Neuroethics & Law Blog

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): The Neuroscience of Being a Selfish Jerk, New York Magazine: Science of Us In The Popular Press: Aphantasia: A Life Without Mental Images, BBC News Why Did A Woman See Donald Trump In Her Butter? Here's A Scientific Explanation., Vox Hopkins Neuroscientists Pinpoint Part Of Brain That Taps Into Our Memory Banks, The HUB Your Brain, Your Disease, Your Self, The New York Times Self/less and Transplanting (ID)entities, The Neuroethics Blog Serotonin-Deprived Cleaner Fish Are Socially Withdrawn, Scientific American Working Out Doesn’t Keep Your Brain Young: Study, TIME Every Song Has A Color – And An Emotion – Attached To It, The Conversation Over 46 Million People Now Have Dementia Worldwide, TIME How a New Father's Brain Changes, Scientific American How To Spot Whodunnit: Academics Crack Agatha Christie's Code, The Guardian NIH Study Shows No Benefit Of Omega-3 Or Other Nutritional Supplements For Cognitive Decline, National Institutes of Health Two Companies Close In on a Concussion Blood Test, MIT Technology Review A Million Core Silicon Brain, Mind Hacks Pain By The Numbers, Kaiser Health News This Surgical Procedure Restores Sensation to the Penis by Remapping the Brain, Gizmodo In the Academic Literature: Neuroanatomy: Forgotten Findings of Brain Lymphatics, Nature The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections, PNAS Composition, Taxonomy and Functional Diversity of the Oropharynx Microbiome in Individuals with Schizophrenia and Controls, PeerJ Contextual Modulation of Value Signals in Reward and Punishment Learning, Nature Communications Alleviating Depression Only To Become Problematic Mobile Phone Users: Can Face-To-Face Communication Be the Antidote?, Computers in Human Behavior Brain Structural Deficits and Working Memory Fmri Dysfunction in Young Adults Who Were Diagnosed With ADHD in Adolescence, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Upcoming Events: 2015 International Neuroethics Society Meeting October 15-16 in Chicago, IL Early Registration Deadline: September 10   Sorting Brains Out A 2-day conference on the history of neuroscience and its broader social context, 1890-2015 at the Univ of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Friday-Saturday, Sept 18-19. The event is free and open to the public. Registration at [email protected] is appreciated, but not at all obligatory.  Talks include:   Reading the History of Adult Neurogenesis Backwards: When Did Sex/Gender Become Plastic? Monkeys, Mirrors, and Me: Gordon Gallup and the Study of Self-Recognition Normal Brains, Normal Behaviors? ADHD Diagnoses Show How Culture, Economy, and Pathology Are Entangled Why the Tortoise Wins the Race: Dual Process Theory and the Neoliberal Subject

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.

"Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?"

"Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?" by Farah Focquaert, and Maartje Schermer has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

One of the reasons why moral enhancement may be controversial, is because the advantages of moral enhancement may fall upon society rather than on those who are enhanced. If directed at individuals with certain counter-moral traits it may have direct societal benefits by lowering immoral behavior and increasing public safety, but it is not directly clear if this also benefits the individual in question. In this paper, we will discuss what we consider to be moral enhancement, how different means may be used to achieve it and whether the means we employ to reach moral enhancement matter morally. Are certain means to achieve moral enhancement wrong in themselves? Are certain means to achieve moral enhancement better than others, and if so, why? More specifically, we will investigate whether the difference between direct and indirect moral enhancement matters morally. Is it the case that indirect means are morally preferable to direct means of moral enhancement and can we indeed pinpoint relevant intrinsic, moral differences between both? We argue that the distinction between direct and indirect means is indeed morally relevant, but only insofar as it tracks an underlying distinction between active and passive interventions. Although passive interventions can be ethical provided specific safeguards are put in place, these interventions exhibit a greater potential to compromise autonomy and disrupt identity.

"The Death and Rebirth of Codes of Legal Ethics: How Neuroscientific Evidence of Intuition and Emotion in Moral Decision Making Should Impact the Regulation of the Practice of Law"

Recently published in SSRN (and the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Vol. 28 (2015)):

 

"The Death and Rebirth of Codes of Legal Ethics: How Neuroscientific Evidence of Intuition and Emotion in Moral Decision Making Should Impact the Regulation of the Practice of Law"

 

ERIC C. CHAFFEE, University of Toledo - College of Law

The only constant in the regulation of legal ethics in the United States has been change. With the adoption of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the legal profession as a whole has arrived at a rationalist model for the regulation of the practice of law because the Model Rules are rules of reason. The problem is that recent evidence from the field of moral cognitive neuroscience suggests that individuals commonly resort to irrational thinking when making moral decisions by drawing upon intuition and emotion when faced with ethical dilemmas. This evidence validates various theories and models about moral decision making from other disciplines, and it complicates the regulation of legal ethics because rational rules are currently being used to govern what is at least in part irrational thinking. 

This article argues that the legal profession should begin taking a dual process approach to regulating legal ethics because it better conforms to how people make moral decisions through a mix of both intuition and reason. This Article concludes that an approach that is similar to the Model Code of Professional Responsibility is the best model for regulating the practice of law because such an approach entails both ethical standards and rules for purposes of regulating ethical behavior. Such an approach is superior because it appeals to irrational, intuitive thinking through standards and rational thinking through rules. In essence, it offers a dual process model for formulating and enforcing codes of legal ethics that mirrors how individuals think in making moral decisions.

This approach is superior to either rationalist or intuitionist approaches because it sets basic rules for lawyers while using standards to fill in the gaps and ambiguities that invariability exist in and among rules. Clients and others dealing with lawyers are better protected because this dual process approach provides a comprehensive system of regulation. In addition, society is likely to be more comfortable with such an approach because a system of regulation can be created that engages and satisfies society’s collective intuitions and reasoning about what is permissible in the practice of law. Under a dual process approach, clear mandates should trump intuition and emotion, and the specificity of rules should be honored above broad standards and norms. In addition, a system employing a dual process approach to regulating the practice of law should also be updated regularly to reflect evolving intuitions regarding what is just. The time has come to conform legal ethics to scientific reality and to offer a system of professional regulation that is state of the art.

"Enhancement of Healthy Personality Through Psychiatric Medication: The Influence of SSRIs on Neuroticism and Extraversion"

"Enhancement of Healthy Personality Through Psychiatric Medication: The Influence of SSRIs on Neuroticism and Extraversion" by Irena Ilieva has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors’ (SSRIs’) wide use, combined with the blurry limit between health and psychological illness, have led neuroscientists, clinicians and ethicists to envision the possibility of these medications’ use in non-clinical populations. This prospect has evoked ethical debates, which have often ignored the findings of the empirical literature. In this context, an evaluation of the empirical evidence for SSRIs’ personality enhancing effects is needed. The present paper examines SSRIs’ effects on healthy personality, including the Five Factor Model traits Neuroticism and Extraversion, as well as some of their facets: Angry Hostility, Impulsiveness, Vulnerability, Warmth, Gregariousness and Assertiveness. The review encompasses investigations in healthy humans, human clinical populations, as well as relevant animal studies. Emerging data raise the possibility that SSRIs, when used by people without a currently diagnosable mental disorder, may reduce some facets of Neuroticism, especially Angry Hostility. On the other hand, very limited support exists for an SSRI-driven change in other Neuroticism facets, such as Impulsiveness, in healthy humans. An increase in Extraversion (potentially, Warmth, Gregariousness, and, in some contexts, Assertiveness) is possible, but currently available evidence is only indirect. Future research is needed, both to clarify methodological ambiguities in existing studies, and to answer unaddressed questions, such as ones of the stability, predictors, moderators, dose- and context-dependency of the effects.

"Neurostimulation Devices for Cognitive Enhancement: Toward a Comprehensive Regulatory Framework"

"Neurostimulation Devices for Cognitive Enhancement: Toward a Comprehensive Regulatory Framework" by Veljko Dubljević has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

There is mounting evidence that non-invasive brain stimulation devices - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) could be used for cognitive enhancement. However, the regulatory environment surrounding such uses of stimulation devices is less clear than for stimulant drugs—a fact that has already been commercially exploited by several companies. In this paper, the mechanism of action, uses and adverse effects of non-invasive neurostimulation devices are reviewed, along with social and ethical challenges pertaining to their use as cognitive enhancements. Two regulatory approaches that could be used to facilitate responsible use of these devices as products and services are outlined. Apart from establishing the urgently needed comprehensive regulatory framework, they might provide a starting point for establishing long term physiological and social effects of enhancement uses of tDCS and TMS.

"Australian Courts Facing 'Crime Gene' Conundrum"

Recently published in the Huffington Post on August 19, 2015:

In "Australian Courts Facing 'Crime Gene' Conundrum," Allan McCay raises the question of whether defendants with a "crime gene" should be considered when punishing offenders. Australian courts already consider a defendant's personal history and background.

"The 'crime gene' (or put another way, genetic vulnerability) seems to raise issues about the aims of punishment. Do we aim to give offenders what they deserve, or do we just care about protecting the community? As Australian courts are supposed to do both, developments in science may make an already difficult job even more difficult."

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Why I Teach With a Neurologist, The Neuroethics Blog In The Popular Press: The Neuroscience of Being a Selfish Jerk, New York Magazine: Science of Us One Day We May Finally Be Able To Watch Our Dreams Like A Movie, Quartz Why I Teach With an English Professor, The Neuroethics Blog If You Could Take a Pill to Improve Your Creativity, Would You?, io9 Affective Forecasting and Genetics, Bill of Health What Is It Like to Never Have Felt An Emotion?, BBC News Can You Teach A Computer To 'Feel' Suspense?, NPR: Shots Your Color Perception Changes with the Seasons, Discover Brain in a Vat: 5 Challenges for the In Vitro Brain, Practical Ethics Music Can Help Recovery From Surgery, New York Times: Well Blog Bedtime Stories for Young Brains, New York Times: Well Blog The World’s Most Famous Gorilla Is Showing Signs of Early Speech, Quartz The Rise and Fall of Neurotransmitters, Discover Neuroskeptic 1940: Electroshock Therapy, New York Times The Myth of Beer Goggles?, Discover Neuroskeptic Researchers Link Longer Work Hours and Stroke Risk, New York Times: Well Blog Candy Brain, New York Times: Well Blog In the Academic Literature: Visual Brain Area Active During Sleep, Nature A Lower Limb Exoskeleton Control System Based On Steady State Visual Evoked Potentials, Journal of Neural Engineering Human Hippocampus Represents Space and Time During Retrieval Of Real-World Memories, PNAS Wirelessly Powered, Fully Internal Optogenetics for Brain, Spinal and Peripheral Circuits In Mice, Nature Methods Upcoming Events: 2015 International Neuroethics Society Meeting October 15-16 in Chicago, IL Early Registration Deadline: September 10

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.

"Self-Estrangement & Deep Brain Stimulation: Ethical Issues Related to Forced Explantation"

"Self-Estrangement & Deep Brain Stimulation: Ethical Issues Related to Forced Explantation" by Frederic Gilbert has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

Although being generally safe, the use of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) has been associated with a significant number of patients experiencing postoperative psychological and neurological harm within experimental trials (i.e. self-estrangement, hypersexuality, hypomania, suicidality, impulse control disorders, etc.). A proportion of these postoperative severe adverse effects have lead to the decision to medically prescribe device deactivation or removal. However, there is little debate in the literature as to what is in the patient’s best interest when device removal has been prescribed; in particular, what should be the conceptual approach to ethically guide the decision to remove or maintain implants. The purpose of this article is to examine the ethical issues raised when patients refuse brain device explantation despite medical prescription. In order to illustrate these issues, we report and discuss a clinical case involving a patient suffering from treatment resistant depression who experienced forms of postoperative self-estrangement, as well as suicidal attempts, but who resists giving consent to device explantation.

"Reasons for Comfort and Discomfort with Pharmacological Enhancement of Cognitive, Affective, and Social Domains"

"Reasons for Comfort and Discomfort with Pharmacological Enhancement of Cognitive, Affective, and Social Domains" by Laura Y. Cabrera, Nicholas S. Fitz, and Peter B. Reiner has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

The debate over the propriety of cognitive enhancement evokes both enthusiasm and worry. To gain further insight into the reasons that people may have for endorsing or eschewing pharmacological enhancement (PE), we used empirical tools to explore public attitudes towards PE of twelve cognitive, affective, and social (CAS) domains (e.g., attention, mood, creativity). Participants (N =  1,408) from Canada and the United States were recruited using Mechanical Turk and were randomly assigned to read one (and only one) vignette that described an individual who uses a pill to enhance a single domain. After reading the vignette, participants were asked how comfortable they were with the individual using the enhancement. People were significantly more comfortable when they read about enhancement of certain CAS domains (e.g. creativity) than others (e.g. mood). We found a modest negative correlation between comfort level and the degree to which the PE was perceived as changing core features of the person. We also found a modest correlation between comfort level and the degree to which the PE was perceived as improving success in life. Finally, using a sequential mixed method technique, we found that participants who felt uncomfortable about PE use overwhelmingly focused on a lack of need and, to a lesser degree, expressed concerns about safety; those who felt comfortable about PE use most frequently mentioned the safety of the pill and its ability to provide a positive outcome. The data provide novel insights into public enthusiasms and concerns over the use of PE.

"Knowledge, Experiences and Views of German University Students Toward Neuroenhancement: An Empirical-Ethical Analysis"

"Knowledge, Experiences and Views of German University Students Toward Neuroenhancement: An Empirical-Ethical Analysis" by Cynthia Forlini, Jan Schildmann, Patrik Roser, Radim Beranek, and Jochen Vollmann has been published in the most recent issue of Neuroethics:

Abstract

Across normative and empirical disciplines, considerable attention has been devoted to the prevalence and ethics of the non-medical use of prescription and illegal stimulants for neuroenhancement among students. A predominant assumption is that neuroenhancement is prevalent, in demand, and calls for appropriate policy action. In this paper, we present data on the prevalence, views and knowledge from a large sample of German students in three different universities (n  = 1,026) and analyze the findings from a moral pragmatics perspective. The results of our study indicate that neuroenhancement is a well-known phenomenon among German students, but not prevalent. 2.2 % of our sample reported having used a prescription medication for neuroenhancement. Exams and competitive situations were predominant motivators of use. Students were unenthusiastic and critical about neuroenhancement in the academic context and disapproved of neuroenhancement for professionals. The majority of respondents agreed that neuroenhancing substances should be regulated by the state. These stances were based on strong beliefs in resisting peer pressure, avoiding the creation of injustice and valuing of hard work. From a moral pragmatics standpoint, these results challenge the assumption that policy on neuroenhancement is necessary in academic environments.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Your Brain Is Particularly Vulnerable To Trauma at Two Distinct Ages, Quartz In The Popular Press: Eye Movements 'Change Scenes' During Dreams, BBC News Brain Imaging Research Is Often Wrong. This Researcher Wants To Change That., Vox So You Flunked A Racism Test. Now What?, NPR: CodeSwitch How Well Can Bionic Eyes See?, MIT Technology Review Crumb of Mouse Brain Reconstructed In Full Detail, Nature News Why I Teach With a Neurologist, The Neuroethics Blog Researchers Found A Way To Erase Memories Of Meth In Mice, Popular Science Putting a Price on Empathy, BMJ Blogs What the Nose Knows, Mosaic The Obscure Neuroscience Problem That’s Plaguing VR, Wired Neuroimaging as Evidence of Pain: It’s Time to Prepare, Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences A New Way to Look at Emotions, NPR: Cosmos & Culture Fly Larvae Brains Filmed In Action, Nature News This Is What “Comfort Food” Is Probably Doing To Your Brain, Quartz Guest Post: ‘I Don’t Want To Die, but I Am Too Scared To Be Anything Different’: The Role of Identity in Mental Illness, Oxford Practical Ethics Blog In the Academic Literature: Neuroscience: In the Blink of an I, Nature Embodied Cognition: A Grasp on Human Thinking, Nature The Brain's Identity Crisis, Science Sustained Pax6 Expression Generates Primate-like Basal Radial Glia in Developing Mouse Neocortex, PLoS Biology Manipulating Attention to Non-Emotional Distractors Influences State Anxiety: A Proof of Concept Study in Low- And High-Anxious College Students, Behavior Therapy Preterm Cognitive Function Into Adulthood, Pediatrics

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.

"Shots for Tots?"

Recently published in SSRN (and Hastings Center Report, Vol. 43:3, p. 34, 2013; U. of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 15-11):

 

"Shots for Tots?"

 

ERIC A. FELDMAN, University of Pennsylvania Law School

By endorsing the use of a vaccine that makes the experience of puffing on a cigarette deeply distasteful, Lieber and Millum have taken the first few tentative steps into a future filled with medical interventions that manipulate individual preferences. It is tempting to embrace the careful arguments of “Preventing Sin” and celebrate the possibility that the profound individual and social costs of smoking will finally be tamed. Yet there is something unsettling about the possibility that parental discretion may be on the cusp of a radical expansion, one that involves a new and unexplored approach to behavior modification.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Is This Really Me? Parasites and Other Humans’ Cells in Our Brains Change Our Psychology, Practical Ethics In The Popular Press: Your Brain Is Particularly Vulnerable To Trauma at Two Distinct Ages, Quartz How the Brain Purges Bad Memories, Scientific American Are We Ready For A Test That Could ‘Pre-Diagnose’ Autism In Babies?, The Conversation US Subliminal Learning and Conscious Thought Reduce and Enhance Pain, The Guardian Crumb of Mouse Brain Reconstructed In Full Detail, Nature News Social Priming: Time for a Definitive Test?, Discover Neuroskeptic Sucking on Mouse Tongues to Understand How Taste Buds Work, Wired A Close Look at the Connectivity of a Single Brain, Discover Neuroskeptic Brain Infection Study Reveals How Disease Spreads From Gut, ScienceDaily Study: How Experiencing Awe Transforms the Way You Treat the People around You, Quartz Meeting Ethological Needs: Conflicting Data on Orca Longevity in Captivity, Neuroethics Blog In the Academic Literature: Prospective Randomized Study of the Effect of Music on the Efficiency of Surgical Closures, Aesthetic Surgery Journal Saturated Reconstruction of a Volume of Neocortex, Cell Functional System and Areal Organization of a Highly Sampled Individual Human Brain, Neuron A Neurocomputational Model of Altruistic Choice and Its Implications, Neuron Awe, the Small Self, And Prosocial Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology A Neural Perspective of Immoral Behavior and Psychopathy, AJOB Neuroscience Empathy, Justice, and Moral Behavior, AJOB 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.

"Overcoming the Knowledge Problem in Behavioral Law and Economics: Uncertainty, Decision Theory, and Autonomy"

Recently published in SSRN:

 

"Overcoming the Knowledge Problem in Behavioral Law and Economics: Uncertainty, Decision Theory, and Autonomy"

 

PHILIPP HACKER, Humboldt University of Berlin

Science evolves in the long run. Law rules in the present. This potential temporal disconnect leads to a Hayekian “knowledge problem”, a challenge increasingly raised against behavioral law and economics: Empirical findings are deemed too uncertain to provide a solid basis for legal reasoning. This paper claims that in such cases, rules for decision making under risk and uncertainty have to enter the game. They can serve as analytic tools and generate positive solutions to the knowledge problem, thereby ensuring a rational treatment of the question of bounded rationality. The paper thus essentially applies a meta-decision theory to the question of what kind of decision theory (rational choice or behavioral decision theory) should govern legal reasoning.

Generally, two routes may be pursued: First, in some situations it is possible to reduce uncertainty with the help of advanced empirical techniques. This prepares the ground for decision making under risk in an expected utility analysis. Second, in the majority of cases, reliable empirical data are indeed so far unavailable, necessitating decision making under uncertainty. In a decision theoretic maximin analysis, this paper demonstrates that in these cases of empirically unresolved uncertainty legal rules should presumptively assume the significant presence of bounded rationality among the relevant actors. The result can be successfully defended against the common objection that behaviorally informed interventions, such as debiasing or nudging, constitute an infringement of autonomy. Finally, implications of this methodologically novel justification of behaviorally informed legislation and adjudication for specific legal concepts in consumer law and product liability are discussed.

PEBS Neuroethics Roundup (JHU)

Last Edition's Most Popular Article(s): Brain Area Found That May Make Humans Unique, Nature News In The Popular Press: Some Optimism on Brains, Pain, & Law – Let’s See What We Can Achieve, Bill of Health Blog ASMR and Absurdity, Practical Ethics Blog Pain-o-meters: How – and Why – Should We Develop Them?, Bill of Health Blog “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?”, Revisited, Discover Neuroskeptic Is This Really Me? Parasites and Other Humans’ Cells in Our Brains Change Our Psychology, Practical Ethics Fat Sense: Scientists Show We Have a Distinct Taste for Fat, New York Times Very Premature or Underweight Babies at Risk of Being Neurotic Adults – Study, The Guardian Liberating Brains from Bodies by Capturing Them with Brainets?, The Neuroethics Blog Social Priming: Money for Nothing?, Discover Neuroskeptic Hamsters Are Happier When They Have Toys, Discover D-Brief Not All Fake Medicines Are Created Equal, Washington Post Wonkblog Scientists Warn That New Drugs Will Require Earlier Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, The Guardian FDA Examines Whether MRI Drugs Accumulate in Brain Tissue, ProPublica Scientists Have Discovered A New Taste That Could Make Food More Delicious, Washington Post Wonkblog Killer Robots: Tech Experts Warn Against AI Arms Race, BBC News Your Musical Tastes Reflect Your Thinking Style, Discover D-Brief In the Academic Literature: Personality of Adults Who Were Born Very Preterm, ADC Fetal and Neonatal Social Interaction in Infants’ Learning of Second-Language Phonetics: An Exploration of Brain–Behavior Relations, Developmental Neuropsychology The Binding Solution?, Nature Neuroscience Sex, Drugs, and Pain Control?, Nature Neuroscience Oscillatory Dynamics Coordinating Human Frontal Networks In Support Of Goal Maintenance, Nature Neuroscience No Pain, No Gain: How 'Objective' is Neuroimaging for Women and Minorities?, Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy Genetics of Disease: Associations with Depression, Nature Hormones and Ethics: Understanding the Biological Basis of Unethical Conduct, Journal of Experimental Psychology Adult Cortical Plasticity Depends On an Early Postnatal Critical Period, 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.