Neurobioethics Research Group plans for Brain Awareness Week

Feb 25, 2017 | News, Uncategorized

By Giulia Bovassi

Abstract

The Research Group of Neurobioethics dedicated its February 24 meeting to planning for the the March 16, 2017 sixth session of Brain Awareness Week, promoted by Dana Foundation, entitled “Neuroethics: Remapping the Field”. The event provides a space for reflecting on the historic context and various meanings of the neologism “neuroethics.” In addition, the event offers an exploration of the new field of the neuroesthetics. The conference helps participants renew their reflection on what makes us specifically human, in the light of non-reductive neurosciences.

Part I

Part II

The Neurobioethics Research Group (GdN), chaired by the its director Alberto Carrara, hosted its latest meeting on February 24 at the Ateneo Pontificio Regina Apostolorum (APRA) in Rome. The meeting was dedicated to the upcoming March 16 sixth session of the Brain Awareness Week entitled “Neuroethics: Remapping the Field”, in honour of the 15th anniversary of the birth of Neuroethics.

During the meeting, participants discussed the path paved by the first five Brain Awareness Weeks (BAW), coordinated and promoted by Dana Foundation (in particular by the European Dana Alliance for the Brain, by the Dana Alliance for the Brain Initiatives and by the Society for Neuroscience in the United States). The weeks began in 2012 at APRA and at the European University of Rome, by means of the GdN in collaboration with S.I.S.P.I. (International School of Specialization with the Imaginative Procedure), the UNESCO Chair of Bioethics and Human Rights and the Science and Faith Institute.

The meeting summarized the arguments debated during previous five BAWs. The 2012 “Conscience, between mind and brain” analyzed the interrelation between conscience, mind and brain, deepened in its philosophical concept, in its influence in bioethics, in its clinical and psychodynamic role. The 2013 “Neuroeconomics and neuromarketing” paid particular attention to social ethics, to the decision-making and satisfaction procedures, and the pathological influences upon the number of suicides. The 2014 “Memory and Alzheimer” reflected on the mnemonic element, looked at neuroimaging techniques and neurophysiology, and analyzed how Alzheimer’s disease affected patients’ care. The diverse scientific reflections referred to the anthropological-philosophical perspective, thus extending the themes to issues of conscience, freedom and identity. The latter faces new threats like the “oblivion pill”[1], a drug that purposes to remove some memory data from minds. The 2015 “Neuro-Law” session examined the interrelation between the judicial field (as illustrated by Alberto Garcia, lawyer and director of the UNESCO Desk of Bioethics and Human Rights) and the psychiatric, psychological, and pathological conditions of patients. In particular, participants reflected on the case of a cerebral tumor linked to personality disorders (affecting patient’s will, deliberateness and vulnerability). Finally, the 2016 “Neuroesthetics” session applied an interdisciplinary approach to questions of the beauty and brain’s aesthetic perception, starting from the idea that «creativity is the strategy brain uses to compensate its own limits»[2].flier-ITA-BAW2017

BAW is an initiative begun in San Francisco, California in 2002, where the Dana Foundation organized the first neuroethics world congress entitled “Neuroethics: mapping the field,” thus giving the neologism its “canonical birth”. The definition of “Neuroethics” is attributed to the American political scientist William Safire, who defined neuroethics as «the investigation of what is correct or incorrect, good or bad, about the human brain’s treatment, enhancement, interventions or manipulations»[3]. BAW’s purpose is to attract interest to this fascinating, powerful and mysterious organ known as the brain. Moreover, its aim is to produce educational diffusion about the nervous system and its effects on who we are. It also seeks to provide, at the media level, a greater awareness about neuroscience research’s status and, more broadly, about neuroscientific knowledge.

The March 16 session will focus on: neuroethics’ proper identity, comparing different definitions so as to generate a better comprehension; the perspectives of neuroesthetics’ and their innovative applications; the historical background of what we commonly define today as “neutoethics,” referring to the common William Safire’s quote mentioned above, its origins in 1973 on account of professor Anneliese Alma Pontius.

These interdisciplinary spaces promote a sense of responsibility, not only for inquiring scientists, but also for any citizen, in order that he collaborate in the social good. Such educational activities are constant and gradual works, never completely done, of perfecting critical ability in the face of technological possibilities whose rapid and unceasing developments pose anthropological and ethical challenges. Neuro-centrism, assumed in its strongest meaning, is the product of a new “Brain Era”, that replaces the decayed “Anthropocentric Era.” We can thus see the nexus with the UNESCO Chair’s mission and its commitment of distinguishing fair from unfair, just from unjust in the face of scientific challenges and of making respect for human rights and human freedom fundamental.

As it has been for bioethics’ origins, neurosciences need a double intervention, both on an specialized expert professional level and on an ethical-juridical level capable of promoting the common good for humanity. As it has been demonstrated reviewing the previous session history, neurosciences have utilized the interdisciplinary approach to answer the ethical demand for a «homeostatic process»[4], aware that each scientific progress raises questions around freedom, conscience, life, human being, deliberateness. The UNESCO Chair seeks to examine human identity, overcoming the risk of separation between «he who studies» and «what is studied»[5], patient and pathology, the objective-subjective. Side by side with the therapeutic perspective, potentially alarming horizons are rising, established by the neuroscientific possibilities open to discriminatory and selective tendencies, clearly in contrast with the bioethical values to which the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights refers. For example the challenge of human enhancement, with its social repercussions and the danger of social inequality, along with the consumer trivialization of the biotechnological potential. Dialogue is therefore essential for the sake of constructive growth in a science that is altruistic and not an end in of itself at the disadvantage of certain individuals. The patrimony left by neurosciences is of a host of social and existential questions without full resolution. On the one hand, there is the dreadful possibility of overstepping what is naturally human in order to enter the «biotechnological symbiont»[6], where the epiphanic character of the body transforms the naturally human into the «naturally artificial»[7].

[1]             http://www.sispi.eu/_docs/2014/140213_BAW_2014_APRA-SISPI-DANA_Prog.pdf

[2]      http://neurobioetica.blogspot.it/2016/03/baw2016-neuroestetica-lanteprima-romana.html

[3]      http://acarrara.blogspot.it/2013/11/storia-della-neuroetica-10.html, cfr. nota 54

[4]        VIAFORA, C.; GAIANI, A., A lezione di bioetica. Temi e strumenti, Franco Angeli, Milano 2012, p. 345

[5]      Ibid., p. 322

[6]      http://www.aiems.eu/files/rs_10_-_saggio_longo.pdf

[7]      Ibid., p. 64

Chair hosts Fifth International Bioethics, Multiculturalism, and Religion Workshop at MD Anderson Cancer Center

Nov 17, 2016 | News

by Claudia Sotomayor, Research Scholar of UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center was the host of the Fifth International Bioethics, Multiculturalism, and Religion Workshop and Conference. During three days Bioethical thought leaders from six major religions and ten countries gathered to analyze and discuss the “Bioethical Challenges in Neurogenomics from an Interreligious and Multicultural Perspective.” Previous workshops have successfully taken place in Jerusalem, Rome, Hong Kong and Mexico with the participation of more than 70 prestigious interdisciplinary scholars from around the world.

2-20140308_152638

By gathering experts from Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, a rare space for dialogue was created where an atmosphere of friendship and respect reigned. Such dialogue and encounter allowed the participants to analyze the current bioethical issues posted by Neurogenomics, which is presently at a very exciting crossroad since recent discoveries have challenged the classic model of gene organization and information flow, and for these reasons are improving our self-understanding by providing biological descriptions of how man acts. However, the bioethical imperative remains to articulate how man should act within the relevant phenomenological dimensions described from the rich blend of multi-cultural and inter-religious dialogue.

While each session allotted an hour to spontaneous dialogue in response to the three prepared presentations, the conversation inevitably spilled over into the coffee breaks, and shared meals. Each tradition brought up different and unique views that highlighted the importance of this topic. Dr. Alberto Carrara warned that the “reductionist interpretations of neuroscientific results challenge notions of free will, responsibility, personhood and the self which are essential for western culture and society.”

Dr. Ellen Zhang commented that “Buddhism will question scientism that reduces everything to materials while embracing science as a skillful means to help the world to be a better place.” The conversation was enriched by several topics highlighted by the Scholars like the relationship between Neurogenomics and the Islamic Law posted by Dr. Aasim Padela; the resource allocation problem noted by Dr. Mirko Garasic; and the analysis of the human afterlife form a Hinduist perspective explained by Dr. Deepak Sarma. With a great interest the experts expressed their concerns in setting up the limits to protect the dignity of the human person according to their own cultural/religious perspective.

12-img_0065

Dr. Ruiping Fan proposed a familial ethical approach highlighting that “Confucianism holds ethical familialism, emphasizing the inherent value of family continuity, integrity, and prosperity, in addition to individual goods” and that “If this Confucian ethical familialism is taken seriously, we should not make individualist ethical guidelines for the research and application of neurogenetics.”

Dr. Leo Goodstadt, professor at Oxford University, explained in detail the human genome during his presentation. There was also an engaging talk on Public Health by Dr. Umair A. Shah, Executive Director Harris County Public Health Houston, Texas. These presentations where open to the public and encouraged participation of the outside community including public authorities, doctors and other healthcare personnel, teachers, university scholars and students. These talks also provided the scientific tools needed to advance the high level ethical reasoning of the Scholars.

Dr. Chris Durante, Professor of Religious Studies at the New York University, set the tone of the various sessions as academic coordinator of this workshop. Following his indications, participants sought to understand each religious tradition and their manner of arriving at moral norms without engaging in ill-informed, harsh criticisms. Without ignoring their obvious ethical differences, emphasis was placed upon finding bridge concepts that could stimulate continued dialogue and practical collaboration in realizing shared values.

bac-1-img_0068

To enlighten not only the mind, but the also the senses, Chair of the Bioethics Art Competition Yvonne Denbina, presented the winning pieces of 2011, 2013, 2015 of the Bioethics Art competition. The images transported the visitors to a deeper understanding of bioethics by the representation of the artists speaking through their images and words, to view the winning pieces visit the website: http://www.bioethicsart.org/. In this site, the information for the 2017 competition titled: A Portrait of Mother Earth and the Challenge of Human Ecology, is available.

The challenging experience of navigating through a complicated and highly technical topic using the lenses of different religious perspectives enabled the participants to share values and attitudes that promoted the dialogue, which fulfilled UNESCO Chair goal of “Fostering the Art of Convergence and Cooperation in Global Ethics.” To continue the international discussion on the various themes raised at the Houston gathering and to prepare for the 2018 workshop and conference, the Fellows participate in the ongoing blog: unescobiochair.wordpress.com, where interested thinkers are welcome to participate and contribute.