Neuroethics & Law Blog

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Is There Such a Thing as a 'Good Psychopath'? NPR: The Protojournalist In The Popular Press: Using Light Technique, Scientists Find Dimmer Switch for Memories in Mice, NY Times Scientists Turn Bad Memories Into Good Inside the Brains of Mice, Wired New Obama plan calls for implanted computer chips to help U.S. troops heal, Washington Post Parasites Practicing Mind Control, NY Times How Movies Manipulate Your Brain to Keep You Entertained, Wired How Movies Synchronize the Brains of an Audience, Wired The Man Who Grew Eyes, Mosaic People With Down Syndrome Are Pioneers In Alzheimer's Research, NPR Shots Blog The Mythical Brain, Nature Neuroscience Editorial Turn On, Tune In, Get Better: Psychedelic Drugs Hold Medical Promise, Scientific American Holding a Mirror to their Natures, NY Times “Lifelogging” and neurophysiological computing: Will we forget how to forget? Neuroethics Blog Turns Out the U.S. Has Its Very Own Species of Ant-Zombifying Fungus, Wired Xenon Exposure Shown to Erase Traumatic Memories, Science Daily Chimps show empathy by mimicking pupil size, New Scientist Scientists Plug Into a Learning Brain, NIH In the Academic Literature:   Neural Constraints on Learning, Nature Bidirectional switch of the valence associated with a hippocampal contextual memory engram, Nature The science of morality and its normative implications, Neuroethics Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement, Neuroethics Optogenetic neuronal stimulation promotes functional recovery after stroke, PNAS Fear Conditioning, Safety Learning, and Sleep in Humans, The Journal of Neuroscience Right prefrontal and ventral striatum interactions underlying impulsive choice and impulsive responding, Human Brain Mapping Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Stiff Person Syndrome, JAMA Neurology Dimensionality reduction for large-scale neural recordings, Nature Neuroscience Image familiarization sharpens response dynamics of neurons in inferotemporal cortex, Nature Neuroscience

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.

"Will There Ever Be a Drug with No or Negligible Side Effects? Evidence from Neuroscience"

Recently published in Neuroethics:

"Will There Ever Be a Drug with No or Negligible Side Effects? Evidence from Neuroscience," by Sylvia Terbeck and Laurence Paul Chesterman

Abstract

Arguments in the neuroenhancement debate are sometimes based upon idealistic scenarios involving the assumption of using a drug that has no or negligible side effects. At least it is often implicitly assumed – as technology and scientific knowledge advances - that there soon will be a drug with no or negligible side effects. We will review evidence from neuroscience, complex network research and evolution theory and demonstrate that - at least in terms of psychopharmacological intervention – on the basis of our understanding of brain function it seems inconceivable that there ever will be a drug that has the desired effect without undesirable side effects. We will illustrate this by reference to enhancing edge detection in V2 in monkeys and demonstrate that even for this localised single neuron coded function there would be numerous side effects. Taking the more realistic case of pharmacological enhancement that is inevitably associated with side effects will change consequentialist arguments for neuroenhancement and have implications for the conception of autonomy, specifically in the case of performance enhancement. We conclude that a neuroethics debate that aims to inform policy decisions should take these findings into account. We hope that our article will precipitate more interdisciplinary research in neuroscience and philosophy.

 

"Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement"

Recently published in Neuroethics:

"Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement," by Nicholas S. F itz, Roland Nadler, Praveena Manogaran, Eugene W. J. Chong, and Peter B. Reiner.

Abstract

Vigorous debate over the moral propriety of cognitive enhancement exists, but the views of the public have been largely absent from the discussion. To address this gap in our knowledge, four experiments were carried out with contrastive vignettes in order to obtain quantitative data on public attitudes towards cognitive enhancement. The data collected suggest that the public is sensitive to and capable of understanding the four cardinal concerns identified by neuroethicists, and tend to cautiously accept cognitive enhancement even as they recognize its potential perils. The public is biopolitically moderate, endorses both meritocratic principles and the intrinsic value of hard work, and appears to be sensitive to the salient moral issues raised in the debate. Taken together, these data suggest that public attitudes toward enhancement are sufficiently sophisticated to merit inclusion in policy deliberations, especially if we seek to align public sentiment and policy.

"The Science of Morality and its Normative Implications"

This recently published in Neuroethics:

"The Science of Morality and its Normative Implications" by Tommaso Bruni, Matteo Mameli, and Regina A. Rini.

Abstract:

Neuromoral theorists are those who claim that a scientific understanding of moral judgment through the methods of psychology, neuroscience and related disciplines can have normative implications and can be used to improve the human ability to make moral judgments. We consider three neuromoral theories: one suggested by Gazzaniga, one put forward by Gigerenzer, and one developed by Greene. By contrasting these theories we reveal some of the fundamental issues that neuromoral theories in general have to address. One important issue concerns whether the normative claims that neuromoral theorists would like to make are to be understood in moral terms or in non-moral terms. We argue that, on either a moral or a non-moral interpretation of these claims, neuromoral theories face serious problems. Therefore, neither the moral nor the non-moral reading of the normative claims makes them philosophically viable.

Exploring Some Challenges of the Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Discourse: Users and Policy Recommendations

Recently published in Neuroethics:

"Exploring Some Challenges of the Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Discourse: Users and Policy Recommendations" by Toni Pustovrh and Franc Mali

Abstract

The article explores some of the issues that have arisen in the discourse on pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement (PCE), that is, the use of stimulant drugs such as methylphenidate, amphetamine and modafinil by healthy individuals of various populations with the aim of improving cognitive performance. Specifically, we explore the presumed sizes of existing PCE user populations and the policy actions that have been proposed regarding the trend of PCE. We begin with an introductory examination of the academic stances and philosophical issues involved in defining PCE. We then focus on an examination of the population sizes of presumed current PCE users that have been listed in the academic literature on PCE, on presuppositions, which have been problematized by some authors as based on anecdotal or misinterpreted survey data. We follow this with an empirical examination of a potential PCE user population in a national context (students at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia). We then proceed to examine the regulatory options proposed in the academic literature to address PCE, finally comparing them with an empirical overview of the policy recommendations on PCE produced in the multinational context of several national ethics advisory bodies (EABs) in Europe. Our main conclusion is that there is still little debate among the national EABs on what type of public policy responses, if any, are needed to address PCE in European countries, and that the issues they do address are similar to those discussed and proposed in the academic articles on PCE.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): A better understanding of mental illness hasn’t reduced the stigma around it, Washington Post In The Popular Press: The Machine that Tried to Scan the Brain -- In 1862, NPR Brains of Autistic Children Have Too Many Synapses, Study Suggests, New York Times Your Brain Sucks At Video Games, D-Brief - Discover Blogs How Corpse Brain Scans Help the Living, The Guardian This Oxford Professor Thinks Artificial Intelligence Will Destroy Us All, Vox What Kids' Drawings Say About Their Intelligence, TIME Exercise Makes Kids' Brains More Efficient, TIME Kids' Brains Reorganize as They Learn New Things, Study Shows, SCOPE Blog Developing Brains Switch Math Strategies, Nature News Hatha Yoga Boosts Brain Function In Older Adults, Study Suggests, Huffington Post I Smell Green, You Smell Blue, EveryONE: PLOS One Blog Communicating Neuroscience: Hype and the Sources of Spin, Neuroethics at the Core High-Risk Brain Research Wins NSF Backing, Nature News Hints of Epigenetic Role in Alzheimer's Disease, NewScientist Is There Such a Thing as a 'Good Psychopath'? NPR: The Protojournalist Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnology: Ethical Applications Today and Tomorrow, Blog.Bioethics.Gov Considering the Ethical Implications of Cognitive Enhancement, Blog.Bioethics.Gov Who Can Consent to Neuroscience Research? Blog.Bioethics.Gov Targeted stimulation of specific brain cells boosts stroke recovery in mice, SCOPE Blog It Would Be Stupid to Ignore a Drop in Human Intellect, NewScientist From the Academic Literature: Autonomy and Enhancement, Neuroethics Adolescent Risk-Taking and Resting State Functional Connectivity, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging Hippocampal-Neocortical Functional Reorganization Underlies Children's Cognitive Development, Nature Neuroscience Decreased Motivation During Chronic Pain Requires Long-Term Depression in the Nucleus Accumbens, Science Loss of mTOR-Dependent Macroautophagy Causes Autistic-Like Synaptic Pruning Deficits, Neuron

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.

"Autonomy and Enhancement"

Recently published in Neuroethics:

"Autonomy and Enhancement", by G. Owen Schaefer, Guy Kahane, and Julian Savulescu

Abstract

Some have objected to human enhancement on the grounds that it violates the autonomy of the enhanced. These objections, however, overlook the interesting possibility that autonomy itself could be enhanced. How, exactly, to enhance autonomy is a difficult problem due to the numerous and diverse accounts of autonomy in the literature. Existing accounts of autonomy enhancement rely on narrow and controversial conceptions of autonomy. However, we identify one feature of autonomy common to many mainstream accounts: reasoning ability. Autonomy can then be enhanced by improving people’s reasoning ability, in particular through cognitive enhancement; given how valuable autonomy is usually taken to be, this gives us extra reason to pursue such cognitive enhancements. Moreover, autonomy-based objections will be especially weak against such enhancements. As we will argue, those who are worried that enhancements will inhibit people’s autonomy should actually embrace those enhancements that will improve autonomy.

 

"Morse, Mind, and Mental Causation"

Recently published in SSRN (and forthcoming in Criminal Law and Philosophy):

 

"Morse, Mind, and Mental Causation"

 

MICHAEL S. PARDO, University of Alabama School of Law
DENNIS PATTERSON, European University Institute, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden, Swansea University School of Law, European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW)

Stephen Morse's illuminating scholarship on law and neuroscience relies on a "folk psychological" account of human behavior in order to defend the law's foundations for ascribing legal responsibility. The heart of Morse's account is the notion of "mental state causation," in which mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, and intentions) cause behavior. Morse argues that causation of this sort is necessary to support legal responsibility. We challenge this claim. First, we discuss problems with the conception of mental causation on which Morse appears to rely. Second, we present an alternative account to explain the link between mental states, reasons, and actions (the "rational-teleological" account). We argue that the alternative account avoids the conceptual problems that arise for Morse's conception of mental causation and that it also undergirds ascriptions of legal responsibility. If the alternative succeeds, then Morse's conception of "mental state causation" is not necessary to support legal responsibility.

"Does the Endowment Effect Justify Legal Intervention? The Debiasing Effect of Institutions"

Recently published in SSRN:

 

"Does the Endowment Effect Justify Legal Intervention? The Debiasing Effect of Institutions"

 

JENNIFER ARLEN, New York University School of Law
STEPHAN W. TONTRUP, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods

We claim that the endowment effect rarely justifies legal intervention in private ordering. To our knowledge, we present the first theory to explain how institutions inhibit the endowment effect without altering people’s rights to their entitlements. The endowment effect is substantially caused by anticipated regret. We show that people experience regret only when they feel responsible for the decision and can mute regret by trading through institutions that let them share responsibility with others. As entitlement-holders typically transact through institutions, we expect most people to make unbiased trading decisions in real markets. We test two common institutions — agency and voting — that divide responsibility between multiple actors. Each caused most subjects to debias and trade in our study. We also show that people intentionally debias by employing institutions in order to share responsibility. Thus, when people can freely transact, private ordering generally overcomes the endowment effect.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Could your brain be reprogrammed to work better?, Science Daily  In The Popular Press: The Psychology of the Sad Clown, Time Health Polygraphs don't work. So why do we still use them?, Vox A Mouse Switch Turns Off Appetite, New York Times Science What Makes A Nation Happy?, National Public Radio AAAS Neuroethics Letter to Presidential Commission Published, AAAS Teen drug use gets supersize study, Nature News A better understanding of mental illness hasn’t reduced the stigma around it, Washington Post Scientists Create a 3-D Model That Mimics Brain Function, New York Times Health Terminal Lucidity: Myth, Mystery or Miracle?, Discover Magazine Blogs Neuroskeptic Brain regeneration: Crayfish turn blood into neurons, New Scientist   Epigenetics, Brain Science and Social Responsibility, Neuroethics at the Core Vitamin D Tied to Alzheimer’s Risk, New York Times Well Blog Tactic in Alzheimer’s Fight May Be Safe, Study Finds, New York Times Well Blog Do Narcissists Know They’re Narcissists?, Discover Magazine Blogs Neuroskeptic Can fiction stories make us more empathetic?, Science Daily Is empathy in humans and apes actually different? 'Yawn contagion' effect studied, Science Daily Brain Imaging in the Courtroom: The Quest for Legal Relevance, The Neuroethics Blog How Exercise Helps Us Tolerate Pain, New York Times Well Blog What’s Up With That: Why It’s So Hard to Catch Your Own Typos, Wired Science Exploring the conscious (and unconscious) brain in every day life, SCOPE Facial Symmetry is Attractive, But Not Because It Indicates Health, Discover Magazine Blogs D-brief PTSD Could Be Prevented With a Pill, Discover Magazine Blogs D-brief Interview with Dr. Jan Kalbitzer, author of the "Twitter Psychosis" article, The Neurocritic   From the Academic Literature: Congress stalls on BRAIN Initiative funding, The Lancet Polyunsaturated phospholipids facilitate membrane deformation and fission by endocytic proteins, Science  Shared and nonshared neural networks of cognitive and affective theory-of-mind: A neuroimaging study using cartoon picture stories, Human Brain Mapping Neuroscience: What females really want, Nature News & Views Reconsolidation of Human Memory: Brain Mechanisms and Clinical Relevance, Biological Psychiatry  Chemogenetic Silencing of Neurons in Retrosplenial Cortex Disrupts Sensory Preconditioning, The Journal of Neuroscience  Deep Brain Stimulation Abolishes Slowing of Reactions to Unlikely Stimuli, The Journal of Neuroscience  An ultra-small three dimensional computational microscope, Applied Physics Letters

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.

"Ethical Challenges Associated with the Development and Deployment of Brain Computer Interface Technology"

Recently published in Neuroethics:

"Ethical Challenges Associated with the Development and Deployment of Brain Computer Interface Technology" by Paul McCullagh, Gaye Lightbody, Jaroslaw Zygierewicz, and W. George Kernohan.

Abstract

Brain Computer Interface (BCI) technology offers potential for human augmentation in areas ranging from communication to home automation, leisure and gaming. This paper addresses ethical challenges associated with the wider scale deployment of BCI as an assistive technology by documenting issues associated with the development of non-invasive BCI technology. Laboratory testing is normally carried out with volunteers but further testing with subjects, who may be in vulnerable groups is often needed to improve system operation. BCI development is technically complex, sometimes requiring lengthy recording sessions to achieve the necessary personalisation of the paradigms, and this can present ethical challenges that vary depending on the subject group. The paper contributes to the on-going ethical discussion surrounding the deployment BCI outside the specialist laboratory and suggests some tentative guidelines for BCI research teams, appropriate to those deploying the technology, derived from experience on a multisite project. Any tension between deployment and technical progress must be managed by a formal process within a multidisciplinary consortium.               

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): This Blood Test Can Predict Suicide Risk, Scientists Say, TIME In The Popular Press: New Computer Chip Is Designed to Work Like the Brain, NYTimes Enhancement and Social Possibility, The Neuroethics Blog Scientists Say Child's Play Helps Build A Better Brain, National Public Radio Brain scans predict TV hits, Nature Research Highlights Alzheimer’s Disease Has Been Reversed in Mice, Time Slot Machine Science: How Casinos Get You to Spend More Money, Vox Coerced Metamorphosis: Consent to Rehabilitative Treatment in Criminal Law, Neuroethics at the Core Could your brain be reprogrammed to work better?, Science Daily  Play Doesn't End With Childhood: Why Adults Need Recess Too, National Public Radio Education You Asked: Why Are People Addicted to CrossFit and Other Brutal Workouts?, Time What’s Up With That: Your Best Thinking Seems to Happen in the Shower, Wired Our Brains Immediately Judge People, Time Implanted neurons become part of the brain, mouse study shows, Science Daily Are fish far more intelligent than we realize?, Vox Brief Counseling May Not Help With Most Drug Problems, National Public Radio Functional Neuroimaging’s Neymar Problem, Discover Blogs Neuroskeptic The case for medical LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy, Vox NIH scientists visualize structures of brain receptors using subcellular imaging, NIH News & Events Could your brain be reprogrammed to work better?, Science Daily A Mathematical Equation to Predict Happiness, D-brief Do You Want To Be Happy? Don't Set Your Expectations Too High, National Public Radio Pump up the bass, not the volume, to feel more powerful, SCOPE From the Academic Literature: A Million Spiking-Neuron Integrated Circuit with a Scalable Communication Network and Interface, Science Inhibitor of the Tyrosine Phosphatase STEP Reverses Cognitive Deficits in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease, PLoS One Biology  Socially responsive effects of brain oxidative metabolism on aggression, PNAS Response to Anticipated Reward in the Nucleus Accumbens Predicts Behavior in an Independent Test of Honesty, The Journal of Neuroscience  Neural Systems Involved In Moral Judgment and Moral Action, The Journal of Neuroscience  Corticolimbic gating of emotion-driven punishment, Nature Neuroscience  Timing Is Everything: Age Differences in the Cognitive Control Network Are Modulated by Time of Day, Psychology and Aging

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.

On "loving science"

Short but sweet commentary on neurohype in the form of a cartoon.

Introducing the Journal of Science and Law

I'm pleased to be a member of the editorial board of this new journal. Here is an introductory message from the editor-in-chief:

Many of today’s policy questions require an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from fields such as neuroscience, biology, and statistics. Researchers today are presented with new technologies to gather data and novel techniques for data mining. However, innovative scholarship often fails to leave its subspecialty and reach an interdisciplinary audience, dulling its impact and preventing other disciplines from capitalizing on new findings.

The Journal of Science and Law (JSciLaw) seeks to address this problem as an interdisciplinary publication that provides a forum for scholarship at the intersection of scientific research and legal policy. JSciLaw aims to unite disciplines and to encourage collaboration between scientific researchers, legal scholars, and policy makers. Reflecting its interdisciplinary nature, the JSciLaw editorial board includes scholars from the fields of neuroscience, law, criminology, statistics, and policy.

JSciLaw promotes top-tier, peer-reviewed scientific research that matters for policy decisions. Reflecting that mission, we are pioneering in-house journal software that allows JSciLaw to incorporate large-scale data directly into its manuscripts, such that reported results are replicable and extensible (See here for an example). In this way, readers are not forced to simply believe the claims of research papers published in JSciLaw, but can analyze the data themselves.

The journal is open-access, with all articles available for free at JSciLaw.org. Because we are an online journal, we are de-emphasizing word limits in deference to quality: articles should be as long as they need to be (but no longer). We publish Original Research Articles, Reviews, Opinions, and occasionally, Book Reviews. Papers are published on a rolling basis as soon as they are accepted.

JSciLaw encourages you to submit your innovative research and to explore our research articles in the future.

David M. Eagleman, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Director, Initiative on Neuroscience and Law
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine