Neuroethics

Jenna Hebert

Two recent New York Times articles reflect on the ethical ramifications of the latest findings in neuroscience research. In his provocative piece “Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade?,” William Egginton questions neuroscience’s place in a case that could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. An Idaho statute, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” and others like it cite recent findings of pain sentience in fetuses as reason for making abortion illegal. Egginton criticizes the government’s use of research from the natural sciences in general as evidence for expanding or contracting citizens’ rights. He refers to Immanuel Kant’s argument that while science can tell us much about the world we live in, it can tell us nothing about the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, or the origin of human freedom. Should science try to come to conclusions about these questions, it would necessarily fall into error. Egginton explains that regardless of whether neuroscience can tell us something about fetuses and their ability to feel pain, it cannot serve as the answer to big, fundamental questions about what counts as a full-fledged human deserving of all his/her Constitutional rights. Science should complement thinking - not replace it.

David Duncan touches on a related controversial issue in his article “How Science Can Build a Better You” that was published a few days later. He begins the piece by asking, “If a brain implant were safe and available and allowed you to operate your iPad or car using only thought, would you want one? What about an embedded device that gently bathed your brain in electrons and boosted memory and attention? Would you order one for your children?” He explores the fact that in two to three decades, technology could not only improve life for the impaired, but also enhance life for the healthy. Some scientists are opposed to the use of technology for the nonimpaired, explaining that college students around the country, for example, are already overdosing on Adderall and Provigil to stay up late studying for exams. Nevertheless, the “Age of Enhancement” seems inevitable. Neuroscientists, for instance, have developed a pill that might improve the memory of patients with dementia. Perhaps this same pill will be used to enhance the memory of healthy people in the future. A brain implant has been able to partially restore hearing in more than 200,000 deaf people. Who is to say that this anybody who can afford it will not use this device to hear better someday? Some neuroscientists even believe that we will be able to create drugs that alter enzymes connected with genes in the brain that control dopamine levels.

Duncan, like Egginton, however, is cautious about how we use findings in neuroscience, and science in general. Specifically, he fears that these expensive technologies would widen the already large gap between the rich and lower-income families. He even proposes that these artificial enhancements may also challenge what it fundamentally means to be human. As we advance in science, particularly a field that is progressing as rapidly as neuroscience, we need to take a step back and make sure that we are constantly considering the ethical implications of new findings.