The Seven Temptations
of Neuroethics
William M. Struthers, PhD
Psychology Department
Wheaton College
Wheaton, IL
Calvin College
Christian Perspectives in Science Seminar
Nov 6, 2009
Neuroethics
“Neuroethics is the part of bioethics that
considers the intended and unintended
consequences of neuroscience in medical
practice, research, and society at large.
Neuroethics also deals with issues that
touch no other area of science – our sense of
self, our personalities, and our behavior.
And brain science can change these aspects
in significant ways.”
- Brain Facts, pg. 55-56
Neuroethics
BIOETHICS
BIOMEDICAL
ETHICS
NEUROETHICS
NEUROSCIENCE
RESEARCH ETHICS
Dividing Neuroethics
• The Neural Basis of
Morality and Ethics
– Neural Basis of the Self
– Theory of Mind
• Agency Detection
– Mirror Neurons
– Behavioral Inhibition
– Rationality and Affect
in Decision Making
• Neurobiological
correlates of ‘moral’
states (i.e. guilt,
altruism, forgiveness)
• Neuroscience Advances
on Evaluating Moral
Systems
– Public Policy
• ‘Making’ Life
• ‘Taking’ Life
• ‘Faking’ Life
– Therapy/Enhancement
– Education
– Marketplace
Neuroethics:
Mapping the Field
• Conference in May, 2002 sponsored by the
DANA Foundation
Maps of Neuroethics
• Tectonic
– Fundamental questions of determinism and
reductionism
• Related to the anthropological and teleological questions
• Geographic
– Epistemological issues of philosophical, theological,
scientific approaches
• Related to the ontological questions
• Locale
– Specific issues that we are interested in and have
clearly defined boundaries
• Related to the moral questions
SFN 'Identified Areas'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Need for Ethical Framework
Morality
Social Behavior
Social Policy
Genetics
Brain Injury
Neurological Disorders
Informed Consent
Environmental Influences
What do Evangelical Christians
Have to Offer?
One Faith:
The Evangelical Consensus
• Scripture-oriented
– Scripture as authoritative guide, rule and map
for faith and life.
• Christ-centered story of redemption
• Orthodox
• Devoted to becoming a disciple of Jesus
Christ
• Spreading the Gospel
• Unity in profession, proclamation and
pastoral care
• Trinitarian
– Father (Creation and Providence)
– Son (Mediator of Reconciliation,
Resurrection, Reconciliation, Redemption,
Restoration, and Reward)
– Holy Spirit (Fellowship, Sacrament,
Comforter, Paraclete)
Bebbington’s
Evangelical Hallmarks
• Conversionism
– the belief that lives need to be changed
• Born again
• Personal relationship with Jesus
• Activism
– the expression of the gospel in effort
• Social, Political and Missional (Evangelism)
• Biblicism
– a particular regard for the Bible as authoritative
• Crucicentrism
– a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross
Theological Issues
• Theological Anthropology
– Personhood
– Consciousness
– ‘Telos’ for Humanity
• Morality
– Free Will vs. Determinism
• Predestination
• Calvinism and Arminianism
– Legal Responsibility
• Moral Status with respect to society/culture and God
• The Significance/Problem of Suffering
– Why is there suffering?
– What is its purpose?
Morality Issues
• What is the appropriate moral decision?
• Where is transcendent truth?
• Primary Concern: Epistemological and Ontological
– Genetic Fallacy
– Neuroscience can tell us about the mechanics of behavioral
selection, but very little interesting about morals and religion.
A reductionistic perspective will result in
medicalization of social issues, neuroessentialism of
personhood, and inconsistent value judgments about
the morality of specific behaviors.
– The ‘rightness’ of any behavior is not dictated by the
neural mechanisms that underlie the decision.
• B.F. Skinner’s ‘No praise, no blame.’
Convergence Technologies
• Use of neuroscience to interface machine and brain
• Primary Concern: Anthropological
– Reverse Engineering the Brain
– Artificial Intelligence
– Brain-Machine Interface
• Implant Technologies
• Augmentation
• Specific Evangelical Issues:
– Anthropology/Personhood
– Eschatology/Resurrection
– Dissatisfaction with the Present
Where are the Landmines
for Neuroscientists?
• The Landmines are Philosophical, not Empirical
– Teleological
• Purpose
– Epistemology
• Scientific Positivism
• Triumphalism vs. Multiplicity/Authority
– Ontology
• Philosophical Naturalism (Incompatible with Christian faith)
– Anthropology
• Reductionism (Incompatible with Christian faith)
• Determinism
• Education
• Public Policy
• Over-Reaching (Genetic Fallacy)
“Neuroethics is not simply a matter for the
ethicists or the neuroprofessionals; it must
also involve politicians, religious leaders,
public policy experts… The issues are
simply too important to be left to the
scientists.”
-Dr. Zach Hall
University of California San Francisco
The Seven Deadly Sins
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Lust
Anger
Greed
Sloth
Pope Gregory I (540-604)
Neuroethical Temptations
Temptation:
– Trial, testing (I Sam 17:39)
– Acts of humanity that challenge God (Deut 4:34)
– Deception – doubt, unbelief and rebellion (Gen
3:1-13)
– Circumstances – external (James 1:2)
Our Response: An opportunity for God to
reveal His goodness and provision or
exercise our brokenness
The Seven Temptations of
Neuroethics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Human Identity
Manipulating Memory
Divining the Future
Abdication of Responsibility
Dissatisfaction with Normalcy
Redirection of Development
Distribution of Benefits
1. Human Identity
Temptation: We define/decide what is human
–
–
–
Humanity as Genetics or Neural Systems
What is an Individual? (Continuity)
Move towards Neuro-essentialism
•
•
•
Uniqueness of Human Brain (i.e. mirror neurons, spindle cells)
Brain as the Criteria for Life/Death Issues
Ignores Cultural Differences
Response: God defines/decides what is human
–
Imago Dei
•
–
Substantive, Relational, Functional
Incarnation
Beginning of Life Issues
• Use of neuroscience for the purpose of:
– Determining the detection of life, creation of new
life, use of current life
• Primary Concern: Theological Anthropology
– Embryonic Stem Cell research
– Obligation to the ‘least of these’
– All embryonic stem cell research is bad because of
the means through which the embryonic stem cells
are obtained and for what purpose.
End of Life Issues
• Use of neuroscience for the purpose of:
– Determining the detection of death of the self,
reduction of pain and suffering
• Primary Concern: Theological Anthropology
– Euthanasia
– Obligation to the ‘least of these’
– ‘Slippery Slope’ of neuroessentialism
Faking of Life Issues
• Use of neuroscience for the purpose of:
– Interfacing between brain and machine for the
purpose of augmentation
• Primary Concern: Theological Anthropology
– Loss of the uniqueness of humanity
– Mechanistic view of humanity
– Augmentation as potentially harmful
– With augmentation there is a potential for an
increase in the capacity for good and evil.
2. Manipulating Memory
Temptation: Alter the Consolidation, Recall of Our
Life Experience
–
–
–
–
–
Remove Unwanted Memories
Implant Desired Memories
Effects on Other Cognitive/Affective Systems
‘Clinical’ Relevance – Luria’s mnemonist, PTSD,
Legal Punishment
‘Spiritual’ Relevance – Forgiveness, limit God’s
healing
Response: Allow a proper and clear view of our life so
that God’s grace, mercy and love can be given
opportunities to be revealed.
3. Divining the Future
Temptation: To use neuroscience to affect the
future to a desired end
– Prediction of outcomes
– Neural/Genetic Screening
– Coercion (i.e. Domestic Violence risk)
Response: Rely on God’s sovereignty and trust
in His goodness
4. Abdication of Responsibility
Temptation: To be free from restriction
and/or responsibility
– Emphasis on personal choice/freedom
– Expanding legal phenotypes for exculpatory
purposes
– Deterministic/Mechanistic view of the self
–
Legitimate Legal Implications (Burn and Swerdlow,
2001)
Response: God is just and calls all to
accountability based on how each is
commissioned, gifted and enabled.
5. Dissatisfaction with Normalcy
Temptation: To dictate what is good/desirable and
what is not
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
What is Pathology?
Enhancement/Therapy
Desire to be better than good
Incompatibilities with other social values
Increasing cognitive abilities ≠ increase in the quality
of life
What kind of person is the goal?
Tolerance fades (Grace and Envy)
Fuzzy line separating therapy and enhancement
Response: Respect the dignity of all.
Enhancement and
Therapeutic Issues
• Use of neuroscience to enhance and cure
neurological disorders.
• Primary Concern: Anthropological, Teleology
– Increasing cognitive abilities does not equal an
increase in the quality of life.
– What kind of person is the goal?
– We actually become less tolerant of those that are
not as enhanced as we are (impatient and
condescending) or are more advanced (envious).
– The line separating therapy and enhancement is
fuzzy.
6. Redirection of Development
Temptation: To modify our development and
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Questions of Permanence
Unchanging Neurons
Disruption of Development
Loss of the uniqueness of humanity
Mechanistic view of humanity
Augmentation as potentially harmful
Redirection = potential increase in capacity for good
and evil
Response: God’s direction for humanity and for each
individual is not restricted to this world
7. Distribution of Benefits
Temptation: To determine how benefits derived from
neuroscientific advances are provided and
delivered to the population
–
–
–
–
The reality of Capitalism and supply/demand
economies
Advances only affordable to the wealthy
Increases Economic/Social/Global inequalities
Who decides?
Response: Humanity as community, to serve the
underserved – follow Jesus model as Servant to the
least of these
A Plan for Dialogue
1.
2.
3.
The Message should not always be 'NO', but should be a
thoughtful 'Be Very Careful'.
Society for Neuroscience to recognize the importance of
communicating findings to and engaging (inclusively)
with religious communities.
• Social Issues Committee
• Public Information Committee
• Committee on Neuroscience Literacy
• Education Committee
Systematic effort of Christians in neuroscience, theology
and philosophy to publish in this area.
•
American Scientific Affiliation
•
Christian Neuroscience Society
•
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity