INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014
Thank you for making the 2013 International IN THIS ISSUE Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting a huge success! 2 Neurogaming, Neuroscience and Ethics
3 INS Annual Meeting Panel #1 It's Complicated by Julia Haas
5 INS Annual Meeting Panel #2 A Light in the Dark by Sara Kimmich
6 INS Annual Meeting Panel #3: Roland Nadler’s Review
8 Meet a Member Karen Rommelfanger The 2013 Annual International Neuroethics Society meeting was held as a 10 Three Visions of satellite to the Society for Neuroscience meeting on November 7-8, 2013 in Diversity in Neuroethics beautiful San Diego, CA. INS meeting activities included a public program on neurogaming at the Fleet Science Center, three panel discussions led by 11 What are INS experts in the ield (topics below), a poster session featuring the latest work in Members Doing? neuroethics, working group dinners investigating speci ic neuroethical concerns, and a fantastic networking reception. Thank you to our members for
making the meeting such a fun, enlightening experience! 15 Calendar If you missed the meeting, you can see the recorded panels thanks to the generous contribution of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson here.
Panel discussions included: • The Science and Ethics of Moral Enhancement • States of Consciousness: Neuroethics in Impairments of Consciousness, Brain-Machine Interfacing and End of Life Decisions • Can Neuroscience Inform Us about Criminality & the Capacity for Rehabilitation?
Following is a summary of the Public Program event on Neurogaming and the reactions of three INS members (Julia Haas, Sara Kimmich, and Roland Nadler) to each of the panels.
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 1 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER NOVEMBERJANUARY 20122014
Neurogaming - What does Neuroscience and Ethics have to do with it? By Terrell Brotherton, PhD, INS President Project Manager On November 7, 2013 the Steve Hyman International Neuroethics Society and The Center for Ethics in President-Elect Science and Technology jointly hosted a Public Program on Barbara Sahakian neurogaming. This program, titled “Neurogaming: What’s Executive Committee Neuroscience and Ethics Got to do With it?” was held at the Turhan Canli Mark Frankel Reuben H. Fleet Science Center at Hank Greely Balboa Park and was well Adam Gazzaley, UCSF Julian Savulescu attended by both the public and Paul Root Wolpe INS meeting participants. The program consisted of a panel discussion deliberating the ethical and social implications of the intersection of Governing Board neuroscience and video game development. Moderated by Steven E. Hyman, the Founding President of INS and President-Elect of the Society for Verity Brown Neuroscience, the panel featured C. Shawn Green (University of Wisconsin- Nita Farahany Madison), Adam Gazzaley (UC-San Francisco), and Jonathan Blow Judy Illes (Independent game developer). Husseini Manji Helen Mayberg C. Shawn Green opened the panel with a discussion on the role neuroscience Jorge Moll research plays in informing the development and application space of video Jonathan Moreno Edward Rover games. He emphasized that video games encompass a wide spectrum of Student Representative Matt Baum gaming devices and that therefore, scienti ic analyses of the effects of gaming on cognition, arousal, motor skills, etc., should focus on the impacts of speci ic Executive Director aspects of speci ic games, not on gaming as a whole. Green then went on to discuss the importance of well-de ined studies investigating the effects of Karen Graham gaming; many studies are correlational and simply compare how gamers and kgraham@ non-gamers perform in speci ic tasks, however these studies may give biased neuroethicssociety.org results because they are measuring differences in a self-selecting population. Green emphasized the importance of well-de ined experimental parameters (encompassing a pre-test, training on a novel gaming task, post-test, and Project Manager subsequent comparison to control gaming conditions) when attempting to extrapolate the effects of speci ic games to de ined populations. He closed by Terrell Brotherton highlighting the need for scientists and gamers to collaborate and create a tbrotherton@ neurogame partnership in order to create games that are both appealing to neuroethicssociety.org gamers and that have demonstrable cognitive bene its.
In the second panel discussion, Adam Gazzaley explored the numerous applications of neurogames, focusing speci ically on how neurogames might be used for educational and therapeutic purposes. Gazzaley discussed the role www.neuroethicssociety.org action video games may have in enhancing multi-tasking ability, a skill that has been shown to decline with increased age in adulthood. Gazzaley then focused on creating a neurogaming ‘closed loop’ by utilizing available neurotechnologies (e.g. EEG) in order to monitor the effects on gaming on neuronal activity in real-time. He went on to suggest that this set-up could be used in conjunction with low- ield transcranial magnetic stimulation in order to stimulate and monitor an increase in plasticity within the brain. Gazzaley closed with a discussion of how the ability to monitor this neural feedback loop might be used to enhance education, as well as to provide novel therapies for conditions such as Alzheimer’s Disease or traumatic brain injury, all the while emphasizing the need to conduct more research into this ield.
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 2 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014
The inal panel discussion featured Jonathan Blow and Last month, as a recipient of the Emory Neuroethics explored the ethical issues associated with Program Neuroethics Travel Award, I had the neurogames. Blow focused on what values drive wonderful opportunity of attending the International neurogaming and how ethics informs the Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting in San Diego, development, marketing, and use of computer and California. The conference brought together leading video games. He wondered why many ‘educational’ neuroethics scholars from around the world and games were lacking in relative market appeal when focused on the themes of moral enhancement, compared to high action video games and emphasized disorders of consciousness, and the role of the need to engage the brain on many levels (arousal, neuroscience in the courtroom. (The conference was cognition, motor, etc.) in order to create a truly structured around three star-studded panels. For a full effective educational tool. Blow went on to discuss the program, please visit here. For full videos of the danger of ‘gambling’ related video games, or games in panels, please visit here.) There were also ive oral which the user is required to purchase items, as the presentations and a poster session. As part of the user becomes so immersed in the game that they do event, I exhibited a poster entitled “Revising not realize how much money they are actually Weakness of Will: A Reply to Neil Levy,” where I spending. Finally, Blow closed by exploring the challenged Levy’s use of the theory of ego depletion as emerging integration of company and brand an explanation of weakness of will and provided an marketing within video games, focusing on how future alternate, neurocomputational account. gaming technologies (e.g. personal EEGs) may enable companies to exploit gamers. As a philosopher interested in the intersection of the computational neurosciences and morality, “The A lively discussion followed the three presentations, Science and Ethics of Moral Enhancement” session with many audience members challenging the was a particularly enlightening one for me. It brought panelists on speci ic aspects of neurogaming. Among together three leading women neuroethics scholars, the top audience interests were how computer and Barbara Sahakian (as Moderator), Molly Crockett, and video games might be used for educational and Patricia Churchland, as well as neuroethicist Julian therapeutic purposes and regulation of the video Savulescu of the Oxford University Center for game industry. The panelists again emphasized the Neuroethics. It was a remarkable conversation. need for collaboration between scientists and game Throughout their discussions and even in the question developers in order to create cognition enhancing and period that followed, I was struck by how clearheaded potentially therapeutic games. The issue of regulating the panelists were about the challenges facing the the video game industry was less clear-cut, however ield. At the same time, and despite their very different the speakers suggested there is a growing need to perspectives, they evidently shared a real optimism consider how we might monitor the emerging market about the future of this area of research. As the of neurogaming. The panel left the audience with an session moderator, neuroscientist and neuroethicist appreciation of how neuroscience can inform the Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge University set the development of video games and the need to tone by explaining that the panelists would tackle, thoroughly consider the manner in which these “the science of what’s possible now,” but also look at technologies intersect. v “what we may be able to do in the future.”
INS 2013 Panel #1 A Morality Pill It's Complicated: The irst panelist, Molly Crockett, is a leading Molly Crocket and neuroscientist working at the University College Patricia Churchland London and the University of Zurich. She is also in the Discuss the Future of process of setting up a lab at Oxford University. She the Neuroscience of explained that, as a scientist, the aim of her Morality presentation would be to describe, “What it’s like, on By Julia Haas, Emory the ground, doing this research.” In particular, she University focused on how her own area of expertise, which is in This piece was exploring how different brain chemicals in luence originally published as a moral behavior. blog post at The Neuroethics Blog and the To start off, she emphasized, “It’s complicated.” She Neuroethics Women Leaders Blog. described how, in light of her work on the neurotransmitter serotonin, people often ask her
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 3 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 about the possibility of a morality pill. She explained that administration of she often feels compelled to point out that both the moral oxytocin enhances behaviors in question and the biological systems activity in the underlying them are very complex. For example, she brain for socially noted, her research on serotonin and sociality was picked meaningful stimuli up in the media in such as away as to suggest that and attenuates its “Enhanced serotonin biases moral judgment and decision- response to making toward sociality.” While not necessarily nonsocially inaccurate, she explained, she also wanted to make clear meaningful stimuli that there is a lot more going on. in children with autism spectrum In her talk, Crockett laid out three major reasons for why disorder (ASD) as Patricia Churchland, UCSD she believed a straightforward ‘science of moral measured via functional MRI.” But, Churchland argued, the enhancement’ would not happen overnight. First, she issue is not so simple. noted, there is ongoing discussion as to exactly what constitutes ‘moral behavior,’ and hence, what it is exactly To start, Churchland outlined some general problems with that we would want to enhance if we could. Second, she oxytocin and its recent popularity in both scienti ic detailed how the neurochemicals in question do many research and the popular press. Its mechanisms are different things: oxytocin may enhance empathy, for relatively poorly understood, it interacts with other instance, but also increase Schadenfreude in individuals neurochemicals, it makes female voles go into estrous, and participating in economic games. there is very little known about the long term effects of its administration. In addition, she added, the general and Finally, Crockett emphasized that moral behavior is highly unregulated availability of oxytocin makes it vulnerable to context-speci ic. For example, it is not clear that we would abuse. Nonetheless, the problems go even deeper for want to be helpful to anyone we meet, wherever or Churchland. The main body of her talk emphasized that whenever. There is a technical term for this kind of how oxytocin is administered and measured in human individual, she noted: “Sucker.” The audience loved the beings plays a surprising role in how the molecule joke but also certainly appreciated the point. Like becomes understood, reported, and used by scientists in cognition, morality is so complex that it cannot simply be the ield. replicated in speci ic circumstances. In human beings, oxytocin is measured by comparing In her own efforts to study morality, Crockett noted, she levels of the molecule before and after a behavioral found it useful to hone in on what she called “low-hanging manipulation. For example, a plasma sample is taken, the fruits,” that is, on behaviors that almost no one would ind participant is given a massage, and then a second plasma to be morally objectionable. As an example of such a sample is taken. Researchers then compare oxytocin levels behavior, she discussed Peter Singer's dilemma regarding to examine the effect of the manipulation. But how is the duty of easy rescue, where an agent passes a drowning oxytocin measured in these kinds of studies? Churchland child and decides whether to help or not. "These are a set explained there are two standard ways to look at plasma of behaviors we would want to target if we could," she and measure oxytocin. She described the irst method as noted. the ‘gold standard,’ using a radioimmunoassay to “tag the thing in question” on extracted, highly puri ied samples. 'Before Going Whole Hog' By contrast, the second method is commercially available The second panelist, philosopher Patricia Churchland, is and relies on a much easier-to-use enzyme-linked Professor Emerita of the Department of Philosophy immunoassay (EIA). But it has the disadvantage of often University of California San Diego. Like Crockett, not producing accurate results. Churchland emphasized that she was skeptical of the idea of a ‘morality pill’ and argued against the claim that In a recent paper, Michael McCullough, Churchland, and morality could be something like a “swiss army knife” set Armando Mendez compared the two kinds of assays. In of moral modules. But she proposed to tackle the issue addition, they tested the commercial kits independently from a slightly different perspective, proposing to examine and found that that were misidentifying all kinds of some of troubling issues surrounding the frequently molecules as oxytocin, including vasopressin. This led touted molecule of oxytocin. them to argue that the EIAs “lack reliability when used on unextracted samples of human luids, and that they tag Oxytocin is known to play an important role in childbirth, molecules in addition to oxytocin, yielding estimates that lactation, intimacy, pair bonding, and trust. In a recent are wildly discrepant with an extensive body of earlier study, researchers at Yale argued that “intranasal indings that were obtained using methods that are well validated, but more laborious.” Building on this inding, Churchland showed a rather striking comparison HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 4 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 of data. On the one hand, she showed how, using the ‘gold Clayton, Miko Schiff, Joe Fins and John Pickard at the standard’ radioimmunoassay, women in late stages of 2013 International Neuroethics Society recognized that labor register between 1-5 pc/ml of oxytocin in their we are still far from a full understanding of the biological plasma. By contrast, using the commercial kits, basis of these states of consciousness. individuals who had merely received a massage appeared to have 200 times as much oxytocin in their Brain-computer interfaces are allowing for some limited blood. Despite these shortcomings, however, Churchland communication with locked-in patients, creating what noted that the results achieved using EIAs are “widely Joe Fins calls “mosaic decision making” in which the cited and widely used in good faith to apply oxytocin to rights of the surrogate actor, the locked-in patient, and children with social dif iculties.” the weight of distributive justice must all be taken into consideration when discussing patient care and end-of- Here, Churchland made clear the ethical import of what life decisions. Communicational technologies for these earlier on she had acknowledged was a rather ‘technical’ patients is still very limited and often unreliable, and talk. She noted, “if the way you’re measuring oxytocin is conscious patients who receive an initial misdiagnosis/ unreliable, you have results that are un-interpretable, diagnosis of vegetative state may risk becoming then you have to ask yourself if it’s okay to be giving “warehoused” without regular neurologic testing to oxytocin to people with schizophrenia or with autism.” evaluate their mental state. Panelists emphasized the And then she added, “What we really need to do, before pressing need for regular, standardized neurologic going whole hog on using oxytocin as a treatment for testing for patients and the re inement of brain- socially dif icult children, is we really need to get this computer interfaces in an effort to improve the straight.” diagnostic rates as well as daily care for these patient populations. In her conclusion, Churchland acknowledged that her talk may have sounded rather negative and, in general, a The scienti ic study of consciousness still has a long way little bit too pessimistic about the neuroscience of to go, but courts cannot wait for the debate to be over morality. To counter this, she emphasized, “I think it can before they begin to implement scienti ic advances into be done.” But she emphasized that it must be done with policy. Lisa Claydon has been investigating how the use patience and care for those involved all along the way. of neuroscienti ic evidence varies in different legal jurisdictions when used to inform end of life decisions. All in all, in was an enlightening experience. I’m already The legal discussion of consciousness raises a looking forward to the 2014 International Neuroethics fundamental question: what is it that makes life worth Society meeting in Washington, DC! v living? Operationalizing phenomenological consciousness may shift the conversation from trying to INS 2013 Panel #2 de ine consciousness from the limited and often A Light in the Dark - Understanding Current Medical unreliable scienti ic evidence for conscious brain states and Legal Perspectives on Consciousness in Coma to a broader discussion of what minimally must be Patients preserved in the human experience to make it worth preserving and protecting.
The minimally conscious state was recently subcategorized based on the complexity of patient’s behaviors, but neuroscientists and legal scholars alike have recognized that the absence of command-related brain activation does not necessarily allow one to make strong claims about the absence of consciousness. Miko John Pickard, Cambridge Schiff put it best when he said, “we are working by syndromes, not a diagnosis, and these are states that By Sara Kimmich, UCSD dynamically change”. Tremendous progress in intensive care technology has increased the number of patients who survive severe We need to step away from the binary assumption that acute brain damage, leading to more cases of stabilized one is conscious or unconscious and recognize that the coma patients than ever before. This growing population brain is much more complex than we have the has created an emerging suspect class in legal cases, as technology to understand, and beyond that it may be these individuals may retain their sentience without the dif icult to ever de ine a medically and legally congruent ability to communicate and defend their legal rights. cut-off point for conscious experience. It may only be Brain-imaging studies have come a long way in testing through a true marriage of the neuroscienti ic and legal for levels of consciousness in patients in minimally ields that we develop an articulate understanding and conscious and locked-in states, but the panelists Lisa appreciation of the human consciousness. v HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 5 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 INS 2013 Panel #3: might be useful for "retraining" exercises. Can Neuroscience Inform Us About Criminality & the Next to speak was Catherine Sebastian, from Royal Holloway, Capacity for Rehabilitation? University of London. Her talk focused on her area of expertise — "Neural Bases of Emotional Processing in Adolescence." Prof. Sebastian opened by noting that adolescence is a recent concept. The term "teenager" was unattested in 1941; on the other hand, speci ic characteristics of youth are recognized throughout history. Although de ining adolescence is quite dif icult, most agree that it roughly spans the second decade of life. Boundary- drawing issues aside, the available evidence establishes that adolescents are different from humans of all other ages — in David Jentsch, UCLA mortality risk despite average health, in risk-taking, and in incidence of mental illness, among others — due in part to By Roland Nadler, Stanford University continuing cortical development and gray matter thinning. Although it was the third set of presentations in a very full day, the panel addressing the neuroscience of criminality Prof. Sebastian explained that there are competing models of and rehabilitation at the 2013 meeting of the International adolescent brain development. One is the Developmental Neuroethics Society had no trouble keeping the audience Mismatch Model — limbic regions (the metaphorical “gas fully engaged. The irst three speakers gave lectures that, in pedal” for risky behavior) develop irst, and prefrontal sum, provided a comprehensive overview of the latest regions (the “brake pedal”) later, leading to the widely research on the adolescent brain and teenage behavior. This observed increase in risky behavior. Meanwhile, the Social elegantly set up for the inal talk, in which a local Superior Information Processing Network Model emphasizes the role Court judge shared his stories of juvenile offenders and of social context: it stresses at the onset of puberty, issued a call for exactly the sort of collaborative work that hormones remodel the dopaminergic system, leading to the Society exists to foster. increased sensitivity to social rewards. Starting off the panel was Mauricio Delgado of Rutgers, who Neuroimaging studies lend mixed support to the models. specializes in social & affective neuroscience — in particular, Most teenage brains exhibit increased amygdala response to investigating how we learn from reward & punishment. His faces while performing tasks that require cognitive control. talk, titled "Social Context & Reward Processing in the Neural responses to peer rejection are less strong in the Human Brain," began by asking: what is reward? De ining it teenage ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, suggesting that there as a stimulus with a positive hedonic value, capable of is much less executive regulation of these emotions (which eliciting approach behavior or subjective feelings of pleasure actually supports both models). Moreover, the "driving (hedonia), Prof. Delgado then summarized the research he under the in luence of peers" result from the previous talk is aimed to present. Its goal, he said, was to investigate how mediated by the ventral striatum, supporting both theories. social context can in luence neural circuits of reward Whichever theory is correct, though, we know that most of processing and in luence decisions. these effects fade away post-adolescence. We should therefore balk at inferring future criminality from peer- In terms of neuroanatomy, such research focuses on in luenced juvenile criminality. Indeed, adolescence appears corticostriatal loops. The striatum (consisting of the caudate to be a highly opportune moment for rehabilitation, owing to nucleus and the putamen) is part of a system for increased brain plasticity. representing reward-values that help guide future actions — not only in response to material rewards, but also approval Turning to abnormal adolescent psychology, Prof. Sebastian or acceptance by others. Moreover, said Delgado, rewards asked: what can we do about extreme antisocial behavior in feel more valuable contextually — in imaging studies, teenagers? To begin with, we can at least differentiate participants show greater ventral striatal activity when they conduct problems into subtypes. One such category involves win the game in the presence of a friend rather than a near- callous-unemotional traits: lack of guilt or empathy, stranger. In fact, the striatum of the observing friend manipulative behavior, minimal social affect. “C-U” responds almost as strongly as the player’s. adolescents are much less responsive to typical interventions for young offenders, and much likelier to These results suggest that the presence of a peer can have a become lifelong criminals. Meanwhile, other children with maladaptive in luence on behavior and risk-taking. Indeed, conduct disorders but low C-U traits are over-responsive to other research shows that playing a driving simulator “under emotional stimuli. Our recognition of very different pro iles the in luence” of peers impairs risk-related decision-making within the diagnostic category of antisocial behavior, then, — but only for adolescents. The news is not all grim, though: deserves attention in the juvenile criminal system. Delgado suggested that peer presence could also be advantageous for rehabilitative purposes. Social context Nor should we give up on intervention-resistant C-U teens; HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 6 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 maybe neuroscience can still help, perhaps with more defendants’ fortunes depend — is to understand the nature personalized treatments. As a case study of better tailoring, of the barrier between neuroscience and the law. Prof. Sebastian highlighted the UK’s "Let's Get Smart" program, which emphasizes immediate reward rather than Whatever the reason for punishment. The program’s behavioral targets are set in an that barrier, Judge individualized fashion, and the reward levels are Trentacosta clearly incremental; even more importantly for C-U juveniles, the believes in the value of role of other people is emphasized in the provision of breaking it down. As a rewards, which extrinsically provides the intrinsically concrete example of the lacking inclination to please other people. bene its that criminal law can reap from empiricism, The panel’s third speaker, David Jentsch of UCLA, studies he noted California’s neurochemical mechanisms of cognitive control and system of pre-sentencing prosocial behavior. His presentation was titled "Voluntary risk assessment. This Hon. Robert Trentacosta Inhibition of Problematic Behaviors: Origins and In luences," system’s actuarial tool and it began with a key conceptual point: our brains are usefully predicts the likelihood of recidivism, and a team susceptible to reward and punishment, but we expect consisting of (among others) the probation / parole of icer, a individuals to control responses, and what we think of as member of the treatment team, and a polygraph expert criminality is essentially a failure of this capacity for control. makes use of this information. This "containment model," The underlying behaviors themselves make motivational which became mandatory on July 1, 2012, has met with sense: people steal because they are hungry, they assault considerable success. because they are angry, they use drugs seeking pleasure or relief. Thus, problematic behaviors are more productively Judge Trentacosta saw considerable potential in applying the understood as failures of control than as psychopathological. previous talks’ insights about the role of peers in juvenile misbehavior to combating gang culture among youth. The Prof. Jentsch drew on B.F. Skinner’s reasoning from “Beyond inding that adolescents display high levels of impulsivity, of Freedom & Dignity” to suggest that immediate and reliable course, would surprise few judges. Still, such research could punishment should decrease the frequency of these control lead to practical insights that would be tremendously useful failures. But, he explained — echoing Prof. Delgado’s earlier in the kinds of juvenile cases Trentacosta sees; he would be emphasis — we must update Skinner’s maxim to account for glad to have better tools for motivating kids to clean up their context dependency, and also for the existence of deep acts. Improved tools for dealing with mentally ill felony individual differences in the ability to exercise this defendants would also alleviate much frustration, since contextual control. currently we lack good options for them.
Stated in terms of functional neuroanatomy, the threat of After sharing an uplifting anecdote about one of the few punishment recruits the inferior frontal gyrus and young, mentally ill convicts he has dealt with who proved orbitofrontal cortex (self-control) to suppress impulses from fortunate and resilient enough to turn his life around, Judge deeper in the brain. This helps explain why frontotemporal Trentacosta delivered one of the most enthusiastically dementia patients behave impulsively, and why individual received lines of the entire conference: he called for the differences in dopamine receptor density predict impulse integration of legally relevant neuroscience into the law control ability and addiction susceptibility. Conversely, high school curriculum. As an aspiring academic in the ield of dopamine receptor density predicts success in addiction neurolaw, I particularly relished hearing this idea endorsed rehabilitation. Interestingly, a rich and supportive social by a judge. Indeed, our fundamentally interdisciplinary environment also correlates with this kind of receptor Society thrives in part thanks to such institutional support density. Whether or not this correlation re lects anything for neuroscience literacy beyond science departments — and causal, it could help in the formation of better interventions its future leaders will depend on growth in this area. for offenders — and, judging from the content of the previous two talks, this might prove especially true for juveniles, Overall, the panel’s four speakers presented mutually- thanks to their superior neuroplasticity. reinforcing perspectives. Judge Trentacosta’s wish for Capping off the panel was Hon. Robert Trentacosta, a practical rehabilitative tools from neuroscience appears presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court. Judge possible, in principle, to ful ill via building on the research Trentacosta acknowledged the terrible gravity of sentencing: presented by Profs. Delgado, Sebastian, and Jentsch. This as a judicial act that deprives citizens of liberty and feeds level of agreement was not a foregone conclusion; other legal them into our carceral state, it prompts judges to draw on minds might have challenged the consensus that the justi ied legal education, experience, and even intuition. But all too approach to criminality is rehabilitative rather than punitive. often, in Judge Trentacosta’s view, the decision goes Of course, disagreements over punishment theory are only uninformed by the best available scienti ic understanding. A sometimes productive, so perhaps a relatively harmonious irst priority for neuroethicists, then — one on which many panel was for the best. v HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 7 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 Meet a Member Karen Rommelfanger
Meet Karen Rommelfanger!
Where were you born? Born in Okinawa, Japan
Where were you educated and what did you study? Received PhD in Neuroscience from Emory University. M.S. in Neurotoxicology/Neuropharmacology from University of Texas at Austin, and B.S. in Chemistry from Angelo State University.
Where do you live now? Atlanta, GA
What initially drew you to Neuroethics and when? What initially drew me to study the brain were essentially neuroethics topics: I wanted to know how new indings in brain sciences informed our societal values and also informed who we were. More naively, I wanted to understand the nature of the mind. As a neuroscientist working on age-related brain degeneration in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, I became intimately aware of how basic neuroscience indings challenge the distinction between what has there was a name and a ield dedicated to these topics. traditionally been considered psychological and Soon after, I found that the name for all of this neurological phenomena. I also became aware of the fascinating stuff was neuroethics, I learned that one of hurdles for patients as society lags in incorporating the key leaders in the ield, Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, was at these indings into clinical care. Through my research my home institution of Emory University directing the and confronting these ethical issues, it became clear Center for Ethics. I then sought out Paul and Dr. Gillian that the next phase of my career would be irmly rooted Hue a fellow alumna from the Emory Neuroscience in bioethics. I was fortunate to be awarded an Program who was working at the Center as a Science interdisciplinary neuroscience fellowship that allowed and Society Fellow. I got plugged into their networks me to pursue empirical neuroethics work. My current (because they were gracious enough to bring me in) research focus on placebo and psychogenic disorders and learned about the society (then the Neuroethics illustrate how patients suffer when ethical discussions Society) from them. I attended because I was already do not keep pace with neuroscienti ic advances. (link to presenting at the Society for Neuroscience Conference. I recent Nature Reviews Neurology paper: loved every minute of that conference and knew I had http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23628738) found a home in neuroethics. How did you get involved with the International What area of Neuroethics interests you the most? Neuroethics Society? That’s tough to answer because I really have three pet I became acquainted with the term “neuroethics” interests. My current research is largely related to through some research I was doing toward my career clinical neuroethics and how neuroscience challenges development. I owe a lot of gratitude to my personal de initions of disease and medicine particularly as it network for my formal involvement with neuroethics relates to medically unexplained illness and placebo (as and INS. While I was a postdoctoral fellow in basic in the recent special issue of AJOB Neuroscience on the neuroscience laboratories, during my “free time”, I recent Brain Matters 3 Conference, that Dr. Paul Ford would research topics that interested me--that at the from the Cleveland Clinic and I edited). As someone time were outside the scope of the nuts and bolts of who has worked with virtually every biological model what I did in the laboratory--without knowing that in neuroscience using a wide array of
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 8 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 neurotechnologies (from designing ligands for brain AJOB-Neuroscience Discount imaging to deep brain stimulation technologies), I am especially interested in cognitive enhancement or Members of the International “enabling” brain interfacing technologies. I am also Neuroethics Society can purchase a keenly interested in examining not just biases that might combined print and online occur during the interpretation of neuroscience indings subscription to AJOB-Neuroscience but the biases that occur in designing neuroscienti ic for the special rate of $40 per studies, particularly those that claim or being with the volume year - regular rate is assumption that the brain is hard-wired (and therefore $60. See our website for more in lexible) for harmful tendencies toward racist or sexist details. ideologies and behaviors. And, on a more personal level, as a bicultural individual of Asian descent, I am The top 25 abstracts from 2013 annual interested in pursuing neuroethics from an East Asian International Neuroethics Society Meeting will be philosophical stance (as opposed to the current bias published in AJOB-Neuroscience soon v toward an ethics rooted in Western Judeo-Christian thought). and prodromal work being done by our colleagues at Marcus Autism Center) meaning neuroethicists will be What projects are you currently involved in? called upon to guide how a healthcare system that is My research focus is on how neuroscience informs increasingly oriented toward risk-management (and de initions of disease and medicine. To do this I explore prodromal analysis) will manage emerging technologies ethical issues around placebo therapy (as opposed to for prodromal diagnosis. A third topic that will be of placebo in clinical trials) and psychogenic movement increasing interest is exploring our own bias in cognitive disorders (disorders that mimic movement disorders neuroscience and social psychology research design. The with a known pathology, but cannot be attributed with rise of feminist science studies will be a key movement current technologies to an known organic pathology). that will in luence those who are interested in gaining With my research I have also been working to build insight on human psychology. Finally, I believe that as collaborations with investigators in Japan and China to these neuroethical issues come to the fore and will provide another cultural perspective to my neuroethics continue to come to the fore across the globe, we will inquiry. I also actively work on creating innovating need to learn to address neuroethical issues from teaching in neuroethics as well as work on building perspective that go beyond western perspectives. I professional resources for women in neuroethics. Seeing believe this work has already begun and gaining a need in our neuroethics community, I founded momentum slowly. And beyond just global academic NeuroEthics Women (NEW) Leaders (http:// communities, neuroethics will need to be brought to the neuroethicswomenleaders.com/) Related to my work on general public. Unlike concerns with genomics where the improving women’s professionalization, we recently onus largely lies on professionals in the ield, the public held a neuroethics symposium at Emory where we has a much greater investment in actually being DIY discussed the neural bases of gender/race stereotype neuroscientists, from building your own (DIY) and bias and are working to use these data to inform the transcranial direct current stimulation to crowd-sourced generation of guidelines to mitigate harmful effect of neuroscience data collection to commercial access to stereotype bias in academic settings. neural “lie detection” services. These technologies have left the relative safety and regulation found in clinical Where do you see the future of neuroethics heading and research settings to a commercial and public setting in the next ive years? with largely no oversight. I see a couple of key topics on the horizon. I think My hope is that the priority of the EU and U.S. for studies exploration of non-human animal personhood (vs. an in neuroscience and brain mapping will make funding exploration of de ining “humanness”) will come neuroethics research and education (for both academic increasingly into question. The increase in animal law and public audiences) a priority. We’re lucky to have had programs, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness several INS members including Drs. Nita Farahany, and Animals, and a growing body of work that enables us Steven Hyman, and Paul Root Wolpe at the recent US to interface intact human and non-human animal brains President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical will bring into question whether we need new ethical Issues to testify about the role of neuroethics and guidelines for research that utilizes non-human animals importance of neuroethics education. I believe that top in research and beyond the research setting. I also universities across the globe have insight into the believe there will be increasing capacity to detect importance of neuroethics and we will increasingly see neurological and psychiatric disorders prior to their neuroethics programs and training available clinical presentation (as with the Alzheimer’s biomarker exponentially.
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 9 INVESTORINTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NEUROETHICS ISSUE N°3 SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARYFALL 20142009
What advice would you give to someone looking to Three Visions of Diversity in Neuroethics break into the ield of neuroethics? I would suggest they try to write about their interests or interview someone who they admire in the ield. I’ve been fortunate that during my research on neuroethics, I was able to ind some fantastic mentors, like Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, who not only support you and share their networks with you, but also challenge you to grow and allow you room to take risks. Going to the INS meeting is a great start because right now at least, it’s a more intimate setting of attendees in the range of the hundreds versus thousands (or tens of thousands like Society for Neuroscience).
I also recommend that they look to Dr. Martha Farah’s (from UPenn’s Center for Neuroscience and Society— https://sites.sas.upenn.edu/neuroethics) awesome resources on neuroethics that include a great collection of video archives of neuroethics topics. We also have By Nicholas S. Fitz and Roland Nadler weekly write-ups on current neuroethics topics on our blog, The Neuroethics Blog This article is being printed through an INS collaboration (www.theneuroethicsblog.com), which is also the with David Kopf Instruments and has been printed in the of icial blog of INS’s journal American Journal of Kopf Carrier, Issue #78 (September 2013) Bioethics (AJOB) Neuroscience (www.ajobneuroscience.com). Reading articles from Nearly ive years have passed since the inaugural the journals Neuroethics (http://www.springer.com/ meeting of the International Neuroethics Society, and social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/12152) and just over a decade since the ield’s of icial date of birth. AJOB Neuroscience is a great place to start too. Now seems an apt time to re lect on where we in neuroethics have been and where we might yet go. We I also don't think there’s just one way to enter and it are two students who have worked at the National Core depends what they want to do. There is a lot of room in for Neuroethics and have been involved in the ield and a new ield to ind a place for yourself; you just have to active in the Society since our undergraduate years. We work out a clear idea of what you want (whether a write to offer our perspectives on the various meanings opportunity is currently obviously available or not). of “diversity” for neuroethics: what it might look like, Importantly, I’ve been told by many successful and where we risk faltering, what we could aspire to. powerful mentors to “not take ‘no’ for an answer,” or as Dr. Judy Illes told me, “‘no’ is just another way to get to Vision 1: Intellectual Diversity yes.” Although we share the opinion that neuroethics stands What was the last country you visited and why? as a ield of scholarship in its own right, we do view it as I visited Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University in China, one of an unusual one. Neuroethics consists of a set of issues, the oldest and most prestigious medical universities in questions, and concerns that form a meeting ground for China. I presented to clinicians about my neuroethics a variety of disciplines. The ield has been described as research and also was working to ind collaborators dealing with two areas of inquiry: (1) the ethics of who could help me provide a new cultural perspective neuroscience and (2) the neuroscience of ethics on neuroethical issues (speci ically as they relate to (Roskies 2002). That maxim serves as a useful neuroscience and health). summary, but we prefer an alternate conception, one presenting the ield as organized around two questions: Do you have a favorite quotation? “No is just another way to get to yes” and “don’t take (1) How do we responsibly wield and situate our ‘no’ for an answer” have been my mantras. Thanks to increasing technological power over the brain: in Drs. Hue and Illes for impressing these ideas on me. research, in medicine, in law and policy, and so on? (2) v How might we human beings understand ourselves and our societies in an era where discoveries about the brain complicate fundamental concepts like self, identity, consciousness, action, responsibility, choice, even right and wrong themselves (Reiner 2011)? (Continued on page 12) HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 10 INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3 FALL 2009 What Are INS Members Doing? Each issue, we publish short updates about what our members are engaged in. It might include talks, papers, classes, books, or anything else our diverse membership is up to. All members are free to submit information about themselves or others to [email protected]. Blurbs should be 50 words or less, to be published on approval.
Patricia Churchland and Nita Farahany spoke at The Paul Root Wolpe and Karen Rommelfanger hosted Brain Mapping Initiatives: Foundational Issues the 2013 Emory University Neuroethics Symposium, conference at New York University http:// Bias in the Academy. bioethics.as.nyu.edu/object/brain.html http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/p/events.html
Patricia Churchland re lects on the application of Barbara Sahakian participates in the BBC Radio neuroscience to philosophical speculation http:// Programme "Controlling Moods and Minds: Depression www.dana.org/News/ and Smart Drugs." http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Patricia_Churchland__Making_Waves/ programmes/b03g2wkm
Congratulations to Martha J. Farah, who was awarded Barbara Sahakian was quoted in a press release on the 2013 SfN Science Educator Award the anti-depressant activities of the moda inil http://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ Archives/2013/Science-Ed-and-Outreach- 2013/11/131127115355.htm Awards-2013 John Trimper led at discussion at the Emory Nita Farahany discusses the implications of neurolaw Neuroethics Journal Club on the ethical issues behind at the annual SfN meeting http:// Brain to Brain Interface Technologies and Katie Strong www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/10/us-rise- blogged about it defendants-blame-brains-crimes-neuroscience? http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/10/ CMP=twt_gu neuroethics-journal-club-ethical-issues.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/ 2013/11/12/244566090/brain-scans-shouldnt-get- their-day-in-court-scientists-say See member news here
Julia Haas blogged about Molly Crockett and Patricia Churchland’s discussion on the neuroscience of morality at INS 2013. http:// Read a Good Book Lately? neuroethicswomenleaders.com/2013/12/12/its- complicated-molly-crocket-and-patricia-churchland- discuss-the-future-of-the-neuroscience-of-morality/ INS members would like to hear about it. If you have enjoyed a book or ilm and would like to share with Roland Nadler posted on the Stanford Center for Law the membership, please send a brief review to and the Biosciences blog regarding electroceutical ads [email protected]. We can use http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/ everything from scholarly works and documentaries 2013/10/24/electroceutical-ads-are-here-what-will- regulators-say/ to iction and they don't need to be long -- a few paragraphs will do -- and they don't need to be new Peter Reiner blogs about Experimental Neuroethics -- just relevant to the ield of neuroethics. Share your http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/11/ inds with colleagues. experimental-neuroethics_5.html
Paul Root Wolpe and Karen Rommelfanger hosted “Zombies and Zombiethics” at the Emory University Center for Ethics http://ethics.emory.edu/Events/ Zombethics_2013.html
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 11 INVESTORINTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NEUROETHICS ISSUE N°3 SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARYFALL 20142009
(Continued from page 10) formulation of the topical agenda for neuroethics (viz. The topical focus, however, only constitutes half of “how shall we understand ourselves in a neurocentric what makes neuroethics distinctive. To see why, it will age?”). Neuroethics (as well as other neuro-topics that be illustrative to consider the history of bioethics. may grow and splinter into their own ields) will Neuroethics is not bioethics, but the former has grown succeed in large part based on its ability to cultivate an up in the shadow of the latter. Bioethics began as a open space of intellectual diversity in which all richly interdisciplinary endeavor. Into the 1970s and participants are able to listen beyond their own 80s, though, it became nearly a wholly-owned backgrounds. We feel that the International subsidiary of academic philosophy (Wilson 2013). Neuroethics Society has made a commendable start in During this time, although valuable work was done, the this direction, even as we perceive room for further ield was criticized for myopia. It was not until the improvement. "empirical turn" in the 90s that bioethics would truly return to a "big tent" approach. In reviewing the work of the ield thus far, a nagging concern regarding topical diversity arises: neuroethics Neuroethics, too, has started off on an inclusive foot. is still neglecting some key issues. Certainly, the ield But we would do well to be particularly mindful of has done quite well in analyzing important topics – similar dangers – of allowing the perspectives, imaging, enhancement, free will, responsibility, assumptions, or methodologies of any one discipline to neurotechnology, dementia, neurolaw, and incidental dominate the ield. For neuroethics, the stakes are indings (to name but a few). Yet weighty issues fall heightened because different disciplines tend toward under the mandate of the ield that have received different visions of the endeavor, with many (though comparatively little attention: drug policy, cultural not all) of the more critical and de lationary accounts of neuroscience, medicalization and psychiatric diagnosis, neuroscience's implications coming from scholars in novel consumer technology, neuroscience in the public the humanities, and many (though not all) of the more sphere, moral psychology, and more. To keep from enthusiastic accounts coming from philosophy and running in conceptual circles, we should actively solicit from the natural and social sciences. This worry is not discussions that are not yet canonical. Indeed, defused by the ease with which a neuroscienti ic angle neuroethics has a proven track record of burgeoning can be infused into other disciplines - e.g., topical diversity – we simply want to make sure that neuroeconomics, neurolaw, neuroaesthetics - because it this tradition of boundary-pushing continues into the is not the mushrooming of these crossover topics that ield’s second decade. makes neuroethics interdisciplinary. Rather, what makes neuroethics interdisciplinary is the way that it Vision 2: Political Diversity draws together perspectives from diverse ields to comment on topics like neuroeconomics, neurolaw, et While the metaphor is imperfect, ields like bioethics cetera. Seen in this light, neuroethics appears as a and neuroethics are comparable in some ways to symposium – a space where scholars of all stripes might regulatory agencies. They observe and comment on the work together on important issues. activities of professionals. They issue assessments and recommendations that shape particular spheres of We urge everyone in the ield to view and treat it as human activity. And they are vulnerable to capture – such. In particular, we encourage active outreach to the predicament in which a body advances the interests bring in as many disciplinary perspectives – both from of the domains it "regulates" rather than serving the within and beyond academia – as possible. Neuroethics public interest. Arguably, something akin to capture will lourish as never before when our meetings attract befell bioethics during its philosophy-dominated days; more than token representation of thinkers from a the ield was accused of being little more than the panoply of departments and occupations: historians to public-relations wing of medicine (Wilson 2013), and impart the lessons of past interactions between science such allegations have never entirely subsided (De Vries and society; scholars of literature and media to furnish and Keirns 2009, Turner 2004). Neuroethics may run a insight into how neuroscience is embodied in the public similar risk. The promise of pro it in areas like imagination; political theorists to consider how a neuromarketing or the pharmaceutical industry could neuroscienti ically informed view can (or cannot) lead technological pioneers to seek out too-cozy inform institutional design and good governance; relationships with cash-starved research groups; if this statisticians to challenge and improve the quality our were to happen, even neuroethicists wholly free of empirical work; policymakers to help guide our ethos of con licts of interest would suffer by association, so impacting the world; journalists to inform and engage everyone ought to care. Likewise, even inancially the public – the list continues. Scholars from the independent commentators in neuroethics would risk humanities would be particularly well suited to the appearance of corruption if their assessments of comment insightfully on the second half of our ethically and politically contentious new technologies
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 12 INVESTORINTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NEUROETHICS ISSUE N°3 SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARYFALL 20142009 were to amount to uncritical endorsements. Of course, able to comprehensively list the important axes of overcorrecting for this potentiality would also back ire: diversity) – although demographic data to verify that neuroethics would fade into tiresome irrelevance if it this is the case would be most welcome. were to become nothing more than the dedicated opposition lobby to any neurotechnological As neuroethicists, we owe our important endeavor the development – in other words, we cannot style epistemological favor of seeking out marginalized and ourselves as the “ethics police.” But relative to the minority perspectives. As two white men writing this allure of inancial stability, no equivalent force is pulling article from a position of privilege, we hesitate to imply neuroethics in an obstructionist direction. Nor can we that such perspectives are actually in short supply; wave away this concern by naively insisting that people rather, we prefer to challenge ourselves and our working in a ield with "ethics" in the name are colleagues to seek out these perspectives and signal- therefore any less susceptible to con licts of interest boost them. The questions we address are too (Schwitzgebel, Rust, 2013). important to risk missing a key angle due to an insuf iciently diverse set of lived experiences informing If neuroethics is to operate from a place of transparency our work. and equipoise between competing interests, it must not remain apolitical. We do not mean that it must take This is an especially pressing concern because sides in the broader political culture war; rather, we neuroethics deals extensively with questions of urge neuroethicists to recognize that the ield has its normality, mental illness, moral psychology, own internal politics – that is, a set of competing visions (neuro)biological essentialism, cultural stigma, about what is healthy for the ield, whose interests to research ethics, and the social implications of drug and favor, which ideas are treated as axiomatic, how technology policy, all of which are topics of tremendous research agendas are prioritized, and why the ield consequence in the history of majoritarian exists. It is crucial that neuroethicists engage in mistreatment of people at society's margins. Moreover, discussion and, yes, disagreement about these and more fundamentally, we view ethics as an endeavor competing visions. Failing to do so will not preserve a that requires critique – and thus critical perspectives – state of comfortable neutrality. Rather, it will leave to function properly. No set of ex ante ethical guidelines neuroethics vulnerable to covert colonization by will ever fully succeed in yielding ethically whichever ideology happens to be most natural, most unproblematic outcomes; the project is always already effective, or – worse yet – most pro itable. a work in progress. We need, for example, work in the tradition of Cordelia Fine, whose admirable efforts to The importance of mature – even uncomfortable – explicate the problematic assumptions informing political discussion as a prophylaxis against capture studies on gender differences elegantly demonstrate further reinforces the need to bring diverse intellectual why ethical research merely begins, and certainly does perspectives to the table. In particular, neuroethics not end, with the approval of institutional review needs humanities scholars with expertise in the art of boards. Strengthening neuroethics in this regard will critique to foster such exchange. Much credit is owed to require more outreach, and more limelight for the "critical neuroscience" movement for pioneering boundary-pushing work. Moreover, it will require more some important lines of thought in this regard. effortful inclusion of minority perspectives into the Nonetheless, we feel more work remains to be done. cornerstones of the ield.
Vision 3: Identity Diversity Conclusion
We have thus far placed heavy emphasis on intellectual Here, we have offered three views of diversity for diversity in neuroethics. Diversity along other axes, neuroethics: intellectual, political, and identity. Given however, is no less important. Here the ield has the brilliance and open-mindedness displayed in the already made some admirable strides. Neuroethics in ield thus far, we are hopeful that our call will shape its general boasts a strong global presence, and its future. Indeed, we know that by working together, we professional Society is international in more than just can all turn these visions into reality. name thanks in large part to the tireless advocacy of Authors Judy Illes. The ield also boasts an impressive array of women in founding and leadership positions, with more Roland Nadler is a second-year JD student at Stanford likely to emerge thanks to the commendable work of Law School, where he is co-president of the Stanford the Neuroethics Women Leaders group. Nonetheless, Interdisciplinary Group in Neuroscience and Law. He more must be done. Neuroethics at least appears to holds a BA in Philosophy (Mind, Brain, and Behavior) remain overwhelmingly Anglophone, white, upper from Harvard and a Master's degree in Interdisciplinary class, neurotypical, and so on (we do not presume to be Studies (Neuroethics) from the University of British Columbia. He has worked as a Graduate Research HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 13 INVESTORINTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NEUROETHICS ISSUE N°3 SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARYFALL 20142009
Assistant at the National Core for Neuroethics and an External Research Consultant for the MacArthur Attending a meeting? Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. He hopes to continue with neuroethics We want to hear about it! and neurolaw in a research or academic capacity after law school. There are lots of meetings coming up this fall where neuroethics will be discussed - check the calendar on Nicholas S. Fitz is a Research Associate at the National the last page of this newsletter for some of them! Core for Neuroethics, Faculty of Medicine and graduate Your fellow INS members will be interested in student in Psychology & Ethics at the University of hearing about talks and presentations you’ve seen. So British Columbia. His research lies at the intersections please write a short (100-200 word) report on the of neuroethics, social & moral psychology, public health, neuroethics scene at your favorite conferences and and evidence-based policy. send it to us. We’ll publish it in the next newsletter under your byline. v Bibliography De Vries, R. G., and C. C. Keirns. 2009. Does money make bioethics go ‘round? American Journal of Bioethics 8(8): 65–67. Elliott, C. 2005. Should journals publish industry- funded bioethics articles? The Lancet 366.9483: 422– 424. Evan J. H. 2011. The History and Future of Bioethics. Oxford University Press. Illes, J., Sahakian, B. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jecker N. S., et al. 2007. Bioethics: Introduction to History, Methods, and Practice. Jones & Bartlett. McWhirter, R. E. 2012. The history of bioethics: implications for current debates in health research. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55(3): 329–338 Reiner, P. B. 2011. The rise of neuroessentialism. In The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, ed. J. Illes and B. Be an INS Ambassador - Bring in Sahakian, 161–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2 new members and extend your Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35: 21–23 membership Schwitzgebel, E., and Rust, J. 2013. The moral behavior of ethics professors: relationships among self-reported for one year for free! behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology Online First 22 Jan 2013. Sharpe, V. A. 2002. Bioethics: centres reveal sponsors but not policy. Nature 418: 583. Singer P. A., Viens, A. M. 2008. The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics. Cambridge University Press. Turner L. 2004. Bioethic$ Inc. Nature Biotechnology 22(8): 947–948. Wilson, D. 2013. What can history do for bioethics? Bioethics 27(4): 215–223. v
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 14 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014 Calendar
January 13-24, 2014 Law and Neuroscience Winter School, The University of Pavia, Italy The Law and Neuroscience Winter School aims to give lawyers, philosophers, neuroscientists and behavioral scientists the chance to study how neuroscience impacts different legal systems. More information available here
February 6, 2014 The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art, University of Pennsylvania A conversation between neurologists and art critics on how the human brain evolved to appreciate beauty. More information here
March 14, 2014 Cambridge Neuroscience Seminar, University of Cambridge This one-day symposium is hosted by the Department of Engineering, Cambridge. More information here
March 12-14 Brain Matters Vancouver, Vancouver, BC Brain Matters! Vancouver is an exciting venue for researchers, thinkers and members of the public to come together and explore the implications of brain science and social responsibility. See more information here
April 3, 2014 Optogenetics: Controlling the Brain with Light, University of Oxford A one-day symposium describing the latest developments and applications of optogenetic approaches in neuroscience. More information here
July 28-August 6, 2014 Neuroscience Boot Camp, University of Pennsylvania The Penn Neuroscience Boot Camp is designed to give participants a basic foundation in cognitive and affective neuroscience and to equip them to be informed consumers of neuroscience research. More information here
Review our event calendar online and submit your events to [email protected] v
How to Update Your Profile Information on the Int’l Neuroethics Society Website
1. Login in using your username and password on www.neuroethicssociety.org. If you have forgotten, email the INS administrator at [email protected]. 2. Click on the MEMBERS tab on the horizontal toolbar. 3. Select MY PROFILE. 4. Your Name Page should appear; select EDIT. PROFILE. Here you can update your photo, change your basic contact information, username, password, current institution, etc. You can mark items as private and even pay your dues. 4. Click the SAVE button.
That’s all there is to it. We are encouraging all members to check their pro iles and make sure that all the information is up to date.
v
HTTP://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG 15 INTERNATIONAL NEUROETHICS SOCIETY NEWSLETTER JANUARY 2014
Social Media
Join the INS LinkedIn Group! Twitter
Would you like to access Follow INS on Twitter at news, papers, meeting @neuroethicsinfo! announcements, and job openings with a neuroethics focus, selected just for INS members? Then join the INS LinkedIn group! It is a bene it of your membership. You can Follow us on also react to the postings and Facebook put up your own papers and announcements. To join, search for International Neuroethics Society on LinkedInv
INS Newsletter Terrell Brotherton, Editor Verity Brown, University of St. Andrews, Advisor P.O. Box 34252, Bethesda, Maryland 20827 www.neuroethicssociety.org
Our mission is to promote the development and responsible application of neuroscience through interdisciplinary and international research, education, outreach and public engagement for the bene it of people of all nations, ethnicities, and cultures. Questions and comments about the International Neuroethics Society should be directed to Karen Graham, Executive Director, [email protected]
HTTPA://WWW.NEUROETHICSSOCIETY.ORG A 16