Cognitive Science Advice for Republicans and Democrats?

by Guy Kahane
September 19, 2008

The upcoming US elections have revived the culture wars but so far controversy about science and biotechnology has not taken centre stage, as both candidates support stem cell research. But science is still playing a minor role in the discussion. Writing in the New York Times, the influential conservative pundit David Brooks recently gave advice to his fellow Republicans. In recent years, he argues, they have come to endorse a rampant libertarian individualism and forgotten about the importance of social connections and bonds, once a core conservative value. This form of criticism is old and familiar. What is new is the form it now takes. What is wrong is wrong about the individualist outlook, Brooks argues, is that it is false to human nature, a fact apparently revealed by recent research in cognitive science, neuroscience, genetics, and behavioural economics, which has rediscovered the ‘old truth’—“that we are intensely social creatures, deeply interconnected with one another and the idea of the lone individual rationally and willfully steering his own life course is often an illusion.”

I suggest it was Professor Plum, in the library, with the arsenic: the unreliability of brain experience detection

by Anders Sandberg
September 15, 2008

A woman has been convicted in Mumbai for murder, based on a new brain-based experience detection technology. As can be predicted, many regard this as Orwellian while others hope technologies like this could transform the courtroom "as much as DNA evidence has". But there are big problems. The most obvious one is the question of whether the technology actually works, let alone works well enough to be suitable for convicting somebody. The analogy with DNA evidence points at the second big problem: the legal institutions need to learn how to use it well. There are very good reasons for experts in psychology, neuroscience and forensics are troubled by this case.

Testing choices: weighing up risks of death and Down syndrome for fetuses

by Dominic Wilkinson
September 15, 2008

In the Observer yesterday, researchers from a major disability charity
have claimed that the risks of screening for Down syndrome during
pregnancy have been underestimated. The researchers suggest that for
every 3 fetuses with Down syndrome that are detected by screening 2
unaffected fetuses miscarry as a complication of the testing process.
Should screening be stopped? If screening continues how should
prospective parents weigh up this risk?

Needles in Haystacks and Individuals in DNA Pools

by Mark Sheehan
September 11, 2008

An article recently published on PLOS Genetics showing that (and how) individuals can be identified by their DNA within large publicly accessible pools DNA has led to genetic data being removed from publicly accessible websites by the NIH and the Wellcome Trust. As one geneticist quoted in Science put it “We have a false sense of security with pooled data.”

National Borders

by Roger Crisp
September 8, 2008

An eight-year-old Iranian boy has been released after spending nearly two months in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/06/immigration.humanrights). Child M, as he’s known, has been given body searches and now, unsurprisingly, seems to have various physical and psychiatric problems. His case is an especially clear example of the effects of national borders, and border controls, on people’s lives.

‘Anyone who thinks the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world is a t**t.’

by Rebecca Roache, Royal Holloway University of London
September 8, 2008

This week is Big Bang Week at the BBC, with various programmes devoted to the switch-on of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on Wednesday morning. Many of these programmes are covered in this week’s issue of the Radio Times—the BBC’s listings magazine—which also features a short interview with Professor Brian Cox, chair of particle physics at the University of Manchester. Asked about concerns that the LHC could destroy the earth, he replies:

‘The nonsense you find on the web about “doomsday scenarios” is conspiracy theory rubbish generated by a small group of nutters, primarily on the other side of the Atlantic. These people also think that the Theory of Relativity is a Jewish conspiracy and that America didn’t land on the Moon. Both are more likely, by the way, than the LHC destroying the world. I’m slightly irritated, because this non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes things like intelligent design. [… A]nyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t**t.’ (Final word censored by Radio Times.) [1]

Practical Ethics News to host Philosophers’ Carnival

by Rebecca Roache, Royal Holloway University of London
September 8, 2008

Practical Ethics News will host the next Philosophers’ Carnival on 22nd September. If you know of a particularly good philosophy blog post, please consider nominating it for inclusion via this link. Posts need not be on the topic of practical ethics, although they should be accessible to a popular audience. Posts relating to current affairs… Read More »Practical Ethics News to host Philosophers’ Carnival

Geo-engineering: an essential part of our toolkit

by Toby Ord
September 5, 2008

The current issue of the Royal Society’s journal (Philosophical Transactions) is devoted to geo-engineering. That is, very large scale engineering projects aimed at combatting global warming. For example, one proposal is to release sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere in order to increase the reflectivity of the earth and thus lower the earth’s temperature enough to offset global warming. Another proposal is to increase the reflectivity by producing more cloud over the ocean. This could be achieved with a large fleet of wind powered yachts, blowing a fine mist of salt spray into the air and thus seeding cloud formation. Such proposals offer a serious hope for avoiding most of the damage from significant climate change, and yet they are often rejected by environmentalists (for example see yesterday’s article in the Guardian by Greenpeace’s chief scientist). However, there is a strong case that these environmentalists are mistaken and should be encouraging this research.

Abortion is No Place for the Law

by Julian Savulescu
September 4, 2008

Victorian politicians are debating how to reform law on abortion. In Victoria, as in other states, abortion remains a crime. This is inconsistent with what happens. There are nearly 100 000 abortions every year in Australia.

The Victorian government will decide between 2 Models. According to Model B, abortion will be available on request until 24 weeks of pregnancy, but after that point 2 doctors must agree that it is indicated. Doctors who fail to comply with the law would receive professional and other sanctions. On Model C, abortion is available on request all through pregnancy. Premier Brumby and a majority of politicians support Model B.

Why is the imposition of sanctions on doctors who provide abortions so attractive? Firstly, abortion is an undesirable means of birth control. Most people would prefer to find other ways of not having unwanted children. Secondly, many people believe that as the fetus grows, and looks more like a baby, its moral status increases. After 24 weeks, some fetuses are even capable of living in intensive care units, outside the womb, as extremely premature newborns.

Despite its superficial attractiveness, Model B is deeply morally flawed. According to Model B, the moral status of the fetus, and whether it is kept alive or aborted, depends on the judgement of 2 doctors. Their decisions will usually be based on whether there is a disease or disability present. But this implies that fetuses with disabilities have less of a right to life than those which do not have disabilities. This is discrimination against the disabled and those with diseases. We would not allow 2 doctors to kill a child just because it had spina bifida. Why would we think the presence of spina bifida should change the moral standing of a fetus? Doctors can withdraw medical treatment leading to the deaths of their patients, but only when the patient’s life is no longer worth living. This is not the case in virtually all abortions.

A Nasty Dilemma for NICE

by Tom Douglas
September 3, 2008

After a prolonged disagreement with patient groups, the NHS’s funding guidance body, NICE, has approved the £10,000-an-eye blindness treatment, Lucentis. The drug has been shown to halt the progression of wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness in developed countries. But as the BBC note, in approving it, NICE may have unwittingly deprived the NHS of a much cheaper alternative.