I’m under an overcast sky on the corner of Broad and Luckie in Atlanta, drinking coffee and sitting. Finally sitting. It seems pleasant enough to write here as pigeons swirl around the intersection and cute university girls pass by.
To reminisce:
I attended the Frank Gehry talk last Saturday. I went to the Neuroethics Symposium shortly thereafter and was quite impressed with the lineup of speakers. When all was said and done, there was a lot less talk about philosophy than I had thought would be the case, save for one incident in which an attendee spoke up during the question period only to call Colin Blakemore naive for saying that his approach to ethics has been from a reductionist perspective. To some extent I understand where the attendee was coming from, at least in considering the whole person in ethical matters, but I’m quite positive Blakemore would have talked more to this effect if time constraints weren’t operating. This was not the time to voice such concerns, let alone call names. More constructively, a philosopher stood up and asked what role philosophers might play in neuroethics. The answer was a call for dialogue between philosophers, bioethicists, scientists, physicians, etc, and while this is a basic statement, is still quite important to have such a statement brought forward.
Judy Illes from Stanford gave the first talk. Opening with a review of beta blockers and a vignette illustrating a traveller passing through a security checkpoint at an airport and unfortunately remarking ‘this is where you get your brain scanned’, Illes reiterated Howard Gardner’s hope for neuroeducators with research experience and pedagogical training to engage the public in an informed dialogue about the implications of neuroscience. The linear process of research moving from researchers to the media and finally to the public was discussed and the replacement of such a linear process with a circular one was hoped for. In fact, shifts in the way the application and consequences of neuroscience proceeds seems to have been a major theme of the conference. From the presidential lectures to these talks on neuroethics, an engagement of clinical observation as a means to inform basic research and an engagement of the public to inform neuroethics kept popping up.
Back to the talk, Illes discussed the profound effect false-positives and small-n research can have on patients and their families when such studies are taken to heart. At the end, Illes called for large-scale, longitudinal, multi-modal studies, clear clinical goals, and an examination of the consequences of neuroscience, both positive (say, neuroimaging as a means of mitigating stigma for certain disorders) and negative (small-n studies that need further follow up before something definitive can be said).
Gladys Maestre, a research clinician from Maracaibo, Venezuela gave the next talk. I won’t go too much into the details now as the rain has forced me into the Atlanta Public Library and I’m starting to think about having dinner soon. I will say that I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Maestre for my radio show on CKUW and will update my blog with the date the interview will air as soon as I know myself.
It might just be more informative if I post this blurb from the meeting planner:
Even in its young life, neuroethics has established itself firmly in the history of neuroscience. Much of the early activity has been driven by the intersection of neuroscience and biomedical ethics in the United States, but a significant emphasis is now visible worldwide in both developed and developing countries. The specific objectives of this symposium are to explore the landscape of activity in neuroethics on an international scale, the ethical, legal and social impact of neuroethics across country and cultural boundaries, and strategies for expanding neuroethics activity worldwide.
To achieve our goals we will draw on a number of themes. In regenerative medicine, for example, where does therapy stop and enhancement start? Will this technology give rise to a cognitive divide between those with and without access and a declining tolerance of those on the tails of the cognitive bell curve? In seeking ways in which neuroscience can better improve brain health in developing countries such as Venezuela, imperatives include establishing clear priorities, strengthening the capacity of local institutions, and meeting health needs. But, as many of the translational approaches of neuroscience involve sophisticated technology, will neuroscience unintentionally contribute to the “science divide” between rich and poor countries? In Japan, government efforts to promote research in the development and maintenance of brain function are focused on both ends of the life spectrum. The drive to improve function is pressing in this culture, but an overriding ethical issue is that no one yet knows what an optimal brain should be. Nurturing core neural functions while respecting individual differences is a vast challenge. In mental health research in the UK for example, and on a global scale, the interplay of genetics, development and environment poses yet other challenges. Knowledge of the origins of pathology have the potential to lead to early intervention and treatment decisions, but advances also raise concerns about poor uses of risk data and the medicalisation of human traits. How can neuroethics, neuroscientists and sponsors of research best foster debate and wise decision-making? Overall, how can the academic community and the public both become better engaged with neuroscience? Drawing on an emerging Canadian model, we will call for a paradigm shift that embraces the early and proactive inclusion of all types of experts - neuroscientists and geneticists, ethicists, philosophers and others - in the research process.
Three cheers for the Canadian model!
The pangs are hitting me and there’s an interesting book called ‘Design 1935-1965: What Modern Was’ lying next to me. I think I’ll read this for a bit and then fill my belly and haul the offical SFN murse around a little more.
