Neuroscience is ethical.’ Discuss to what extent you agree with this statement.
(24)
Neuroscience refers to any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and
experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous
system and brain. It includes developmental neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience,
and molecular and cellular neuroscience. While neuroscience has contributed to
medical, criminal, and commercial fields, it raises ethical concerns regarding
autonomy, consent, and potential misuse.
One argument supporting the ethicality of neuroscience is that it provides answers
about consciousness. Crick and Koch (1998) suggested that the claustrum, a thin
sheet of neurons in the centre of the brain, is the location of consciousness.
Evidence comes from a 54-year-old woman with severe epilepsy who underwent
tests where an electrode was placed near the claustrum. When electrically
stimulated, she stopped reading, stared blankly, and did not respond to commands.
When the stimulation ceased, she regained consciousness with no recollection of the
event. This knowledge could help doctors make decisions about patients in a
persistent vegetative state, such as determining whether life support should
continue. Socially, this could improve end-of-life care, ensuring decisions are based
on medical evidence. Economically, it could reduce healthcare costs by withdrawing
treatment from patients with no hope of recovery.
However, identifying the location of consciousness raises ethical concerns. One
implication is that it could justify removing life support from individuals in a persistent
vegetative state. Just because someone has lost consciousness, does that give us
the moral right to withdraw care? Additionally, the evidence is based on a single case
study of a woman with epilepsy, making it difficult to generalise findings to all
individuals. Ethical concerns arise over making life-or-death decisions based on
limited evidence, highlighting the need for further research before such findings
influence medical policy.
Another argument for the ethicality of neuroscience is its potential to treat criminal
behaviour. A key function of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate offenders,
and neuroscience offers solutions by addressing potential biological causes of crime.
Some suggest that abnormal neurotransmitter levels contribute to aggression, which
could be treated with medication. Cherek et al. (2002) studied male offenders with a
history of impulsivity and aggression. Half were given a placebo for 21 days, while
the other half received paroxetine (an SSRI antidepressant). Those who took
paroxetine showed decreased impulsive responses and lower aggression. This
suggests that pharmacological treatments could reduce reoffending rates. Socially,
(24)
Neuroscience refers to any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and
experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous
system and brain. It includes developmental neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience,
and molecular and cellular neuroscience. While neuroscience has contributed to
medical, criminal, and commercial fields, it raises ethical concerns regarding
autonomy, consent, and potential misuse.
One argument supporting the ethicality of neuroscience is that it provides answers
about consciousness. Crick and Koch (1998) suggested that the claustrum, a thin
sheet of neurons in the centre of the brain, is the location of consciousness.
Evidence comes from a 54-year-old woman with severe epilepsy who underwent
tests where an electrode was placed near the claustrum. When electrically
stimulated, she stopped reading, stared blankly, and did not respond to commands.
When the stimulation ceased, she regained consciousness with no recollection of the
event. This knowledge could help doctors make decisions about patients in a
persistent vegetative state, such as determining whether life support should
continue. Socially, this could improve end-of-life care, ensuring decisions are based
on medical evidence. Economically, it could reduce healthcare costs by withdrawing
treatment from patients with no hope of recovery.
However, identifying the location of consciousness raises ethical concerns. One
implication is that it could justify removing life support from individuals in a persistent
vegetative state. Just because someone has lost consciousness, does that give us
the moral right to withdraw care? Additionally, the evidence is based on a single case
study of a woman with epilepsy, making it difficult to generalise findings to all
individuals. Ethical concerns arise over making life-or-death decisions based on
limited evidence, highlighting the need for further research before such findings
influence medical policy.
Another argument for the ethicality of neuroscience is its potential to treat criminal
behaviour. A key function of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate offenders,
and neuroscience offers solutions by addressing potential biological causes of crime.
Some suggest that abnormal neurotransmitter levels contribute to aggression, which
could be treated with medication. Cherek et al. (2002) studied male offenders with a
history of impulsivity and aggression. Half were given a placebo for 21 days, while
the other half received paroxetine (an SSRI antidepressant). Those who took
paroxetine showed decreased impulsive responses and lower aggression. This
suggests that pharmacological treatments could reduce reoffending rates. Socially,
