EVENT: Neuroethics Seminar: Two Lectures in Neuroethics
5.30 p.m. – 6.40 p.m. Monday 27 February
Seminar Room 1, Oxford Martin School, 34 Broad St (http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/contact/)
The session will comprise two brief lectures with q and a:
Prof. Neil Levy
Resource depletion: the duration of impairment
Neil Levy is Deputy Director (Research) of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, and Head of Neuroethics at the Florey Neuroscience Institutes, University of Melbourne.
This talk reports recent experimental work on the depletion of the cognitive resources involved in self-control. Previous work used crude measures of depletion, which made it difficult to disentangle capacity and motivation to exercise self-control. We used better controlled tasks to measure depletion. We generated several novel results. First, we found that susceptibility to depletion is apparently dependent on cognitive ability. Second, we found (contrary to the claims of Baumeister) that recovery from depletion does not depend on rest or glucose. We also found that there was a cost in switching between types of operation on the depletion task, which predicted a significant proportion of the depletion on the performance task.
Dr. Molly Crockett
Towards a science of moral enhancement: insights from neuroscience and behavioral economics
Molly Crockett studies the neurobiology of morality and altruism, collaborating with economists at the University of Zürich and neuroscientists at University College London as a Sir Henry Wellcome Research Fellow.
ALL WELCOME, NO BOOKING REQUIRED
EVENT: Wellcome Lecture in Neuroethics: Neural chemical systems mediate social behaviour in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’: implications for ethics and the clinic.
Prof. Robert Rogers, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Senior Research Fellow, Jesus College Oxford
29 February, 5.30 p.m. Seminar Room 1, Oxford Martin School, 34 Broad Street (Map: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/contact/)
Recent research has highlighted the role of neurochemical systems, such as serotonin and oxytocin, in the expression of value-laden behaviours involving ‘trust’ or ‘fairness’, in dyadic exchanges between social partners.
However, situations in which behaviours are described as ‘fair or ‘unfair’, or ‘trustworthy’ or ‘deceitful’ also take place in the context of wider social groups and communities.
To date, there have been no experimental investigation into how neurochemical systems mediate the ability of individuals to contribute to group-based endeavours in which securing certain objectives might be critical for the group itself.
Recently, we have begun to explore the role of serotonin in the laboratory-based models of the management of valuable, but depletable, resources, both at an individual level and as part of social group.
These situations can, under certain conditions, pit the rational behaviour of the individual against the interest of the wider social group (as in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’).
Our data provide preliminary evidence to suggest that serotonin mediates, not just the appraisal of social actions in ethical terms, but also the ability to gain value from shared objectives.
They also raise hypotheses about the kinds of social difficulties we might expect to see in certain psychological disorders, but also about how serotonin activity influences the way we appraise and respond to value-laden behaviours, and seek solutions to broader social dilemmas.
ALL WELCOME, NO NEED TO BOOK
Sergei Lavrov’s Deontology
In Syria, Assad has sought to silence protests against his dictatorial regime using violence. Refusing to be cowed, the protests have resisted. The regime has since escalated the violence. As I write, the Syrian army continues to use massive force against a mainly civilian population. There is little doubt that serious crimes are being committed. After months of ignoring the situation, the West is finally beginning to sympathise with the plight of the Syrians. Yet an emasculated Security Council resolution was thwarted this week by the vetoes of Russia and China. Since then, various explanations have been offered to justify this stance. However, one justification in particular struck me.
Is Drug Addiction a Lifestyle Choice?
According to BBC News this week, the brains of some people “may be wired for addiction.” A study has come out in the journal Science that presents evidence of abnormal brain structures that were found in drug addicts and their non-addicted siblings. The lead researcher, Dr Karen Ersche, was quoted by the BBC as saying that the study “shows that drug addiction is not a choice of lifestyle, it is a disorder of the brain and we need to recognize this.”
Has the Ersche et al study in fact shown that drug addiction is not a lifestyle choice? Has it proven that drug addicts should be treated as innocent patients with medical problems rather than being subject to moral censure for their failure to exert self-control, and for their irresponsible and often deeply anti-social behaviour? No! In fact, it is likely that no possible neuroscientific evidence could show such a thing.
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Fundamental enhancement for humanity?
The idea of a simple, cheap and widely available device that could boost brain function sounds too good to be true.
Yet promising results in the lab with emerging ‘brain stimulation’ techniques, though still very preliminary, have prompted Oxford neuroscientists to team up with leading ethicists at the University to consider the issues the new technology could raise.
Recent research in Oxford and elsewhere has shown that one type of brain stimulation in particular, called transcranial direct current stimulation or TDCS, can be used to improve language and maths abilities, memory, problem solving, attention, even movement.
Critically, this is not just helping to restore function in those with impaired abilities. TDCS can be used to enhance healthy people’s mental capacities. Indeed, most of the research so far has been carried out in healthy adults.
More details from Oxford Press Release
My Comment:
This research cuts to core of humanity: the capacity to learn. The capacity to learn varies across people, across ages and with illness. Enhancing the capacity to learn of children and adults, with impairments and without. The ability to learn is a basic human good. This kind of technology enables people to get more out of the work they put into learning something.
This is a first step down the path of maximizing human potential. It is a very exciting development. We need to control the release of the genie. Although this looks like a simple external device, it acts by affecting the brain. That could have very good effects, but unpredictable side effects. We should aim to do better than we have with the development of pharmaceuticals. We should learn from our mistakes over the last forty years.
Of course, as with any powerful technology, not only is there the possibility of great benefit, there is potential for misuse and abuse. This has been used in other experiments to improve ability to lie.
Lawmaker Steals Leather Pants: Brain May Be Responsible, Lawyer Says
The title of this post is an edited version of a headline that appeared this week at ABC news. The story behind it is that a Californian politician named Mary was caught shoplifting, and her lawyer says that her impaired judgment may have been caused by a benign brain tumour.
We can accept that in principle, a brain tumour could undermine Mary’s moral responsibility and excuse her actions, because we now know that tumours can press on parts of the brain and prevent them functioning properly – causing all kinds of unusual thoughts and behaviours. And Mary could hardly be held responsible for her having a brain tumour. She didn’t choose to have it; it just happened to her.
Sam Harris is wrong about science and morality
By Brian Earp (Follow Brian on Twitter by clicking here.)
I just finished a booklet by “New Atheist” Sam Harris — on lying — and I plan to write about it in the coming days. But I want to dig up an older Harris book, The Moral Landscape. Why? Because it still makes me grimace.
I say “still” because I read the book months ago. I just haven’t yet vented my bafflement. Permit me to gripe, then, about Harris’ (aging) “bold new” claim — presented in his book — that science can “determine human values” or “tell us what’s objectively true about morality” or “give us answers about right and wrong” or however else you package this fiction.
In his new book (the one about lying) Harris says, in effect, you should never, ever, do it — yet his pretense in The Moral Landscape to be revolutionizing moral philosophy seems to me the very height of dishonesty. What he actually does in his book is plain old secular moral reasoning — and not very well — but he claims he’s using science to decide right from wrong. That Harris could be naive enough to think he’s really bridged the famous “is/ought” chasm seems incredible, and so I submit that he’s exaggerating* to sell books. Shame on him.
*A previous version of this post had the word “lying” here, but I was told that my rhetorical flourish might be interpreted as libel. I hope “exaggerating” is sufficiently safe. Now onward to my argument:
My son’s dyslexic, and I’m glad
By Charles Foster
My son is dyslexic, and I’m glad.
Most people think that I am deranged or callous. But I have two related reasons, both of which seem to me to be good.
The first is that his dyslexia is an inextricable part of him. I can’t say: ‘This is the pathological bit, which I resent’, as one might say of a tumour. Take away his dyslexia, and he wouldn’t be the same person, but able to read and write. He wouldn’t be him. That would be far too high a price for me to pay. And for him to pay? Well, there you run into Parfit’s non-identity problem.
Announcement: International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting
The 2011 annual meeting of the International Neuroethics Society will be held in Washington DC from November 10 and 11, and registration is now open. A number of contributors to the Practical Ethics and Neuroethics blogs will be in attendance.
Some highlights of the programme include:
- Panel discussion on “Social knowledge and the evolution of cooperation in monkeys and apes”, featuring Patricia Churchland
- Breakout group on “Teaching neuroethics”, featuring Martha Farah
- Breakout group on “Neuroethics Careers”, featuring Hank Greely and Alan Leshner
- A panel on “Neuroscience, National Security and Society”, featuring Jonathan Moreno
More details and registration can be accessed at this page.
Creating Non-Human People
Last week, the Academy of Medical Sciences released a report calling for better regulation of experiments involving animals containing human tissues or genes. One specific claim made by the report is that experiments which entail “modifying non-human primates to create human-like awareness or behaviour” should be banned. Was it right to call for such a ban? Continue reading
Affiliations
Recent Comments