Neuroethics & Law Blog

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article: Social Animal: How the new sciences of human nature can help make sense of a life, The New Yorker In The Popular Press: World's first brain scanner made for two, NewScientist   In Houston, Rep. Giffords Could Receive Brain Injury Treatment Thousands of Troops Do Not, Pro Publica Royal Society – Brain Waves: Neuroscience, Society and Policy, PLoS Blog More to a Smile Than Lips and Teeth, New York Times Alzheimer's-disease probe nears approval, Nature News Sleeping Protects Memories From Corruption, Wired Science A Psychopath Lacks Empathy Just Like a Person With Frontal Head Injury, Study Suggests, Science Daily Hearing music through someone else's eyes, Culture Lab Transsexual differences caught on brain scan, New Scientist To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test, New York Times Pioneering Treatment Could Help People With Severe Depression, Science Daily Chopin’s Hallucinations Could Have Been Caused By Epilepsy, The Huffington Post From the Academic Literature: A critical role for IGF-II in memory consolidation and enhancement, Nature Amygdala volume and social network size in humans, Nature Neuroscience From reinforcement learning models to psychiatric and neurological disorders, Nature Neuroscience Structural plasticity within highly specific neuronal populations identifies a unique parcellation of motor learning in the adult brain, PNAS Activity levels in the left hemisphere caudate–fusiform circuit predict how well a second language will be learned, PNAS Identification of a brain center whose activity discriminates a choice behavior in zebrafish, PNAS A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety, PNAS Chapter 16 -  Deep brain stimulation: state of the art and novel stimulation targets, Progress in Brain Research Deep brain stimulation relieves refractory hypertension, Neurology Generalization versus contextualization in automatic evaluation, Journal of Experimental Psychology Do we mind other minds when we mind other minds' actions? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study, Human Brain Mapping

Subscribe to our mailing list 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 Subjective Experience of Being a "Giant" in Prison

According to this BBC article, a 6' 9'', 500+ pound Dutch prisoner is arguing that keeping him in an ordinary cell violates the European Convention on Human Rights.

The issue relates to a more general phenomenon that I discuss in The Subjective Experience of Punishment (as well as here and here).  Namely, not all prisoners experience conditions of confinement in the same way.  Though we typically ignore differences in punishment experience, I argue that, according to our best justifications of punishment, we are morally required to take such differences into account.

In many cases, it is difficult to accurately assess or anticipate an inmate's punishment experiences.  In a case like this one, however, it is easy to see why the prisoner will have an especially difficult time.  According to the article, he has to duck his head to fit in the door of his cell.  He cannot fit comfortably on his bed, and in order to shower, "he must first wedge himself into the cubicle, then crouch down under the head."  No doubt, we must consider the costs involved in accommodating this prisoner, but we cannot pretend that he is likely to experience the confined conditions of incarceration in the same way as the average prisoner. 

And while it is true that he ought to have taken his large size into account before he committed criminal activity that could land him in prison, such facts do not alter our usual analysis of proportional punishment.  If people could justly be incarcerated under any conditions whenever they knew or should have known about those conditions before committing criminal activitly, then we could justify virtually any conditions of confinement for any crime.  Similar reasoning would justify locking people up for any duration, so long as they were informed of the duration in advance.

Part of the reason that people are hesitant to make adjustments for a prisoner like this is that they view the adjustments as "special accommodations."  Indeed, they are given real-world prisons that have already been constructed.  We deem subjectively-sensitive punishments to be special accommodations, however, partly because we fixate on our conventional, objective understanding of punishment conditions.  As I explain in my article:

Imagine, by contrast, the fictitious punishment of “boxing,” where an offender who is boxed is confined to a cell that has dimensions n by n by n, where n equals the height of the offender. Setting aside the horrendousness of the punishment itself, is it unfair when offenders of different heights are boxed? I think not. Yet, in objective terms, offenders who are boxed receive quite different punishments. Nevertheless, it seems fair that taller people should be placed in larger cells than shorter people. Simply by reframing punishment descriptions in subjective terms, we can ease or eliminate perceptions of punishment inequality.

 My thanks to Doug Berman for his blog post that helpfully points to other discussions of the subjective experience of punishment by Simons, Baer, Bronsteen, Buccafusco, Masur, Markel, Flanders, and Gray.

(Originally posted at Crim Prof Blog.)

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article: In His Own Image-Dr. Antonio Damasio, The New York Times In The Popular Press: Social Animal: How the new sciences of human nature can help make sense of a life, The New Yorker What’s Missing From Our ‘Cognitive Toolkit’?, The New York Times Three technologies that changed our brains (video), Neuroethics at the Core Friends connect on a genetic level, Nature News Antipsychotic drug prescriptions triple in the US, New Scientist Beware the seductions of sociable machines, New Scientist When All Isn’t Enough to Foil Alzheimer’s, The New York Times MRI Scans Can Reveal Whether You’re a Good Gamer, Gizmodo Brainstorm in a teacup, Culture Lab Dad's arrest in sex case results in $1.8M settlement, Detriot FreePress   The upside of living with Asperger’s, Guardian LCD Projector Used to Control Brain and Muscles of Tiny Organisms Such as Worms, Science Daily From the Academic Literature: The neural basis of intuitive best next-move generation in board game experts, Science ESP paper rekindles discussion about statistics, Science Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinsonian Patients—Ethical Evaluation of Congitive, Affective, and  Behavioral Sequelae, American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience Ethical Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Focus on Risk and Consent, American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience “Doctor, Would You Prescribe a Pill to Help Me…?” A National Survey of Physicians on Using Medicine for Human Enhancement, American Journal of Bioethics Preplay of future place cell sequences by hippocampal cellular assemblies, Nature Neuroscience: Seeing into the future, Nature Lost in translation: neuroscience and the public, Nature Reviews Neuroscience Time-lapse imaging of disease progression in deep brain areas using fluorescence microendoscopy, Nature Medicine Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: Analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents, BMC Medical Ethics Emotion Processing Influences Working Memory Circuits in Pediatric Bipolar Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Sixty eight per cent of us hallucinate, BMJ

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.

Seeking Associate Director for the Law and Neuroscience Project

I recently received the following job announcement.  Please direct inquiries to the people listed below:

Associate Director for the Law and Neuroscience Project
Vanderbilt University Law School

The national MacArthur Foundation Law and Neuroscience Project, headquartered at Vanderbilt University Law School, is currently accepting applications for the Associate Director position. The Associate Director will report to Director Owen Jones, New York Alumni Chancellor's Chair in Law & Professor of Biological Sciences, and will be responsible for assisting in both the substantive and procedural management and operation of the Law and Neuroscience Project. The term of the position begins on May 16, 2011, with a flexible start date, and runs through June 30, 2012, with up to two additional years possible. Candidates must relocate to Nashville. This position requires both a bachelor's degree and an advanced degree. A law degree, as well as minimum of 24 months of relevant experience, is strongly preferred, as is familiarity with academic research. Applicants need not come from science backgrounds. However, some familiarity with one or more of the fields of biology, psychology, or neuroscience may prove helpful (and should be mentioned). Salary is competitive and commensurate with education and experience. For a detailed job description, see: http://law.vanderbilt.edu/recruitment/lawneuro/index. aspx .
 
For more information on the Project, see: http://www.lawneuro.org. To apply, please send or email a C.V., transcript (unofficial is acceptable), brief writing sample, and a letter of intent to either:

[email protected]   (preferred)

or to:

Sue Ann Scott
Assistant Dean for Personnel Services
Vanderbilt University Law School
131 21st Ave. South
Nashville TN, 37203

Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

Vanderbilt is a smoke-free workplace in compliance with the Non-Smoker Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-1801-1810.  In accordance with that law and Vanderbilt policy, smoking is prohibited in all buildings on Vanderbilt property and on the grounds of the campus with the exception of designated outdoor smoking areas.

Vanderbilt is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

"Cross-Cultural Neuroethics: Look Both Ways"

Moheb Costandi has written, "Cross-Cultural Neuroethics: Look Both Ways," at the Dana Foundation's website.  Here's a snippet from the beginning:

In the Western World, we may take it for granted that our scientific values and ethical concepts are universal, but this is not the case. Although international codes of conduct have been developed to ensure all scientists adhere to ethical practices, they are not always relevant, because not everyone shares the same worldview. Indigenous peoples, for example, have fundamentally different worldviews and philosophies, and do not subscribe to our scientific values.

Cross-cultural neuroethics aims to overcome potential misunderstandings that might arise when the worldview of researchers differs from that of the community they are investigating.

Wolf on Incidental Findings in Neuroscience Research, Bioethics, and Health Law

Susan M. Wolf (U. Minn, Law) has posted Incidental Findings in Neuroscience Research: A Fundamental Challenge to the Structure of Bioethics and Health Law (Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, Judy Illes, Barbara Sahakian, eds., Oxford University Press, 2011) to SSRN. Here's the abstract:

Incidental findings are an unavoidable by-product of conducting research in human beings. Depending on the research method being used and the population being studied, researchers may encounter incidental findings in the majority of the participants in their research. Even in studies in which incidental findings are less common, they may include urgent and even life-threatening findings. The empirical research documenting the incidence and potential gravity of incidental findings forces researchers to face difficult questions. The most fundamental of these is whether researchers have any duty to identify, evaluate, and disclose these findings to the research participant. What makes these questions so difficult is that at root they ask whether researchers have some kind of duty to trigger or provide clinical care. Merely asking this question is a profound challenge to the structure of bioethics and health law. Both fields approach the world of research and the world of medical care very differently. The problem of incidental findings challenges this traditional dichotomy. The problem forces attention to the question of whether the two-world vision that has been fundamental to the architecture of health law and bioethics is wrong.

This chapter traces the emergence of the incidental findings problem and analyzes the fundamental challenge posed to the structure of health law and bioethics. It then suggests how to reconstitute the conception of researcher duties that both domains embrace. The chapter rejects the old dichotomy between research and treatment that would absolve the researcher of any duties to evaluate and offer to disclose findings of potential clinical significance. While arguing for a new vision of researcher duties that would impose some clinical responsibilities, the chapter rejects erasure of the distinction between research and care. Clinical care must focus on the well-being of the individual patient; the fundamentally different enterprise of research strives to create generalizable knowledge. Yet the traditional dichotomy went too far when it absolved researchers of duties of clinical care and information sharing. The author suggests how bioethics and health law can now reconstitute the traditional vision of researcher duties to bring the researcher back into relationship with the research participant.

Preparation of this chapter was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant #2-R01-HG003178 (Susan M. Wolf, Principal Investigator). The chapter also benefited from the author’s participation in the Project on Law & Neuroscience funded by the MacArthur Foundation (Michael Gazzaniga, Principal Investigator).

"More Experiments in Ethics"

From the current issue of Neuroethics:

More Experiments in Ethics

By Kwame Anthony Appiah

Abstract

This paper responds to the four critiques of my book Experiments in Ethics published in this issue. The main theme I take up is how we should understand the relation between psychology and philosophy. Young and Saxe believe that “bottom line” evaluative judgments don’t depend on facts. I argue for a different view, according to which our evaluative and non-evaluative judgments must cohere in a way that makes it rational, sometimes, to abandon even what looks like a basic evaluative judgment because we have changed our minds about the facts. This leads me to qualify Tiberius’s claim that our moral judgments always derive, in part, from fundamental evaluative “justificatory stopping points,” arguing that even these can themselves be adjusted in the light of scientific understanding. Weinberg and Wang object to my use of Kant’s distinction between the perspective of the senses and the perspective of the understanding, because they identify it with a distinction between scientific and philosophical worlds. I argue that a distinction of perspectives isn’t a distinction between worlds and that, in any case, the distinction is not between science and ethics. Finally, in responding to Machery’s objections to a couple of my proposals, I return to the suggestion that a coherentist epistemology is required to deal with the relations between science and ethics.

"The Bleak Implications of Moral Psychology"

In the current issue of Neuroethics:

The Bleak Implications of Moral Psychology

By Edouard Machery

Abstract

In this article, I focus on two claims made by Appiah in Experiments in Ethics: Doris’s and Harman’s criticism of virtue ethics fails, and moral psychology can be used to identify erroneous moral intuitions. I argue that both claims are erroneous.

PEBS Neuroethics New Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article: Near-death neurologist: Dreams on the border of life, Culture Lab In The Popular Press: In His Own Image-Dr. Antonio Damasio, The New York Times Can You Build a Better Brain?, Newsweek Love Music? Thank a Substance in Your Brain, Study Says, The New York Times Why Loneliness is hazardous to your health, Science   I’m Dangerous With Love Hearts Hallucinogenic Ibogaine, Underwire Neuroscience: Thought experiment, Nature News   In Women’s Tears, a Chemical That Says, ‘Not Tonight, Dear’, The New York Times Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp, Center for Neuroscience and Society Mind gym: Putting meditation to the test, New Scientist Me, myself and MRI, Wellcome Trust Blog Would a placebo work for you?, New Scientist Researchers Identify 'Facebook Neurons': Population of Highly Active Neurons Could Provide Insight Into the Neocortex, Science Daily Mice Kept on Unnatural Schedule Go Haywire, Wired Science   From the Academic Literature: Implications and consequences of robots with biological brains, Ethics and Information Technology Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music, Nature Neuroscience Ethics of neural enhancement using noninvasive brain stimulation, Neurology First do no harm: Simple tools to diagnose mental illness should not be offered without sound supporting evidence, Nature Knowing and feeling-Owen Flanagan is unconvinced by Antonio Damasio’s argument that ‘the self’ is needed to explain consciousness, Nature Mind your head-Josie Glausiusz enjoys a thought-provoking exhibition, Nature Tough and Tender: Embodied Categorization of Gender, Psychological Science Effect of 7,8-Dihydroxyflavone, a Small-Molecule TrkB Agonist, on Emotional Learning, American Journal of Psychiatry Subthalamic Nucleus Stimulation Affects Theory of Mind Network: A PET Study in Parkinson's Disease, PLoSONE Spatiotemporal Neural Dynamics of Word Understanding in 12- to 18-Month-Old-Infants, Cerebral Cortex Subthalamic nucleus stimulation influences expression and suppression of impulsive behaviour in Parkinson’s disease, Brain Modification of emotional states by bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in a patient with Parkinson's disease, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry Human tears contain a chemosignal, Science

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.

Neuroscience, misrepresentations, and horoscopes (Andrea Lavazza)

A recent study suggests “the continuity of personality’s association with directly observed behavior” (C.S. Nave et al., On the Contextual Independence of Personality: Teachers’ Assessments Predict Directly Observed Behavior After Four Decades, “Social Psychological and Personality Science”, 2010, http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/07/06/1948550610370717.abstract). In other words, certain behaviors and certain personality traits are basically hereditary and are not subject to environmental, social, and cultural influences. For example, “children rated by their teachers as ‘verbally fluent’ (defined as unrestrained talkativeness) showed dominant and socially adept behavior as middle-aged adults. Early ‘adaptability’ was associated with cheerful and intellectually curious behavior, early ‘impulsivity’ was associated with later talkativeness and loud speech, and early-rated tendencies to ‘self-minimize’ were related to adult expressions of insecurity and humility”.

This is an additional confirmation of the genetic components of personalities and of individual differences. This field of study is growing increasingly solid and is supported by reams of data. Nevertheless, even if we assume that all the control variables were taken into account, this study’s conclusion can still only remain applicable at the population level; that is, the presumed genetic pre-determination can explain (a great) part of the variability observed in the sample, or in the totality of the universe under consideration.

Unlike chemistry or physics, biology cannot count on rigorous laws that can explain all phenomena without exception. Nevertheless, biological studies whose results have a probability value at the individual level can have drastically different applications. For example, there a major difference between what happens in medicine and what happens in behavioural genetics (as in this case). If aspirin benefits 90% of flu patients, it can be prescribed to all flu patients, even though we know about 10% will not receive any benefits. The latter can then be treated with other drugs.

Consider a study (C.M. Ciarleglio et. al., Perinatal photoperiod imprints the circadian clock, “Nature Neuroscience”, 2010, http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n1/full/nn.2699.html) that claims that the season during which one is born influences the circadian clock and has weak effects on mood and propensity towards depression or schizophrenia. How should it be interpreted at the individual level? Should each individual be analyzed separately, or can general inferences be drawn, almost as if in a horoscope (indeed, a major Italian newspaper featured the following title: “Scientists admit that birth date influences character”). However, it is easy to find individuals born on the same date, but with drastically different personalities (this was Augustine’s objection to belief in horoscopes). The same seems to hold true for studies on behavioral characteristics that are generally hereditary. The far-from-trite warning that emerges out of this is that there is a difference in study types, not in and of themselves, but in terms of their interpretations and/or applications.

Indeed, each one of us is familiar with cases in which a child or youth with a certain personality eventually developed quite different, if not opposite, character traits or attitudes. The risk of a hurried reading of studies such as the ones cited above lies not so much in its objective conclusions, but in the possible development of a “fatalist” mentality. With this concept we refer to the fact than one may think it impossible to change their – or someone else’s – personality, whether for better or worse. On the basis of a superficial scientific culture stoked by the uncritical diffusion of results such as those cited above, one might conclude that education, family, society, and institutions matter little against genes; that we are “condemned” to be what we are since childhood. This also brings with it the risk of a certain complacency towards oneself and a superficial “acceptance of one’s shortcomings”, against which nothing can be done anyway. Science says so. The role of culture, the ethics of self-improvement and improving others (in a non-coercive way, it goes without saying, but through leading by example and encouragement) would gradually lose importance and credibility.

"Naturalism’s Perils, Naturalism’s Promises: A Comment on Appiah’s Experiments in Ethics"

In the current issue of Neuroethics:

Naturalism’s Perils, Naturalism’s Promises: A Comment on Appiah’s Experiments in Ethics

By Jonathan M. Weinberg and Ellie Wang

Abstract:

In his Experiments in Ethics, Appiah focuses mostly on the dimension of naturalism as a naturalism of deprivation - naturalism’s apparent robbing us of aspects of the world that we had held dear. The aim of this paper is to remind him of that naturalism has a dimension of plenitude as well - its capacity to enrich our conception of the world as well. With regard to character, we argue that scientific psychology can help provide a conception of character as dynamic, in a way that may preserve many key aspects of eudaimonistic ethics from the situationists’ challenge. With regard to intuition, we address Appiah’s worry that naturalistic explanations of the sources of our intuitions may leave us feeling that those intuitions have been thereby debunked. We suggest that it may be that feeling of debunking that should itself be debunked.

Law and the Brain Conference: New York City, March 15-16, 2011

I'm pleased to be one of the keynote speakers at an upcoming neurolaw conference in Manhattan (March 15-16, 2011).  There's an early-bird registration deadline on January 14. To find out all the details, follow this link. 

From the website:

Advances in neuroscience are providing insight to the inner workings of the human brain and these discoveries are increasingly being used in criminal and civil courts. Learn how these findings are impacting criminality, guilt, deception, mental health, memory, addiction, and other issues. Discover the pitfalls and potential implications of applying neuroscience in the courtroom.

Join us for this interdisciplinary conference which brings neuroscientists and legal scholars together to discuss how new neuroscientific discoveries are affecting law both now and in the future.   

Third Annual Neuroscience Boot Camp

Martha Farah passes along news about Neuroscience Boot Camp.  I participated two years ago and highly recommend the program.  Here's the info.:

The University of Pennsylvania announces their 3rd annual Neuroscience Boot Camp, July 31-August 10!

Why Neuroscience Boot Camp? Neuroscience is increasingly relevant to a number of professions and academic disciplines beyond its traditional medical applications.  Lawyers, educators, economists and businesspeople, as well as scholars of philosophy, sociology, applied ethics and policy, are incorporating the concepts and methods of neuroscience into their work.  Indeed, for any field in which it is important to understand, predict or influence human behavior, neuroscience will play an increasing role.

The Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp gives participants a basic foundation in cognitive and affective neuroscience and equips them to be informed consumers of neuroscience research.

What happens at Neuroscience Boot Camp?  Through a combination of lectures, break-out groups, panel discussions and laboratory visits, participants will gain an understanding of the methods of neuroscience and key findings on the cognitive and social-emotional functions of the brain, lifespan development and disorders of brain function. Each lecture will be followed by extensive Q&A.  Break-out groups allow participants to delve more deeply into topics of relevance to their fields. Laboratory visits will include trips to an MRI scanner, an EEG/ERP lab, an animal neurophysiology lab, and a transcranial magnetic stimulation lab. Participants will also have access to an extensive online library of copyrighted materials selected for relevance to the Boot Camp, including classic and review articles and textbook chapters in cognitive and affective neuroscience and the applications of neuroscience to diverse fields.  See http://lawneuro.typepad.com/the-law-and-neuroscience-blog/2009/08/bloggin-from-boot-camp-day-one.html for a daily blog post from our first Boot Camp.

Who should apply? College and university faculty, working professionals and graduate students are encouraged to apply.  The only prerequisites are a grasp of basic statistics and at least a dim recollection of high school biology and physics.  (A short set of readings will be made available prior to the Boot Camp to remind you about the essentials.)

More details: Participants will be housed on campus in air-conditioned apartment-style suites with private bedrooms.  Sessions begin at 8:30 AM and end at 5:15. Breakfast and lunch will be eaten with the group; dinners are on your own. The academic program spans nine days, Monday, August 1st - Wednesday, August 10th with half of Saturday and all of Sunday off.  There will be an opening reception on the evening of Sunday July 31st and a gala dinner on the last evening.

The cost of tuition, room and board is $4,500; limited scholarship support is available.  Complete applications are due by midnight on February 1st.  You will be notified of the status of your application by March 7th, and will have until April 1st to confirm attendance.

Visit http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/events/neuroscience-bootcamp for more information!

"Appiah and the Autonomy of Ethics"

In the current issue of Neuroethics:

Appiah and the Autonomy of Ethics

By Valerie Tiberius

Since this article has no abstract, I've pasted the first paragraph below the fold.

PEBS Neuroethics News Roundup from JHU Guest Blogger

Last Edition's Most Popular Article: Wild Chimps, Stick Dolls: What's At Play Here? NPR In The Popular Press: Near-death neurologist: Dreams on the border of life, Culure Lab Could It Be? Spooky Experiments That 'See' The Future, NPR Searching for the Source of a Fountain of Courage. The New York Times Capuchin monkeys choose the best tools to crack nuts, BBC News Clever Crows Use Tools in New Way, Wired Science Salvia Ingredient Studied As Medical Treatment, NPR Giving Alzheimer’s Patients Their Way, Even Chocolate, The New York Times Sealed with a kiss - and neuroscience, The Washington Post A Surgically Implanted Camera And More At New Arab Art Museum, NPR Major Advance in MRI Allows Much Faster Brain Scans, Science Daily Our Brains Are Shrinking. Are We Getting Dumber?, NPR Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage, The New York Times More Friends on Facebook Does NOT Equal a Larger Amygdala, The Neurocritic Can You Be Addicted to Foods?, New York Times Well Blog Junk-Food-Valuing Brain Cells Pinpointed, Wired Science From the Academic Literature: Task-related default mode network modulation and inhibitory control in ADHD: effects of motivation and methylphenidate, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Amygdala volume and social network size in humans, Nature Neuroscience Ubiquitination Inhibits Neuronal Exit, Science Reversing EphB2 depletion rescues cognitive functions in Alzheimer model, Nature A selective role for dopamine in stimulus–reward learning, Nature Reimagining Alzheimer's Disease—An Age-Based Hypothesis, The Journal of Neuroscience Neurosurgeons' perspectives on psychosurgery and neuroenhancement: a qualitative study at one center, Journal of Neuroscience Alzheimer's disease peptide β-amyloid interacts with fibrinogen and induces its oligomerization, PNAS

Subscribe to our mailing list 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.