Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:57:48.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroethics: A Conceptual Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

MICHELE FARISCO ,
ARLEEN SALLES  and
KATHINKA EVERS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In this article, we begin by identifying three main neuroethical approaches: neurobioethics, empirical neuroethics, and conceptual neuroethics. Our focus is on conceptual approaches that generally emphasize the need to develop and use a methodological modus operandi for effectively linking scientific (i.e., neuroscience) and philosophical (i.e., ethics) interpretations. We explain and assess the value of conceptual neuroethics approaches and explain and defend one such approach that we propose as being particularly fruitful for addressing the various issues raised by neuroscience: fundamental neuroethics.

Keywords

neuroethicsneuroscienceneurobioethicsempirical neuroethicsconceptual neuroethics
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 717 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under the Specific Grant Agreement No. 720270 (Human Brain Project SGA1) and Specific Grant Agreement No. 785907 (Human Brain Project SGA2). The first two authors contributed equally to the article.

References

Notes

1. Racine, E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Racine, E. Debates about Neuroethics: Perpectives on its Development, Focus, and Future. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Roskies, A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 2002;35(1):21–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Roskies, A. Neuroethics. In: Zalta, EN, ed. The Stanford Enciclopedia of Philosophy. 2016; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroethics/ (last accessed 20 June 2017).Google Scholar

5. Evers, K, Salles, A, Farisco, M. Theoretical framing of neuroethics: The need for a conceptual approach. In: Racine, E, Aspler, J, eds. Debates about Neuroethics: Perspectives on its Development, Focus and Future. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing; 2017:89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Northoff, G. What is neuroethics? Empirical and theoretical neuroethics. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2009;22(6):565–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Salles, A, Evers, K. Social neuroscience and neuroethics: A fruitful synergy. In: Ibanez, A, Sedeno, L, Garcia, A, eds. Social Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing; 2017:531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. In logical terms, given some conditions, a healthy brain is necessary and sufficient for mental life.

9. Evers, K. Neuroetique. Quand la matière s’éveille. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2009.Google Scholar

10. Model and simulation are here assumed in their conceptual, not technical sense. For a taxonomy of models and simulation see Farisco M, Kotaleski JH, Evers K. Large-scale brain simulation and disorders of consciousness. Mapping technical and conceptual issues. Frontiers in Psychology 2018;9:585.

11. Cartwright, N. If no capacities, then no credible worlds, but can models reveal capacities? Erkenntnis 2009;70(1):45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Northoff, G. The Spontaneous Brain. From Mind–Body Problem To World-Brain Problem. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 2018.Google Scholar

13. Giere, R. Using models to represent reality. In: Magnani, LN, Thagard, P, eds. Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. New York: Springer; 1999:41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. See note 12, Northoff 2018.

15. We should note in parenthesis that this need for a conceptual synthesis is true for both a data-led hypothesis-generating strategy based on predictive computational simulation modelling within a Big Data science framework and the traditional hypothesis-lead approach based on the interpretation of empirical data. Regarding these different approaches see Frackowiak, R, Markram, H. The future of human cerebral cartography: A novel approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 2015;370(1668): pii: 20140171.Google Scholar

16. See note 9, Evers 2009.

17. See note 5, Evers et al. 2017.

18. Melo-Martin, I, Intemman, K. Interpreting evidence: Why values matter as much as science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 2012;55(1):59–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. See note 9, Evers 2009.

20. Evers, K. Towards a philosophy for neuroethics. An informed materialist view of the brain might help to develop theoretical frameworks for applied neuroethics. EMBO Rep 2007;8(Spec No):S48–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. Evers, K. Neuroethics: A philosophical challenge. American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5(2):31–3, discussion at W3–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. See note 3, Roskies 2002.

23. See note 9, Evers 2009.

24. See note 20, Evers 2007.

25. Changeux, J-P (transl Garey L). Neuronal Man: The Biology of Mind. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar

26. LeDoux, JE. Synaptic Self : How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Viking; 2002.Google Scholar

27. Edelman, GM. Neural Darwinism: The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.Google Scholar

28. See note 9, Evers 2009.

29. See note 20, Evers 2007.

30. See note 9, Evers 2009.

31. Farisco, M, Petrini, C. The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics 2012;5(3):317–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Farisco, M, Petrini, C. On the stand. Another episode of neuroscience and law discussion from Italy. Neuroethics 2014;7(2):243–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Greene, J. The secret joke of Kant´s soul. In: Sinnott-Armstrong, W, ed. Moral Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008:35–79.Google Scholar

34. Berker, AS. The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2009;37(4):293–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Scruton, R. The Soul of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Bennett, M, Hacker, P. Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell; 2003.Google Scholar

37. Bennett, MR, Dennett, DC, Hacker, PMS, Searle, J. Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language. New York: Columbia University Press; 2007.Google Scholar

38. See note 6, Northoff 2009.

39. Northoff, G. Minding the Brain: A Guide to Philosophy and Neuroscience. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. Wagner, NF, Northoff, G. A fallacious jar? The peculiar relation between descriptive premises and normative conclusions in neuroethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2015;36(3):215–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. Farisco, M, Laureys, S, Evers, K. The intrinsic activity of the brain and its relation to levels and disorders of consciousness. Mind & Matter 2017;15(2):197–219.Google Scholar

42. Farisco, M, Laureys, S, Evers, K. Externalization of consciousness. Scientific possibilities and clinical implications. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences 2015;19:205–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Evers, K. Neurotechnological assessment of consciousness disorders: Five ethical imperatives. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 2016;18(2):155–62.Google ScholarPubMed

44. See note 15, Frackowiak, Markram 2014.

45. See note 10, Farisco et al. 2018.

46. Evers, K. Can we be epigenetically proactive? In: Metzinger, TWJ, ed. Open Mind: Philosophy and the Mind Sciences in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2015.Google Scholar

47. Changeux, JP. The Physiology of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2004.Google Scholar

48. See note 7, Salles, Evers 2017.

49. Evers, K, Changeux, JP. Proactive epigenesis and ethical innovation: A neuronal hypothesis for the genesis of ethical rules. EMBO Reports 2016;17(10):1361–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

50. See note 49, Evers, Changeux 2016.

51. Savulescu, J, Persson, I. Moral enhancement, freedom and the God machine. Monist 2012;95(3):399–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

52. Dubljevic, V, Racine, E. Moral enhancement meets normative and empirical reality: Assessing the practical feasibility of moral enhancement neurotechnologies. Bioethics 2017;31(5):338–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

53. de Melo-Martin, I, Salles, A. Moral bioenhancement: Much ado about nothing? Bioethics 2015;29(4):223–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

54. Farah, MJ, Heberlein, AS. Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating? American Journal of Bioethics 2007;7(1):37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

55. See note 3, Roskies 2002.

56. Shook, JR, Giordano, J. A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: Considerations for international relevance. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2014;9:1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

57. See note 6, Northoff 2009.