Neuroethics in this week's Science
In an editorial out this week in the journal, Hank Greely calls for greater support of work looking into the social implications of neuroscience. From the piece:
For me, the most exciting questions involve how neuroscience might change society. If we could reliably predict that certain adolescents will eventually be diagnosed with schizophrenia, what use should we make of that information? If learning how brains make decisions could reliably indicate malign intent, should we use that information in criminal decision-making? What if we produce a pill that enables people in early stages of dementia to make, retain, and retrieve declarative memories? Should it be used by healthy people, such as premedical students?
Alas, some of this is not speculation. Already, at least one company is selling functional magnetic resonance imaging services for lie detection. Some foreign hospitals are performing psychosurgery for drug addiction. And judges and juries are being asked to make decisions based on beautiful “pictures” of people’s brains. People working in neuroethics need to point out when unproven new technologies are being used recklessly and to explore the social consequences of effective new technologies. In both cases, we need to maximize the benefits of the applications of neuroscience and minimize their harms.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
