Ethics of neuroscience debate

Knoblich

Identified genetic mutations in brain development using organoids that may be linked to the development of autism. Organoids are tiny 3D brains made of embryonic stem cells

So what?- Knoblich

This supports the use of organoids as the benefits outweigh the costs, they are actually useful as they can provide explanations for mental disabilities and/or disorders and where they come from

Greely

“In order for it to be a good model, you want it to be as human as possible” however he also says that the more human the organoids get the more ethical problems arise

So what?- Greely

This goes against the use of organoids as by redesigning organoids to provide the best results it risks becoming unethical, for example how do we know these organoids won’t become conscious?

Social implication of organoids

Often organoids are transplanted into a rats brain to provide more information, this may go against the guidelines of working with animals as it could cause unnecessary death, harm or illness

Conclusion of using organoids

In conclusion, its unclear whether or not neuroscience is ethical because it can provide evidence that may contribute to curing disorders but it can also cause a great deal of harm to animals being tested on

Cherek et al

investigated the levels of aggression in males with a criminal history, half the men received a placebo the other half received an antidepressant, those who received the antidepressant showed significant decrease in aggression

So what?- Cherek et al

This supports the use of smart drugs because the evidence shows how the use of drugs can have positive side effects in terms of behaviour, for example lower levels of aggression. This in theory would lower the rates of aggravated crimes committed

Peter Chisea

Killed his neighbours and despite evidence showing he planned their murders he got charged with the lesser sentence because his brain scans showed damage to his pre-frontal cortex, temporal lobe and cerebellum.

So what?- Peter Chiesa

This goes against the use of neuroscience as it shows that criminals might not be held responsible for their crimes due to mental illness, endangering society as criminals will either have smaller sentences or none at all

Social implication of neuroscience

Crimes rates will increase if criminals are not held accountable which will make create a toxic society to live in

Conclusion of neuroscience

In conclusion, its uncertain as to whether neuroscience is ethical because it does provide benefits like treating peoples negative traits but also doesn’t hold people accountable for their actions if they have an mental illness, creating an unsafe environment

Kodosh et al

found that TDCs leads to improvements in problem-solving and memory. This means cognitive enhancement can be obtained through the usage of certain drugs

So what?- Kodosh et al

This supports the use of neural modification as the evidence suggests that certain drugs can enhance certain abilities and have positive side effects, which will improve people and in turn improve society as they will all have better attributes to contribute to their work and community

Long term side effects

research into the long term side effects of drugs is limited. for example modafinil may affect sleep patterns and reduce creativity.

So what?- Long term effects

This goes against the use of neural modification as the evidence shows that the use of these modification drugs is relatively new and we are currently unaware of the side effects

Economic implication of neural modification and cognitive enhancement

Using these drugs will cost money so as they become more widespread the pharmaceutical companies producing the drugs are likely to increase the price making it harder for people in poverty to obtain the drugs

Conclusion of neural modification and cognitive enhancement

Overall conclusion