nurture) become a part of intrinsic biology (nature). Remarkably, some epigenetic modifications are durable across generations, meaning that exposures from our grandparents’ generation might affect our health now, even if we have not experienced the same exposures. In the same vein, current exposures could affect the health of not only individuals currently living but also future generations. Given the relative novelty of epigenetics research and the multifactorial nature of human development and disease causation, it is unlikely that conclusive proof can be established showing that particular exposures lead to epigenetic risks that manifest into specific conditions. Using the Capabilities Approach (“CA”) developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, this article argues that epigenetic risk is not merely a medical issue, but that it more generally implicates the underlying fairness and justice of our social contract. For instance, how we develop mentally or physically has a tremendous impact upon our inherent capabilities and our set of life options. The CA prompts us to ask questions such as: (1) what impact do particular epigenetic risks have on our ability to exercise free choices; (2) are these risks avoidable; and (3) how are these risks distributed across society? Due to the complex nature of epigenetic risk, tort law is predictably incapable of addressing this harm. Further, while regulatory agencies possess the statutory authority to begin addressing epigenetic harms, currently these agencies are not attuned to measure or to respond to this type of harm. This article argues that it is imperative to initiate a regulatory framework to address epigenetic risk from specific substances even if conclusive proof of disease causation cannot be established. Shifting the burden of generating epigenetic risk data to producers of suspected harmful substances serves as a start. As information concerning epigenetic risks accrues, the regulatory response should evolve concurrently. As part of a dynamic policy-making approach our goals need to encompass the following: (i) promotion of knowledge in the scientific, legal, and public domains; (ii) assessment and modification of current regulations to address preventable risk; and (iii) an overarching commitment to protect human capabilities in an equitable manner.

"Happiness Studies and Legal Policy"

Recently posted to SSRN:

"Happiness Studies and Legal Policy" 

Annual Review of Law & Social Science, Forthcoming

PETER H. HUANG, Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Social scientists have conducted numerous empirical and experimental studies of self-reported happiness. This review focuses on two fundamental areas of research in happiness and law, namely alternative measures of happiness and various policies to foster happiness. There are many aspects, concepts, dimensions, and visions of happiness. Empirical findings often depend critically on which particular measure of happiness is analyzed. Happiness studies have applications to national well-being indices; policy evaluation; civil judicial and jury decision-making about liability and damages in cases of sexual harassment, employment discrimination, torts; optimal tax law design; family law; criminal sentencing, legal education, and legal practice. There are decision-making, health, productivity, and psychological benefits to various types of happiness. There are more or less paternalistic happiness interventions, including policies to encourage regular physical exercise, good sleep, and meditation. Hopefully analysis of these topics offers exemplars of possibilities and limits to utilizing happiness studies in designing legal policy.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article: Will I?, The Frontal Cortex In the Popular Press:     Enhancing Brains: What Are We Afraid Of?, The Dana Foundation Astrocytes may have an important role in regulating breathing, Nature News Why music is good for you, Nature News Inception: peering into the science of dreams, Culture Lab Brain training – maybe a little effective?, The Great Beyond Hospital experts debate wisdom of using stun guns to control violent patients, The Washington Post Want to get off to sleep? Ask your astrocytes nicely, New Scientist 'Cuddle chemical' eases symptoms of schizophrenia, New Scientist Twitter mood maps reveal emotional states of America, New Scientist Pacemaker-like devices once used primarily for Parkinson's patients are now being considered for epilepsy, depression, and other conditions, Minnesota Medicine Human Trials Next for Darpa’s Mind-Controlled Artificial Arm, Wired Why Money Makes You Unhappy, Wired Cur cognition: Do stray dogs have qualitatively different kinds of canine minds?, Scientific American Gene Makes Some Drink More When Other Boozers Are Around, Wired Science From the Academic Literature: Neuroscience: Brain's traffic lights, Nature Neurofibromin regulates corticostriatal inhibitory networks during working memory performance, PNAS A genetically modulated, intrinsic cingulate circuit supports human nicotine addiction, PNAS Multirelational organization of large-scale social networks in an online world, PNAS Subthalamic span of β oscillations predicts deep brain stimulation efficacy for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Brain The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate, Human Brain Mapping Effects of DBS on auditory and somatosensory processing in Parkinson's disease, Human Brain Mapping Energy-efficient waveform shapes for neural stimulation revealed with a genetic algorithm, Journal of Neural Engineering A neurocentric approach to Bayesian inference, Nature Reviews Neuroscience Is the free-energy principle neurocentric?, Nature Neuroscience Gray matter correlates of cognitive ability tests used for vocational guidance, BMC Research Notes Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens core and shell: Opposite effects on impulsive action, Experimental Neurology

The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

The Right to Silence Protects Mental Control

Recently posted to SSRN:

 

"The Right to Silence Protects Mental Control" by Dov Fox.

LAW AND NEUROSCIENCE, CURRENT LEGAL ISSUES, Vol. 13, M. Freeman, ed., Oxford University Press, 2010

 

Abstract:
This chapter argues that a right of mental control prohibits the state either from extracting a suspect’s thoughts without her meaningful consent or from making use of a suspect’s compelled recall or recognition to lay criminal blame upon her. Existing accounts of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination are ill-equipped to address the doctrinal implications of safe and reliable forensic neuroscience. Brain imaging is importantly different, for Fifth Amendment purposes, from all other forms of evidence, because it enables state officials to obtain information directly from a suspect’s brain, in a way that affords her no opportunity to control the transmission of that information. The physical/testimonial distinction in right-to-silence jurisprudence presupposes a flawed conception of mind/body dualism. Exposing this dualism reveals the normative significance we confer to a suspect’s control over his thoughts against unwanted use by the government. The use of compelled neuroscientific evidence is illegitimate when it deprives the accused of control over her mental life. Prosecutors may not comment on a suspect’s decision to decline the testing, and judges should instruct jurors not to draw adverse inferences from a choice to decline testing. Instructions against drawing adverse inferences are likely to be effective, however, only if jurors come to recognize legitimate reasons to decline testing.

Hank Greely on Cognitive Enhancement

Hank Greely discusses cognitive enhancement in Cerebrum.  Here's the link and here's the editor's note:

Editor’s note: In 2008, Henry T. Greely, a professor at Stanford Law School, co-authored a commentary in Nature; it concluded that “safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.” The article inspired an impressive number of responses from readers, and the debate has continued in scholarly journals and the mainstream media in the years following publication. Here Professor Greely builds on that momentum, arguing that only some concerns about cognitive enhancements are justified and proper attention is needed to address such issues. He contends that rather than banning cognitive enhancements, as some have suggested, we should determine rules for their use.

Oxford Neuroethics Post-Doc

The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics/Neuroethics has asked me to post information about a post-doc position.  Applications must be received by noon (GMT) on Friday, August 6, 2010.  See Download Uehiro1and Download Uehiro2.

Autism and Wealth

Neuroskeptic discusses a study (see here) that found that wealthier families have higher rates of autism than poorer families, even, it seems, when the researchers try to control for the fact that wealthier families are more likely to receive a diagnosis.  Here's an excerpt from the blog post:

So what does this mean? This is a correlation - the causality remains to be determined. There are two obvious possibilities: to put it bluntly, either being rich makes your kids autistic, or having autistic kids makes you rich.

How could being rich make your children autistic? There could be many reasons, but a big one is paternal age: it's known that the risk of autism rises with the age of the father, maybe because the sperm of older men accumulates more genetic damage, and this damage can cause autism. In general richer people wait longer to have kids (I think, although I can't actually find the data on this) so maybe that's the cause.

How could having autistic kids make you richer? Well, unfortunately I don't think it does directly, but maybe being the kind of person who is likely to have an autistic child could. Autism is highly heritable, so the parents of autistic children are likely to carry some "autism genes". These could give them autistic traits, or indeed autism, and autistic traits, like being intensely interested in complex intellectual matters, can be a positive advantage in many relatively well paid professions like scientific research, or computing. Marginal Revolution's Tyler Cowen recently wrote a book all about that. I hope I will not offend too many when I say that in my experience it's rare to meet a scientist, IT person or, say, neuroscience blogger, who doesn't have a few...

(Hat tip: MindHacks)

UPDATED: “Future of Medicine” Cruise to the Bahamas

UPDATED INFORMATION HERE.

Here's a snippet via Ana Lita (more information here):

The Appignani Bioethics Center and its co-sponsors present an EXCEPTIONAL cruise conference—to the Bahamas—leaving from and returning to Manhattan, New York, on board the luxurious Norwegian Jewel.

BOOK NOW! Fun, Leisure. Excellent speakers and Great topics!
Register before July 25th to be a part of this exciting event!

Each day’s conference session will feature a speaker renowned in their field including:

• Extending Healthy Lifespans: Is aging a disease? with Dr. Michael West
• Personalizing Diagnosis and Treatments: Tailored medicine for your genetic makeup with Dietrich Stephan, Ph.D.
• Building a Better Brain: Can we become smarter, happier people? with Professor Martha J. Farah
  

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Correction: Timing is everything, Nature Medicine Last Edition's Most Popular Article: Phys Ed: Your Brain on Exercise, The New York Times In the Popular Press:     Interview With a Robot, The New York Times 2010 Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting (San Diego), Neuroethics Society Could an Oversized Noggin Help Stave Off the Effects of Alzheimer’s?, 80 Beats Blog Genetic Switch Makes Female Mice Try to Mate With Other Females, 80 Beats Blog  Chatting chimps in Uganda, Africa are 'socially aware', BBC Gorillas 'play games of tag like humans', BBC News Disease and Intelligence: Mens sana in corpore sano, The Economist Plants 'can think and remember', BBC News Rules Seek to Expand Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, The New York Times Antibody cuts brain damage in strokes, New Scientist Students, Meet Your New Teacher, Mr. Robot, The New York Times Can you teach yourself synaesthesia?, New Scientist Alpha, beta, gamma: The language of brainwaves, New Scientist Hierarchical Prefrontal Control: Exception Proves the Rule?. Developing Intelligence Will I?, The Frontal Cortex Yale bioethicist warns of singularity's perils at futurist gathering, Emerging Tech Human Evolution Recapped in Kids’ Brain Growth, Wired Science The “Magic Pill” Question, Bioethics Forum Artificial Intelligence for Improving Team Sports, Science Daily Happiness and Sadness Spread Just Like Disease, Wired Science The man who doesn't exist, The Sydney Morning Herald From the Academic Literature: Discovery of a Proneurogenic, Neuroprotective Chemical, Cell Computational models of the brain: From structure to function, Neuroimage Consumers who care, Science Winning territorial disputes selectively enhances androgen sensitivity in neural pathways related to motivation and social aggression, PNAS Separating Hope from Hype: Some Ethical Implications of the Development of Deep Brain Stimulation in Psychiatric Research and Treatment, CNS Spectrums

The Program in Ethics and Brain Sciences (PEBS) is a collaborative effort of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and the  Johns Hopkins Brain Sciences Institute . The goal of PEBS is to ensure that research in brain science proceeds with an informed understanding of ethical issues, and that philosophical and empirical analyses of the advances in brain research proceed with an informed understanding of the science.

“Would you take a magic pill to make yourself straight?”

The question is discussed at the Hastings Bioethics Forum here. 

See also "Debate Over Gender Disorder Drug" at New Scientist here.

Moving From San Diego To New York

As some of you may know (and as announced on Brian Leiter's blog), I have accepted a position as Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, effective this fall.  After working with a fantastic group of neuroethics folks on the West Coast, I'm looking forward to being part of the East Coast contingent.  Still, I will dearly miss my wonderful friends, colleagues, and students at the University of San Diego.

2010 Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting

The 2010 Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting will be in San Diego from November 11-12.  You can register here, and I've posted the tentative schedule below. 

NEUROETHICS SOCIETY ANNUAL MEETING TENTATIVE SCHEDULE   

Manchester Grand Hyatt, San Diego, CA

Thursday Evening, November 11, 5:00p.m. - 7:30p.m.    

Meet-and-Greet
Working Groups break-out

Friday, November 12, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
8:00-8:50 Breakfast Buffet and Poster Set-up

8:50-9:00 Welcome and Opening Remarks Turhan Canli, Program Chair (Stony Brook U, USA)

9:00-9:30 Opening Address: Patricia Churchland (UCSD, USA): What Role do Rules Play in Navigating the Social World? (Confirmed)

9:30-10:30 Addiction Neuroethics (All Confirmed)

Moderator: Wayne Hall (U Queensland, Australia)
Steven Hyman (Harvard, USA)

Nora Volkow (NIDA, USA)

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:30 Concurrent Sessions:

Steve Hyman: Careers at the Intersection of Science and Society (Confirmed)
Martha Farah: Teaching Neuroethics Workshop (Confirmed)

11:30-12:00 Updates and FYIs    

Moderator:  Adrian Carter (U Queensland, Australia) (Confirmed)

Presenters: Kathleen Michels (Fogarty International Center, NIH) (Confirmed)

Others TBD

12:00-2:00 Lunch and Open Business Meeting

2:00-3:30 Poster Session

3:30-4:15 Keynote Address: Tom Insel (NIMH, USA): Grand Challenges in Global Mental Health (Confirmed)

4:15-5:30 Setting the Agenda for Global Brain Health and Neuroethics  (All Confirmed)

Moderator: Judy Illes (University of British Columbia, Canada)
Panel Speakers:
Dr. Gonul Peker (Istanbul, Turkey), Perceptions and Expectations of Neuroethics: A survey of Faculty and Students in a Major Medical School in Izmir, Turkey
Dr. Adriani Gini (Rome). Severe Impairment of Consciousness Revisited: Can Interdisciplinarity Solve the Dilemma?
Dr. Elana Brief (Vancouver, Canada). Nurturing Knowledge, Understanding, Education and Care in Remote First Nations Communities at Risk for Alzheimer's Disease.
Dr. Gladys Maestre (Venezuela). Neuroethics Post Haiti.

5:30-5:55 Reports from Working Groups
5:55-6:00 Closing Remarks (Steve Hyman, President)