Practical Ethics

Brain training and cognitive enhancement

If you were offered a treatment that claimed to be able to improve your memory and creativity, enhance neuroplasticity and increase cognitive ability, and prevent later cognitive decline would you take it? Many people would – at least if the recent popularity of computer-based brain-training exercises is anything to go by. Programs claiming to be able to do some or all of the above have been at the top of software charts for the last couple of years, and have sold millions of copies. Research published today in the consumer magazine ‘Which?’ pours cold water on the claims of the brain trainer manufacturers. The research concludes that there is very weak evidence that these exercises actually work.

Am I allowed to throw away *my* memories: does memory editing threaten human identity?

A paper has recently been published demonstrating that a previously learned fearful reaction can be weakened using a drug. The aim of the research is to ameliorate PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, where traumatic experiences cause an ongoing state of anxiety and stress reactions. In the media it of course became "drug can erase bad memories" and "Pill to erase bad memories: Ethical furore over drugs 'that threaten human identity'". Are we getting close to a memory eraser pill, and would it pose any ethical challenges?

Transparent brains: detecting preferences with infrared light

Researchers at University of Toronto have demonstrated that they can decode which of two drinks a test subject prefers by scanning their brains with infrared light. (Original paper here.) The intention is to develop better brain-computer interfaces for severely disabled people, but there are obvious other applications for non-invasive methods of detecting what people want. No doubt neuromarketers are drooling over the applications. But the threat to mental privacy might be a smaller problem than the threat of mistaken preferences.

Why boost brains?

Reuters reports: Brain-boosting drugs: why not?, experts say (various follow ups in different media). The story is based on an opinion article in Nature, where a number of medical, legal and philosophical researchers argue that society must respond to the growing demand for cognitive enhancement. How and why should society respond?

Should We Be Erasing Memories?

By S. Matthew Liao, Anders Sandberg, and Julian Savulescu

Scientists from the Medical College of Georgia in the US recently claimed to be able selectively to wipe out traumatic memories. These scientists experimented with mice and found that a particular protein plays a crucial role in the formation of memories. When they made the mice produce an excess of this protein, memories of painful events were completely eliminated.  Such research raises hope for treating conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in which painful memories become intrusive and damage an individual’s ability to live an ordinary life.  In theory, such memories could either have their emotional strength reduced or be blotted out altogether. In practice we are still some distance away from being able to achieve this, but it does not seem unreasonable to think that within the next decade we will be able to control the erasing of memory.

Compulsory chemical castration for sex offenders

A month ago, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, called for the introduction of forced chemical castration for sex offenders. The call followed a particularly nasty case of incest and paedophilia in the country: a 45 year old man was found to have sexually abused his 21-year-old daughter over a period of six years, and to have fathered two children by her. A poll showed that 84% of the Polish population supported the Prime Minister's proposal, however many commentators condemned it as an affront to human rights. In response, the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, claimed that the sex offenders he has in mind cannot be described as human beings, and therefore have no human rights (see here). Nevertheless, high level opposition has forced the government to replace the proposal with a plan for voluntary chemical castration, which is already allowed in Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and some US states. 

It is interesting to compare the claims that have been made for and against Mr Tusk's proposal with those that we might expect to surround alternative proposals for reducing rates of re-offending among sex offenders. Suppose the Prime Minister had instead suggested the introduction of a compulsory education programme for sex offenders in which they would be forced to confront the devastating effects that their actions can have on their victims. It is difficult to imagine such a proposal being greeted with the claim that it breaches human rights. And it is also hard to imagine the proponents of such a programme resorting to the claim that sex offenders aren't human. Instead, the debate would probably focus on weighing the costs and benefits of the proposed programme.

Can these differing responses be justified? Is there any good reason to think that compulsory chemical castration is a matter of human rights, while compulsory re-education is not?

I suggest it was Professor Plum, in the library, with the arsenic: the unreliability of brain experience detection

A woman has been convicted in Mumbai for murder, based on a new brain-based experience detection technology. As can be predicted, many regard this as Orwellian while others hope technologies like this could transform the courtroom "as much as DNA evidence has". But there are big problems. The most obvious one is the question of whether the technology actually works, let alone works well enough to be suitable for convicting somebody. The analogy with DNA evidence points at the second big problem: the legal institutions need to learn how to use it well. There are very good reasons for experts in psychology, neuroscience and forensics are troubled by this case.

The point of death

The Guardian yesterday reported the death of the man who had been so tragically shot in Antigua, with his wife, three weeks after their wedding. It began like this:

"Ben Mullany, the newlywed who was shot on honeymoon in Antigua in an attack that killed his wife, Catherine, died in hospital in Wales yesterday after his life support machine was switched off.  The 31-year-old trainee physiotherapist, who had suffered a fractured skull and had a bullet lodged in the back of his head, was flown back to Britain while in a coma on Saturday. Tests carried out when his condition stabilised after the 24-hour journey established he was brain dead." 

This is a familiar way of describing such happenings, even among clinical professionals.   Brain death is pronounced, so the life support machine is switched off, and the patient dies.   The clear implication is that brain death is not death.  The machine is still keeping the patient alive, and it is switching off the machine that causes real death. 

Brain Boosting and Cheating in Exams: Four Responses

A report by the Academy of Medical Sciences looking at different aspects of drug use and mental health has identified a growing trend for off-label use of drugs intended for the treatment of diseases including narcolepsy, ADHD and Alzheimer’s. The use of such drugs by a healthy individual can improve memory, alertness and concentration. While the report does not condemn the practice, it raises a number of potential concerns over safety, and fairness. Professor Les Iversen, report co-author, highlighted concerns that the use of enhancement in exams would unfairly advantage wealthier students, and suggested that the use of such drugs could be considered cheating. The report recommends that legislation is prepared to tackle the misuse of such drugs, including the potential for urine testing in schools and universities.

Below are responses from Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg and Mark Sheehan on the effects of cognitive enhancing drugs, and the issue of cheating

New hope or false hope for vegetative patients?

A BBC documentary screening this evening on the ‘Inside Out’ program reports on what it describes as a breakthrough for patients in a vegetative state. It is based upon research by a group of neuroscientists in Cambridge, who have used sophisticated brain scans (functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) to look for signs of consciousness in patients who have previously been thought to be completely unaware of their surroundings.