Ethics of Neuroscience

The Ethics of Neuroscience Debate

The debate over the ethics of neuroscience is one of the most topical debates out there. When you decide to study an area of the human body (especially the brain), the big dilemma is asking yourself whether the information you want to gain is worth the potential burden you are putting on the person or animal you are studying.In addition, as research techniques and modern technology advance, there is the question of what to do with this new information. Will the insight into the nervous system’s workings be used to enhance research into more insidious plans? Or will it be used from a purely medical perspective?

The Areas of Ethics in Neuroscience

Overall, there are several important areas we focus on when addressing the ethical debate in neuroscience, as these areas are generally prioritised:

• Research (sample selection, animal rights, diseases in research)

• Therapy (psychosurgery and personal identity, criminal behaviour)

• Why there is a debate at all (concepts such as eugenics, moral responsibility, and free will)

• Related theories (cognitive and biological theories, including the concept of free will.

In psychology, researchers have to consider the following ethical issues:

1. Informed consent
2. Voluntary participation
3. Protection of the participants
4. Confidentiality
5. Anonymity
6. The right to withdraw
7. Debriefing

Olds and Milner (1954): The Skinner Box

In 1954, Olds and Milner² modified the famous Skinner box to study the brain’s pleasure centre. What they found had a profound impact on all of neuroscience.To begin the experiment, they attached electrodes to specific brain areas in rats. They studied the septal area, which is suggested to be a reliable area in producing reward phenomena in the brain. The rats were then placed in the Skinner box with the electrodes attached and levers.

One lever allowed the rats to stimulate the areas of the brain where the electrodes were attached. Each time they pressed it, it produced a pleasant, reward-like sensation in the brain. One rat (the highest scoring rat) was found to self-stimulate over 7500 times in 12 hours.

Further studies found that when given a choice between pressing the lever and eating, drinking, and caring for their young, the rats chose the pleasurable sensation of pressing the lever.

Fig. 2 - Rats were used in various famous experiments in neuroscience and psychology.

Problems arose when this experiment was performed on human patients. These were usually patients. Researchers used the use of electrodes to stimulate regions of the brain to see if certain diseases could be cured.

Ethical Benefits of Using Neuroscience in Psychology

The ethical benefits of using neuroscience in psychology include advancing treatment techniques, rehabilitating offenders, and other areas involving neuroscience. Neuroscience has proven particularly useful for biological therapies.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Biological psychology holds that genes and biological predispositions influence criminal behaviour. People are predisposed or prone to commit crimes because it is in their biology, including neural and hormonal mechanisms.

One aspect of this branch is the role of neurotransmitters (chemical messengers). Consider the role of serotonin in the brain.

Cherek et al. (2002) examined the role of serotonin in human aggression in 12 male subjects with criminal histories. Six subjects received a placebo, and six received paroxetine, an antidepressant.

• Aggression was measured using the point-subtraction aggression paradigm (PSAP). They measured impulsivity using a reward system; those who could wait longer received better rewards.

They found that after 21 days of paroxetine administration, impulsive responses decreased, and toward the end of treatment, so did aggression. They concluded that paroxetine’s inhibition of serotonin lowers aggression levels and can be used as a treatment to reduce aggression in general.

Brain Abnormalities in Murderers

A particularly important study is that of Raine et al. (1997).They examined the potential brain abnormalities of 41 murderers who pleaded not guilty to murder by insanity. They used positron emission tomography techniques to analyse brain structure.They found murderers were characterised by reduced glucose metabolism in their:

• Prefrontal cortex
• Superior parietal gyrus
• Left angular gyrus
• Corpus callosum

They also found asymmetrical activity levels in the amygdala, thalamus and medial temporal lobe. They then suggested abnormalities in these areas might predispose people to murder.

Treatment Using Neuroscience

We have developed various methods of treating abnormal behaviour and mental disorders thanks to neuroscience research results.

One of the most prominent examples is the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). These are antidepressants used to treat mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

SSRIs are useful with significant effects on those who undergo treatment. Addressing these problems makes neuroscience more ethical and provides ethical benefits through the use of neuroscience in psychology.

Fig. 3 - SSRI drugs are used in neuroscience treatment.

As we understand more and more about the localisation of brain function, a treatment called deep brain stimulation (DBS) has also been used primarily for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Understanding Consciousness

For a long time, many people have been trying to understand the phenomena of consciousness.

Crick and Koch (1998) argued that the science of consciousness should be based on the fundamentals of identifying its neural correlates, also suggesting that consciousness provides useful biological stimuli that help with survival.

Koubeissi et al. (2014) investigated the roots of consciousness in their study of a 54-year-old woman with intractable epilepsy who was treated with electrode implantation and stimulation mapping.

Consciousness was disrupted when the electrode stimulated and disrupted function between the left claustrum and the anterior-dorsal insula.

In this research, stimulation of the claustrum electrode caused:

• The complete arrest of volitional behaviour (wilful behaviour).

• Unresponsiveness.

• Amnesia upon waking (without negative motor symptoms or aphasia).

This disturbance did not persist after the stimulation was stopped. The researchers concluded the claustrum is an important area associated with consciousness, and it can be disrupted.

With this knowledge, we can approach different areas of the brain with a better idea of how they function. Those who have problems with consciousness can then receive better-informed care.

Enhance Neurological Functioning

Neuroscience research can enhance our neurological function, which can be seen in the Kadosh et al. (2012) study.

They used transcranial direct stimulation (TDCS) that passes an electrical current through the brain (and this can be directed by placing the electrodes on specific areas). When placed in certain areas, problem-solving skills, mathematical skills, and language skills all improved.

This finding demonstrates a way to enhance the neurological functioning of human beings using neuroscience.

Fig. 4 - Neuroscience research can enhance our neurological function.

Ethical Problems of Using Neuroscience in Psychology

Although the ethical benefits from the use of neuroscience in psychology are evident, there are also issues, which we have touched upon with the points made above.

Neuroscience in Crime and Punishment

Considering the study on the brains of murderers by Raine et al. (1997), basing a judicial system on preliminary information raises ethical concerns.

Should we remove these people with abnormal brain structures from society to prevent potential murders? Is it ethical to treat them before they have done anything wrong?

Farah (2004) highlights the issue of basing our judicial system on neuroscience, correctly pointing out that personal freedom is one of the first basic human rights, and infringing upon that with neuroscience to alter ‘innate’ behaviours raises genuine concerns.

It is unethical to force people into treatments that will change their behaviours, especially considering prisoners are technically vulnerable people when imprisoned. Moral questions surrounding the responsibility of offender care and the reliability of research findings arise.

Issues with treatment using neuroscience

Although the advent of SSRIs has proven effective in treatment, alongside other techniques, there are side effects we cannot ignore when using these treatment plans.

Those with depression taking antidepressants have been reported to commit suicide at a higher rate after initially starting treatment (Ferguson et al., 2005).

Treatments have also been misused. Homosexuality was previously believed to be a mental disorder (sexual deviation), and lobotomies, electrical stimulation, and chemical castration were all avenues of possible ‘treatment’ plans to cure it.

Social and Economic issues in ethical uses of neuroscience

As neuroscience is a rapidly developing area of study, it has made significant advancements in research techniques.

Neuroscience research has evolved from identifying brain structures from corpses to the development of imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) and computerised tomography (CT) scans).

An even newer development is the production of brain organoids. Which are stem cells used to produce brain structures to be studied outside of the body; they are artificially grown. However, the implantation of these organoids raises ethical concerns. We could technically implant a human brain organoid into a dog, and see how the dog deals with this.

Consider a study by Nelson (2008), where they found that the use of MRI scans to investigate brain function used by economic firms has risen in recent years. There have been incidental findings (findings of medical conditions discovered unintentionally). Yet, these are not properly addressed – 5% of brain scans used by these firms found evidence of brain tumours and other problems. Researchers are then not obliged to inform participants about this – they do not have to follow ethical guidelines, as they are not medical professionals.

However, how much money can effectively treat disorders such as depression save is something to consider. Thomas and Morris (2003) found that the cost of depression amongst adults in England in 2000 was around £9 billion. 109.7 million working days were lost, and 2,615 deaths were recorded due to depression. It would be ethically correct to treat these disorders.

However, looking at mental health issues from a monetary angle poses its issues. Can you really cap the cost of improving people's lives? Should technology be regulated differently to only be used for certain purposes?

1. G.R. VandenBos, APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association, 2007

2. J. Olds & P. Milner, Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47(6), 419–427., 1954