The importance of neuroethics has been gaining attention for the
last 50 years or so. When a discussion of this sorts comes up it usually has to
do with scientists trying to experiment and research on humans or animals. One
of the guests that I had the privilege to listen to the talks of was Dr. Joe
Vukov. During his talk, he explained the significance of neuroethics. Most of
his lecture was focused on the research done by Molly J. Crockett on the topic
of neuroethics. She explains in her work how our judgments and decisions that
we make on a daily basis can be affected by the neurochemicals in our brain. She
states that “our moral views are influenced by neuromodulators”. This can mean
that every person can potentially have a different set of neurochemicals in
their body that can react differently thus creating the varying differences in
morality and ethics all across the human population. Hence when the topic of
ethic comes up not just in neuroscience but in general life, everyone must be
cautious of these differences when doing research or experiments involving
ethical practices. The main two researches that can be subject to this is ones
with the use of humans or animals. For example, with humans the issue of
consent is very prevalent. Consent is needed for any type of human that is
being involved in a study, so if there is an imbalance of neurochemicals in a person
due to some underlying disease this can cause an issue. A person needs to be of
sound mind and body in order to approve anything or give their own consent.
These are the types of problems that arise when dealing with these delicate
issues.
A real-life
example of neuroethics not being used in the right way is found in a
neuroscience article talking about the ban that is currently placed on
immigrants coming into the United States. It states that neuroscience the field
itself was fully coined around the 1960s. Once the Society of Neuroscience was
founded, the idea was able to be shared globally with other researchers and
scientists around the world. They stated that the first annual meeting of this
society was in 1971 and had drew in about 1,500 researchers and scientists.
This year they had an attendance of about 30,000 people. Now that is a very
dramatic change but that is also because the field is growing rapidly. All
these attendees are coming from different countries all around the world to
share and portray their knowledge of the field they all are exploring. This is
very important when it comes to global unity in the understanding of some
topics. With the closing of the national borders by the Trump administration,
it was very hard to accomplish this. Many members were unable to get visas to
enter the U.S. because of this travel ban which has restrictions on people entering
the U.S. from specific countries. This creates problems for many people across
the world. The new research and knowledge that is being gained should be shared
with everyone.
Is banning researchers
and scientists from entering the country an ethical way for conducting
research? The talks of neuroethics doesn’t necessarily have to be confined in
the actual study but can also include the ethics of the way things are done.
Some may argue that the travel ban is necessary for keeping our country safe
from people that are trying to cause harm, but I don’t think it should be
applied in this case. When it comes to science in general, everything should be
an open book because topics like neuroscience that are relatively new need to be
sought through and figured out. By limiting the potential research from
excellent scientists across the world is being negligent. Politics does play a
major role in the rules and regulations of many things across the globe, but
science and research should be widely shared. Gaining new perspectives from
different people is very educational and gives a holistic approach to any
problem. Should there be limitations on people entering the country? Maybe.
There should also be additional resources that can verify the identity of many
of these people in order to allow them to showcase their findings with the rest
of the world.
Works cited:
Crockett, M.J. (2016). Morphing Morals. Moral
Brains, 237-245. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357666.003.0011
Stix, Gary. “Society for
Neuroscience at 50 Delves into Mini Brains, Gene Therapy, Prosthetics and All Else
Related to Our Three-Pound Wonder.” Scientific American Blog Network,
Scientific American, 28 Oct. 2019,
blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/neuro-society-at-50-delves-into-mini-brains-gene-therapy-prosthetics-and-all-else-related-to-our-three-pound-wonders/.
No comments:
Post a Comment