Neuroethics

The study of social and ethical issues associated with science and technology is not a new or unique topic of inquiry. In fact, social and ethical issues have arisen and been explored in nearly every domain of the physical and biological sciences, as well as in engineering, and for many years. So it comes as no surprise that similar sorts of issues have begun to arise in earnest within nanoscience and nanotechnology. Indeed, these issues have [Page 601]begun to be addressed within an ethics subfield called “nanoethics.” Another area of ethical inquiry that shares with nanoethics both its relative newness and some areas of ethical concern is neuroethics. The advisability of addressing these issues solely within the context of the respective sciences is debatable.

Neuroethics is the study of ethical, social, legal, and policy issues associated with the brain, and/or neuroscience and neurotechnology. Neuroethics addresses issues from interventions in the brain and central nervous system, such as brain-computer interface devices or electrical stimulation, to issues of the use of psycho-pharmaceutical agents (i.e., drugs), to the use of neuroimages in the courtroom or employment situations. Neuroethics also addresses more deeply philosophical questions, such as what we mean when we talk about human identity or the nature of man. In this latter respect, neuroethics shares much with nanoethics.

In fact, ethical and social issues often arise in science and technology in one of two ways (and sometimes both): those relating to the technological aspects of the science/ technology (i.e., what the science or technology enables us to do); and those related to more philosophical questions, such as inquiries into the human condition, or the fundamental aims of science. This is certainly the case for both “nano” and “neuro.” For instance, both nanoethics and neuroethics are broadly concerned with several common issues: human enhancement and the nature of man (philosophical), surveillance and privacy (technological); military applications (technological); and implications for human health (technological); and the perennial issue of ethical and policy considerations lagging behind the science and technology (both philosophical and technological). It is important to note that none of these issues is a new category of ethical quandary. Moreover, it is not necessary for the technologies involved to be identical or even similar for them to raise similar ethical questions concerning the ways in which they may be applied.

These similarities have led some to question the wisdom of examining social and ethical implications from the perspective of subfields of ethical inquiry or only within the context of the particular science involved. One of the main concerns about subdividing ethical inquiries by their contexts is that scholars and policy makers may miss important lessons that have been uncovered about the same or similar issues in seemingly unrelated contexts. To do so would be to overlook potential synergies that could be achieved, not only in intellectual energy and output but also in maximizing the financial investment of government dollars devoted to addressing them. Indeed, there is some evidence that sort of narrow approach is already occurring within both the nanoethics and neuroethics literatures.

...