Neuroscience and Society
NSCI 3001W, 4 credits
Syllabus and Grading
Course description
What is the public’s perception of stem cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases and spinal cord
injury? Is it more informed by science or mass media? Does deep brain stimulation threaten
personal identity? Does ADHD medication treat disease or childhood? As the field of
neuroscience increases our depth of knowledge regarding how the brain generates and controls
behaviors and ideas, questions are raised that challenge societal definitions of mind and body, free
will, personal responsibility, and more. This “neuroethics” course aims to unravel the ethical
implications of the intersection of neuroscience and society. These ideas will be examined
through readings, personal reflections, class discussions, debates and formal writing. Beyond the
content, the class will focus on the development of logical arguments, writing skills, oral
presentation skills, and teamwork. Students will be expected to present and argue both their own
personal views and those of others. Topics and exercises are designed to help students understand
different points of view than their own and to gain an understanding of what it is like to have
altered mentation, i.e. a brain disease or disability. Readings and multimedia reports will be
drawn from the primary neuroscience literature as well as philosophy, policy, and law literature
and popular media.
This course satisfies the “Civic Life and Ethics” liberal education requirement, the group C (prefall 2010 admissions) or group B (admission fall 2010 and after) Neuroscience major requirement,
and writing intensive course requirement. For the justification for this classification see the section
at the end of this syllabus. A Liberal Education prepares students for future encounters with
professional, civic or personal problems by developing skill sets needed for generating creative
solutions. By focusing on development of ethical issues posed by emerging neuroscience, NSCI
3001W addresses the liberal education theme of Civic Life and Ethics.
Course prerequisites
Students must have completed their Biological Science Liberal Education requirement by the
beginning of the term. All students must be prepared to read and evaluate primary literature.
Course learning and developmental outcomes
1. Moral development
Morally developed individuals are those that align their actions with their espoused values.
Assuming espoused values are founded upon reasonable grounds, these individuals are socially
responsible and induce positive change in their communities. Professionalism is a form of moral
integrity. A lack of understanding professional duty as a physician or scientist, for example, leads
to “malpractice,” or behavior deemed unethical by the field’s standards. Professionalism is not
necessarily common sense; it must be developed with guidance and intention.
2. Development of the skills necessary for effective communication and teamwork.
Students taking this course will develop skills to work within a team to compile, interpret, discuss,
and present information with nuanced and controversial interpretations. The ability to work well in
1
a team is considered a core competency for life and work success by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
3. Foundations of bioethics
In order for neuroethics discussions to be productive and valuable, it is critical that students have a
variety of tools to evaluate and articulate their interpretations of the issues at hand. Understanding
the traditional frameworks of bioethics provides a foundation for understanding, discussion, and
innovative thought.
4. Introduction to ethical issues raised by neuroscience
Students taking this course will become informed on emerging ethical issues that accompany our
increased understanding of brain function. It is critical that we are equipped to take on ethical
issues that arise as advances in neuroscience translate to new knowledge and technology.
Course learning and developmental outcomes are guided by five of the seven Student Learning
Outcomes as defined by the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs:
Students…
 Can identify, define, and solve problems
 Can locate and critically evaluate information
 Understand diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies
 Can communicate effectively
 Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning
Topics to be covered in this course are at the interface between experimental neuroscience and
social issues. A deep understanding of these topics becomes necessary as society struggles with
the policy implications of our changing understanding of mental abilities and responsibilities. By
structuring the course so that students find appropriate resources and work in groups to discuss,
present and reconcile issues, NSCI 3001W will build skill sets needed for life-long learning by
engaging students in creating deep understanding of multiple points of view, problem solving, and
communication.
Additional Course Information
This course is extremely Writing Intensive. Assignments will emphasize development of
arguments and use of evidence to support a point of view. There will be weekly responses to
readings, in-class reflections, and a ten-page individual paper that will accompany a major group
oral presentation. Some of the reading responses will be critiqued by TAs or peers in class prior to
revision. The longer paper will be turned in twice. The first submission will be reviewed by peers
and returned with comments to be incorporated into the final submission. Instructors will review
both the submission and critiques. The final submission will be graded by instructors.
Instructors in this course will focus on the content of your writing. If you need additional writing
guidance and assistance with issues pertaining to mechanics, grammar, or anything else, support is
available from the Student Writing Center. Student Writing Support (SWS) offers free writing
instruction for all University of Minnesota students—graduate and undergraduate—at all stages of
the writing process. In face-to-face and online collaborative consultations, SWS consultants help
students develop productive writing habits and revision strategies. SWS consultants are teachers
of writing: graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants and professional staff. Some
consultants specialize in working with non-native speakers, and others have experience with
writing in specific disciplines. Consulting is available by appointment online and in Nicholson
2
Hall and on a walk-in basis in Appleby Hall. For more information, go to writing.umn.edu/sws or
call 612.625.1893. In addition, SWS offers a number of web-based resources on topics such as
avoiding plagiarism, documenting sources, and planning and completing a writing project. See
writing.umn.edu/sws/quick_help.htm. Additional links are posted on the course Moodle website.
This course will comply with all the appropriate UMN syllabi policies, found at
http://policy.umn.edu/Policies/Education/Education/SYLLABUSREQUIREMENTS_APPA.html
As a student you may experience a range of issues that can cause barriers to learning, such as
strained relationships, increased anxiety, alcohol/drug problems, feeling down, difficulty
concentrating and/or lack of motivation. These mental health concerns or stressful events may lead
to diminished academic performance or reduce a student’s ability to participate in daily activities.
University of Minnesota services are available to assist you with addressing these and other
concerns you may be experiencing. You can learn more about the broad range of confidential
mental health services available on campus via the Student Mental Health Website at
http://www.mentalhealth.umn.edu.
All course materials, including this syllabus, rubrics, links to required readings, and supplemental
materials, can be found on the course Moodle2 website.
3
GRADING
Assignment
Reading Responses


Instructor & TA Graded (Week 23)
Instructor & TA Graded (*Weeks
7, 15)
#
Points
per
22
x7
1
x0
2
x 48
Points
Total
= 154 (graded for
submission of initial (3) +
revised (4) versions)
= 0 (graded as writing
instruction)
=96 (graded for content
and writing quality)
250 (25%)
In Class Reflections
 Instructor & TA Graded
20
X 7.5
= 150 (graded for
submission & clearly
articulating an idea.)
150 (15%)
Group Discussion Evaluations
 Peer Graded (Weeks 9, 15)
Position Paper
 Peer Reviewed: Submission 1
(due Week 6, Day 1)

Instructor & TA Graded:
Submission 2 (due 1 week after
oral presentation)
2
X 50
= 100 (graded for
contribution)
1
X 50
1
X 150
= 50 (graded for
submission in full;
content and writing
reviewed informally)
= 150 (graded for content
and writing quality)
100 (10%)
200 (20%)
Major Group Presentation
 Instructor & TA Graded (after
presentation)
 Peer Graded
 Self Graded
 Peer Group Evaluations (Weeks
8, 15)
1
X 150
= 150 (graded for content)
1
1
2
X 50
X 50
X 25
= 50 (graded for content)
= 50 (graded for content)
= 50 (graded for
contribution)
300 (30%)
1000
Total
Unexcused Absence
X -25
Tardiness
X -5
* at these times, the throw of a die will determine which of the previous weeks’ writing piece will
be graded.
4
Grade
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
Points
Definition
934 to 1000
points
900 to 933
points
867 to 899
points
834 to 866
points
800 to 833
points
767 to 799
points
734 to 766
points
700 to 733
points
667 to 699
points
634 to 666
points
600 to 633
points
0 to 599 points
achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course
requirements
achievement that is significantly above the level necessary to meet course
requirements
achievement that meets the course requirements in every respect
achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully the
course requirements
represents failure (or no credit) and signifies that the work was either (1)
completed but at a level of achievement that is not worthy of credit or (2) was
not completed and there was no agreement between the instructor and the
student that the student would be awarded an Incomplete (I)
5
Assignments Descriptions
All writings and presentation pieces will be graded using rubrics. There will be no exams.
Reading Responses
25% of final grade, 250 points total
Students will be expected to submit a 200 to 400 word summary or response to a prompt for
assigned readings to the class website by the time class starts. See the class schedule for writing
prompts and more information on Reading Responses.
Grading
For writing each response: 7 points. 22 responses x 7 points = 154 points total.
During weeks 2 – 8, classmates will critique the first version of the reading responses and
provide constructive feedback on the writing. Instructors will grade the second draft of
your first reading response at the end of week 2 as part of writing instruction. No points
will be awarded for this first written piece. Instructors will grade a randomly chosen
reading response at the end of weeks 7 and 15: 48 points each, 2 responses x 48 points =
96 points total.
In Class Reflections
15% of final grade, 150 points total
Starting the second day of class, ten minutes will be set aside at the end of most class periods for
students to write a reflection on what was covered during class and during their group’s discussion
on an 5”x8” card. Students will turn in these cards at the end of each class.
Grading
Each entry: 7.5 points, 20 entries x 7.5 points = 150 points total
Instructors will grade each reflection.
Group Discussion Evaluations
10% of final grade, 50 points each, 100 points total
Students will be assigned to discussion/presentation groups the second day of class. Twice during
the semester (Weeks 9 and 15), students’ participation in discussions will be evaluated by their
group members. Students will be given up to 50 points by each of their group members, which
will be averaged to determine students’ grades. Group members may not give the same number of
points to more than one group member; in other words, students must differentiate group member
performances.
6
Position Paper
20% of final grade, 200 points total
Students must individually write a paper that presents the neuroscience background, ethical issues,
societal norms and relevant points of view pertaining to the same topic chosen for their major
group presentation. This paper must argue from one point of view, in favor of one response to the
ethical issue at hand. The paper must be 10 numbered, double-spaced pages with 1” margins, not
more. Text must be 12-point Times New Roman font. The paper should contain a minimum of 10
in-text citations with corresponding bibliographic entries at the end, not included in the 10-page
minimum, in MLA format.
Grading
The First Submission receives 50 points, due week 6 day 1 (5% of final grade) for
submission of a complete, readable version. Students will be assigned to read and review
other student’s papers, offering constructive criticisms for revision. Instructors will review
the submissions and critiques and offer additional feedback.
The Final Submission constitutes 15% of the final grade or 150 points. It will be graded
by the instructors for both content and writing quality. This is due one week after the
group’s oral presentation.
Major Group Presentation
30% of final grade, 300 points total
For the last 12 class periods (or six weeks) of class, students will present on major neuroethical
issues as groups. Presentations groups will be the same as discussion groups. Groups must pick
presentation topics (from the list or topics otherwise approved by an instructor) by the first day of
the third week of class.
Grading
Of oral presentation…
Instructor Evaluation: 15% of final grade, 150 points
Peer Evaluation: 5% of final grade, 50 points
Self Evaluation: 5% of final grade, 50 points
Of contribution and ability to work in the group…
First Group Evaluation: 2.5% of final grade, 25 points
Second Group Evaluation: 2.5% of final grade, 25 points
Twice during the semester, students’ participation, cooperation and contributions to the
group oral presentation will be evaluated by their group members. Students will be given
up to 25 points by each of their group members, which will be averaged to determine
students’ grades. Group members may not give the same number of points to more than
one group member; in other words, students must differentiate group member participation
and performance.
Late Assignments and Absence
For late assignments of any kind, half credit will be taken off for each day late. Because engaging
in discussions is such an important part of learning in this course, attendance is critical; 25 points
7
will be taken off of students’ final grades for each unexcused absence. 5 points will be deducted
for tardiness (>5 minutes) on any class day.
Absence Policy:
Medically excused absences will be made up within a week of the date of absence. The
Reading Response(s) from the missed day(s) may be graded to make up for points missed by not
writing the In Class Reflection(s).
Class Schedule
The class will meet twice weekly for 90 minutes per session. Readings are to be read prior to a
class session; a 200-400 word response to arguments and points of view represented in the day’s
readings is due (posted digitally on course Moodle site) by start of class; for more information on
Reading Responses, see the assignment description and schedule below. Tardy posts will be
worth only half credit. The last 10 minutes of most class sessions will be spent writing a personal
reflection in your notebook in response to an end-of-class prompt. Randomly chosen selections
from both the reading summaries and end-of-class reflections will be graded by peers and teaching
assistants at times specified in the class schedule.
How Nsci 3001W meets the Requirements for the Civic Life and Ethics Theme.
Nsci 3001W aligns with the Requirements for the Civic Life and Ethics Theme in the following
manner.
1. The course presents and defines ethics and the role of ethics in civic life.
This course focuses on how emerging neuroscience knowledge both poses ethical challenges and
informs ethics. Nsci 3001W will meet requirement #1 by providing students with an introduction
to the ethical frameworks that inform and provide a foundation for bioethics and applied ethics in
general, including deontology, consequentialism, feminist ethics, and narrative ethics. Students
will read, discuss, and write about these different foundational frameworks (see Syllabus, Class
Schedule: Day 1 of Weeks 2-4) and use them to analyze real-world neuroethics cases (see
Syllabus, Class Schedule: Week 3 Day 2, Week 4 Day 2, Week 5 Day 1, and Week 8 Day 2),
guide discussions, and propose solutions to neuroethical issues for the remainder of the semester.
2. The course explores how the ethical principles of a society or societies have been derived and
developed through group processes, and debated in various arenas.
Students will be introduced to the ethical frameworks most commonly used by bioethicists.
Students will learn the sociohistorical context of the development of deontology and
consequentialism, which are the two most commonly used frameworks, and will learn how these
approaches have recently been challenged by bioethicists, philosophers, clinicians, and countless
others who champion feminist and narrative approaches to ethics (See Syllabus, Class Schedule:
Day 1 of Weeks 2-4). One aspect of identifying differing points of view regarding an ethical issue
will be to present the historical roots for that point of view. This will be part of class discussions
and student oral presentations.
In addition, the course will address how emerging neuroscience influences previously
determined ethical frameworks. in doing this, the class will be engaging directly in developing
contemporary processes for integrating new knowledge into ethical perspectives (See Syllabus,
8
Class Schedule: Week 2 Day 2, entire course). Students will read contemporary primary
literature on neuroethics where new issues are raised and debated. The course Moodle website
already has a link to the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience which debates a different
neuroethical idea in each publication. Many of the proposed student Major Assignment topics
derive from the debates in such publications.
3. The course encourages students to develop, defend, or challenge their personal values and
beliefs as they relate to their lives as residents of the United States and members of a global
society.
As a discussion and debate-centered course with daily opportunities for reflective writing, Nsci
3001W will demand that students develop, defend, and challenge their personal values and beliefs
as they relate to the topics being covered. At the beginning of the semester, students will write a
short essay reflecting on their own ethics (what they are, where they come from, etc.) and their
goals for the semester, which might include a better understanding of their own ethics, a better
understanding of others’ ethics, better means to communicate their perspective on ethical issues,
etc (see Syllabus, Class Schedule: Week 1 Day 2). As students are exposed to the language of
ethics and different modes of thinking about ethical issues, their own values and beliefs will be
challenged and will develop. Students will begin using the frameworks they are exposed to to
reason through ethical issues discussed throughout the course; they will use these frameworks to
reason through ethical issues they come across in their daily lives. Students will use their new
vocabularies and skill-sets as tools to communicate their own and others’ perspectives and to
challenge each others’ positions in class discussions. At the end of the semester, students will
write an ethical will directed to a loved one of their choosing; this piece gets students thinking
about what their beliefs and values are, how they’ve developed over the course of the semester,
and how to communicate their importance to others (see Syllabus, Class Schedule: Week 15 Day
1). Reflection prompts during the last week of the course add value to this assignment by
specifically asking students the following questions: How have your ideas about ethics changed
since the beginning of this class? Compare your ethical will with the ethical statement you wrote
on the first day of class. What has changed? How did you decide to write your ethical will the way
you did? How have you accomplished your goals for this course? What have you learned
intellectually and personally? (see Syllabus, Class Schedule: Week 15 Days 1-2)
4. Students have concrete opportunities to identify and apply their knowledge of ethics, both in
solving short-term problems and in creating long-term forecasts.
Students will apply their knowledge of ethical frameworks and diverse perspectives to identify
ethical issues in and discuss solutions to real-life neuroethics cases, including Dax’s Case, the
Terry Shiavo Case, and the Dan Markingson Case (see Syllabus, Class Schedule: Week 3 Day 2,
Week 4 Day 2, Week 5 Day 1, and Week 8 Day 2); students’ discussions will include short-term
solutions to these specific cases as well as the creation of long-term preventative measures to
reduce the occurrence of similar ethical issues in the future. Students will also be given the
opportunity to apply their knowledge of ethics to less specific but perhaps more personal issues
related to brain/mental diseases and healthcare, law, reproduction, aging, and death (see Syllabus,
Class Schedule: Weeks 6-8); their discussions will again include short-term solutions to specific
case examples as well as the creation of long-term solutions to more general ethical issues related
to brain/mental diseases. As part of their group project, students will devise or report on a case of
their own choosing that relates to their topic and will apply their knowledge of ethics to analyze
9
the case by identifying ethical issues, explaining why they are ethical issues, and proposing
solutions, both long and short-term (see Syllabus, Major Assignment). Through the duration of the
course, written reflections on class discussions force students to individually apply the ethics
concepts discussed to topics covered in class and to their own lives. As a summative course event,
students will write their own ethical will (also CLE criteria 4, week 15). Thus Nsci 3001W
provides multiple opportunities for students to individually and as a group propose solutions to
problems that effect individuals, families, or larger social groupings.
10