|
A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and ISSN 1541-0099 22(1) – December 2011 |
An Early – and Necessary – Flight of the Owl of Minerva: Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, Human
Socio-cultural Boundaries, and the Importance of Neuroethics
James Giordano
Center for
Neurotechnology Studies
Potomac Institute
for Policy Studies
Oxford Centre for
Neuroethics
Oxford-Uehiro
Centre for Practical Ethics
University of
Oxford
Department of
Electrical and Computational Engineering
University of New
Mexico
jgiordano@potomacinstitute.org
Roland Benedikter
The Europe
Center, Stanford University
Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 22 Issue 1 – December 2011 - pgs 110-115
Abstract
Rapid neuroscientific advancement over the
past 20 years has led to increased ethical, legal and social issues that are
not confined to the academic world, but also are part of public discourse.
There are questions on the use of neuroscientific techniques and novel
neurotechnologies that are generated as we learn more about the brain and its
relations to consciousness, emotion, behavior and the nature of self and
relation to others. Should neuroscience and neurotechnology be used to advance
humanity; or will it be engaged as demiurge and ultimately push humanity
towards some new, and perhaps unanticipated reality?
Irrespective of valence, the trajectory of neuroscience and neurotechnology
will lead to a more neurocentrically-dominated future. How will we address and
navigate the possibilities and problems that this neurocentricism fosters? The
emerging field of neuroethics may enable a more pragmatic understanding of
these issues and perhaps lead to a more prudent resolution of the questions and
problems that arise at the intersection of neuroscience, neurotechnology and
society. The two traditions of neuroethics –
the study of the neural mechanisms of moral cognition and actions
(neuromorality), and addressing the ethical and legal issues instantiated by
applications of neuroscience and technology in the social sphere, may afford a
meta-ethics that will be of benefit at both individual and societal levels.
Yet, we posit that in order to meet these challenges, neuroethics must be
international, multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary, and not simply bound to
philosophical dogma or defined by western ethical discourse. Moreover,
neuroethics must be not be an “after-the-fact” reflection or analysis, but
should be engaged while neuroscientific and neurotechnological advances are
still relatively nascent in order to be ready for the reciprocal effects of
neuroscience and neurotechnologies enacted, and as influenced by socio-culture
on the world stages.
“When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of
life has become old, and by means of grey cannot be rejuvenated, but only
known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are
gathering…” (GWF Hegel, Elements of the
Philosophy of Right)
Neuroscience and
neurotechnology: Trends, trajectories, and transitions
The past 20 years have borne witness to broad and
rapid neuroscientific advancement, both within its disciplines of anatomy,
physiology, pharmacology, and through the engagement of new disciplines -
within the natural and physical sciences (such as genetics, nanoscience,
cyberscience), social sciences, and humanities. This
growth is reflected in the gross fiscal investment in neuroscience and the
neurotechnology that increased 25-30% annually from 2005 through 2010, and
generated revenues of $143 billion in 2010 (Lynch and Lynch 2009; Neuroinsights 2010). Such investment bespeaks the fact that
neurological and psychiatric trauma, disease, and illness have become major
medical markets, with total accrued costs of $2 trillion (Lynch 2007a),
incurred by a global patient population of approximately 2 billion individuals
(Duncan 2008). With a projected growth of brain-research enterprises of up to
10-20% per year, the economic capital of the academic-industrial complex
dedicated to neuroscientific and neurotechnological innovation could be as high
as $300 billion by 2015 (Lynch 2007b). Moreover, such innovation has also attracted
the interest of the governmental sector(s) given the applicability of
neuroscience and its technologies to national security and defense – inclusive
of both public health and military operations.
This interest has been evidenced by a consistent investment
of US Department of Defense and other national security agencies’ funding of
neuroscientific and neurotechnological research and development (Kruse et al.
2010), which despite cutbacks, is expected to continue in coming
years. The overall trend in neuroscientific advancement, and perhaps more
specifically the potential use of neuroscience and neurotechnology for national
security and defense agendas, have fostered concerns and debate within the
academic/professional community, as well as the public. Indeed, neuroscience
and neurotechnology are affecting public life through the iteratively more
widespread – and accepted – use of neuroscience to define and explain various
aspects of human experience and behavior. This new discourse is not limited to the
scientific sphere or the proverbial “ivory tower” of academia; instead,
neuroscience is extending effects deeper into the values, mores, norms and
conduct of the modern social milieu in ways that are undeniable.
These developments generate real issues, questions and
dilemmas for contemporary society (Giordano and Gordijn
2010). For example, should we view neuroscience and neurotechnology as the
latest iteration of demiurge through which humanity seeks to understand and
manipulate nature? Are neuroscience and neurotechnologies forms of “liberation
technologies” that are expressions of a “natural” human tendency toward
machine-use? Or, are these advancements moving us ever farther along a
trajectory that is not only representative of the “human in transition” – what
some have termed the “transhuman” - but toward
engineering a being that is novel to our current constructs of humanity? Could
neuroscience foster a new world society, enabled by an inclusive ideal of the
human being that transcends biological (e.g. gender, ethnic) and cultural – if
not species’ distinctions, that is devoid of anthropocentric bias, and united
by an understanding of consciousness and experience? Could this reconcile
humanity and nature, organic and inorganic beings, and in some way reveal the
nature of life? And what outcomes might these trajectories of neuroscience and
neurotechnology evoke for the open societies of the coming century? Perhaps
most significant is the proverbial “hard question” of how “mind” occurs in
brain; it may be that this remains both an unresolved question and an
un-knowable reality, and therefore any and all conceptualizations of the neural
bases of consciousness, self, free will, and morality must be regarded as
speculative, and we must be savvy to the ways (if not tendencies) for
neuroscientific information to be mis-communicated
and/or misconstrued, and neurotechnological tools to be used inaptly – if not
frankly misused (Giordano and Olds 2010).
The questions and issues that arise at the
intersection of neuroscience, neurotechnology and society reveal the
reciprocity of effects: Neuroscience may offer insight to our social cognitions
and actions, and at the same time, neuroscience – as a field and a set of
practices, outcomes and products – is nested within and influenced by the
economic and political domains of society. These latter domains can be
disconnected from – if not discordant with – considerations for employing
science and technology in ways that best meet humanitarian needs. Given these
tensions, the task at hand is to recognize the capacity and limitations of both
neuroscience and the socio-economic and socio-political settings in which it
may be employed.
Technological trends and
social transition
The problems of both brain science and society can be
seen as a reason and motivation for ongoing neuroscientific research to study
and further define the relationship of brain and mind, the bases of
consciousness, and the human as a social creature. But while such information
is important, it is equally important to note that most scientific and
technological advancement exceeds progress of social responsibility. It is
crucial to appreciate the social implications and manifestations incurred by
neuroscientific discoveries and the potential uses of neurotechnology, and
assess if current methods of social responsibility can capably address and
resolve the questions and dilemmas fostered by such implications. It may be
that given the scope and pace of change(s) evoked by neuroscience and
technology, new(er) constructs, systems, and
approaches might need to be developed, at least to some extent, or in certain
circumstances.
The speed and breadth of neuroscientific discovery has
generated public anticipation and anxiety about potential the ethical, legal and
social issues incurred by such developments. These expectations and
apprehensions are not unrealistic, as neuroscience and neurotechnology have
already been shown to prompt numerous challenges (Giordano and Gordijn 2010; Racine 2010; Glannon
2011) Yet only a fraction of the US federal scientific budget is explicitly
dedicated to the ethical and socio-legal issues manifested by neuroscientific research and the translation of its
outcomes and products into healthcare and public life (AAAS 2010). Given the
pace and possible directions of neuroscientific advancement, we believe there
is a need for a pragmatic, finely-grained, but nonetheless encompassing view of
the actual capabilities, limitations and implications of neuroscientific and
neurotechnological progress, and in light of such assessment(s), develop an
ethics that reflects the rapid growth of neuroscience, and responds to the
social repercussions resulting from the new knowledge and capabilities that
neuroscientific progress affords.
Neuroethics: Bridging
scientific, technological and social domains
We opine that the field of neuroethics may meet this
challenge by studying the putative neurological substrates and mechanisms of
interpersonal and social relations and conduct (i.e. neuroethics in the “first
tradition,” viz. – neuromorality), and addressing the
ethical, legal and social issues fostered by neuroscientific research and its
uses and misuses in the social sphere (i.e.-
neuroethics in the “second tradition”) (Roskies 2002;
Racine 2010). We have argued that when these two “traditions” of neuroethics
taken together, may afford a form of meta-ethics that enables both insight to
nature of individual and socio-cultural moral decision-making, and guidance of
neuroscience as a societal influence (Giordano 2011a). We believe that the
value of neuroethics is derived from its wider vision of the human and humanity
– if not all sentient – beings in general, as both reflecting advancements
and effects of neuroscience, and in acknowledgment of the bio-psychosocial view
of organisms’ reciprocal interactions with their environments.
Certainly, neuroethics must be built upon a foundation
of ethical analytic and executive methods, and given the naturalistic
orientation, and basic and clinical applicability fostered by the
neurosciences, the focus and interdisciplinary nature of bioethics are
therefore equally important (Racine 2010; Levy 2011). But, we maintain that in
order to recognize and guide how neuroscience and neurotechnology affect the
human being, human condition, and concept of the human-in-society, neuroethics
cannot be yoked to dogmatic ideas. Rather, we call for neuroethics to both
regard the value of both traditional ethical views and be open to, and
incorporate new knowledge so as to develop more epistemologically current
ethical constructs that reflect and are relevant to the effect(s) of
neuroscience upon the human and society (Giordano 2011b). Thus, neuroethics can
remain well positioned to engage contemporary issues ranging from the philosophical
to the juridical, and the individual to the socio-political.
The social dimension is crucial, because scientific
and technological advancement are often responses to socio-cultural needs
and/or demands, and new scientific information and technologies evoke societal
change (Lowrance 1985). Socio-cultural values and
contexts must be taken into consideration if scientific and technological
development is to be oriented and guided to effect public good. This reaffirms
the value of neuroethics: First, as neuromorality to develop an understanding
of 1) the interactive nature of neurobehavioral function and socio-cultural
environments; 2) the mechanisms and multi-dimensionality of these effects; and
3) how particular neural, and cultural-environmental variables may be engaged
to mediate, modify or mitigate certain cognitive-emotional constructs and
behavioral effects. Second, such knowledge of moral cognition and
decision-making is vital to developing a fuller and deeper insight to both
ethics, in general, and those specific ethical analyses and articulations that
could be instrumental to discerning and guiding how extant or novel
technologies could – and perhaps should –
be developed and used to change social thought, ideals and ontologies, and
improve the human condition, and society.
A neurocentric future portends possibilities for great
insight and access to cognition, emotion, behavior and being, as well as equal
potential for misconception, misappropriation, and misuse of information,
knowledge and the power these confer. Hence, we assert the need to refrain from
premature or ampliative claims about the benefits – or possible harms – of
neuroscience and neurotechnologies, and instead address the actual capability
and limitations of these approaches, and the benefits, burdens, and risks
incurred by their use or non-use. It is unwise to wait until the “…shades of
night are gathering” to take stock of what is old, what is new, and the
benefits, burdens and harms that might be respectively possible or preventable
(Hegel 1991). Indeed, it is not enough simply to know what possibilities exist;
instead knowledge prompts action – both before and during each and any
engagement of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Thus, we argue that it will be
necessary for an early flight of Hegel’s “owl of Minerva,” so as to gain
prescience of what the present and future can be, and in so doing foster
insight into what practical and ethical actions should be developed and
articulated. Such pragmatism may insure against harms of commission or
omission, and enable a more meaningful view of the ways that neuroscience
affects society, and socio-cultural diversity, and economic and political
forces affect neuroscientific and neurotechnological development and
utilization on an increasingly pluralized world-stage.
Summary
In this essay we have provided a view of neuroscience
and neurotechnology as both forces that shape current and future socio-cultural
conditions and that are influenced by socio-cultural forces. Given the
provocative and often contentious nature of effects incurred through the
employment of neuroscience and neurotechnology in the social milieu, we call
for the relatively new field of neuroethics to define and guide the ways that
neuroscientific and technological developments can and should be pursued and
applied. However, we argue that to do so in a meaningful way will mandate
pragmatism, reflection, and freedom from an exclusively Western orientation. To
meet this challenge, we posit that programs of neuroethics education and
practice must be international, multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary. It is
our hope that neuroethics will provide a system and method(s) for analysis of,
and preparedness for an imminent neurocentric future. To be sure, it is a field
that is gaining intellectual and practical maturity; and we opine, none too
soon, as neuroscience and neurotechnology proverbially “push the envelope” of
knowledge and possibility that will be leveraged upon the social stage. So, if
neuroethics is to “…come of age and face the future” with any real sense of
value (Giordano 2010), it cannot be an after-the-fact endeavor, but must be
proactive and grounded to the realties and exigencies of the present. It must
be collaborative and innovative in its approach, and remain rigorous in its
scrutiny, guidance and governance of neuroscientific and neurotechnological
invention, intervention and social effect.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the J.W.
Fulbright Foundation, Office of Naval Research, William H. and Ruth Crane
Schaefer Endowment and funding from the Center for Neurotechnology Studies of
the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (JG). This work was completed while JG
was Fulbright Visiting Professor of Neuroscience, Neurotechnology and Ethics at
the Generation Research Program/Human Science Center, Peter Schilffarth
Institute Bad Tölz, Ludwig-Maximilians
University, Munich, Germany. The authors thank Sherry
Loveless and Daniel Howlader for assistance on the
preparation of this manuscript.
References
Albus, James S., George A. Bekey,
John H. Holland, Nancy G. Kanwisher, Jeffrey L. Krichmar, Mortimer Mishkin, Dharmendra S. Modha, Marcus E. Raichle, Gordon M. Shepherd, and Giulio
Tononi. 2007. A proposal for a decade of the mind. Science 317, no. 5843: 1321.
American Association for the Advancement of
Science. 2010. R &
D reports from the National Institutes of Health budget documents. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/fy2010/.
Duncan, David E. 2008. The ultimate cure: The neurotech industry is engaged in a $2 trillion race to fix
your brain. Many players will fail, but the payoff will be huge for those who
succeed. Portfolio.com, May 12.http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/05/12/Analysis-of-Neurotech-Industry/#ixzz1EzdFCZTE
Giordano. James. 2010. Neuroethics: coming of age and facing
the future. In Scientific
and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics, edited by James Giordano and
Bert Gordijn, xxv-xxix. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Giordano, James. 2011a. Neuroethics: Interacting
“traditions” as a viable meta-ethics. American
Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience 2, no.2: 17-19.
Giordano, James. 2011b. Neuroethics:
Traditions, tasks, and value. Human
Prospect 1, no.1: 1-6.
Giordano, James and Bert Gordijn, eds. 2010. Scientific
and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics. Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
Giordano, James and James Olds. 2010. On the interfluence
of neuroscience, neuroethics, and legal and social issues; the need for (N)ELSI. American
Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience 1, no.4: 12-14.
Glannon, Walter. 2011. Brain,
body, and mind: Neuroethics with a human face. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hegel, Georg William Friedrich. 1991. Elements of the philosophy of right. Translated by H.B. Nisbet.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Orig. pub.
1820.)
Kruse, Amy, Kabel
McDowell, Dylan Schmorrow, Roy Stripling, and Chris
Forsythe. 2010.
Transitioning neurotechnology innovations to national security applications.
Presented at the Neurotech Investing and Partnering
Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, May 19-20.
Levy, Neil. 2011. Neuroethics: A new way of doing
ethics. American
Journal of Bioethics – Neuroscience. Volume 2, Issue 2: 3-9.
Lowrance, William W. 1985. Modern science and human values.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lynch, Casey and Zach Lynch. 2009. Last modified May
19. Neurotechnology industry reports revenues of $143.1 billion in 2009. Neuroinsights: The neurotech
market authority.
http://www.neuroinsights.com/neurotech2010release.html
Lynch, Zach. 2007a. Last modified October 30.
Perspectives: Neurotechnology leaves the nest, Awaiting
a policy push. http://professionals.epilepsy.com/page/ar_1193760406.html.
Lynch, Zach. 2007b. Advancing
contemporary neuroindustry.
http://www.neurotechindustry.org/publicpolicy/nnti.html
Neuroinsights. 2010. Last modified May 19. The neurotechnology industry 2010 report.
http://www.neuroinsights.com/marketreports/marketreport2010.html
Racine, Eric. 2010. Pragmatic neuroethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roskies. Adina. 2002. Neuroethics for the new
millennium. Neuron 35, no.1: 21-23.