Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:59:02.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroimaging, Uncertainty, and the Problem of Dispositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2010

GARDAR ÁRNASON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Brain research in neuroscience and related fields is changing our understanding of the brain and its relation to the mind and to human behavior, giving a new impetus to the problem of free will and moral responsibility. The reactions have covered the entire range, from claims to the effect that neuroscientific research is showing that our folk–psychological understanding of conscious free will and moral responsibility is deeply mistaken to claims to the effect that neuroscientific research is irrelevant to moral issues of free will and responsibility. In any case, neuroscience is posing some serious challenges to our conceptions of free will and moral responsibility.

Type
Special Section: Philosophical Issues in Neuroethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 188 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wegner D. The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002; Wegner D. Précis of The Illusion of Conscious Will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2004;27:649–59.

2. Gazzaniga M. The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press; 2005:100; Fuchs M. Ethical issues in neuroscience. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2006;19:600–7.

3. Neuroethics: Implications of Advances in Neuroscience. An online course in neuroethics, produced by the Center for Bioethics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, in collaboration with the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching & Learning (CCNMTL), available at http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/neuroethics/module1/foundationtext (last accessed 8 Aug 2009).

4. See note 3, Neuroethics:3.6.

5. Logothetis NK. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 2008;453:869–78 at 870.

6. See note 3, Neuroethics:3.6, and note 5, Logothetis 2008:877.

7. Raichle M. Neuroimaging. The Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives. In: The 2006 Progress Report on Brain Research. New York: Dana Press; 2006:7. Available at http://www.dana.org/news/publications/publication.aspx?id=4386 (last accessed 15 Aug 2009).

8. Illes J, Kirschen MP, Gabrieli JDE. From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nature Neuroscience 2003;6:205.

9. Poldrack RA. Neuroimaging: Separating the promise from the pipe dreams. The Dana Foundation Website; 2009 27 May; available at http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=22220 (last accessed 15 Aug 2009).

10. Vul E, Harris C, Winkielman P, Pashler H. Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009;4:274–90. Originally published online as Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience; available at http://www.edvul.com/pdf/VulEtAl.2009.pdf (last accessed 5 Sep 2009).

11. See note 10, Vul et al. 2009, as well as commentaries and authors’ reply to the commentaries in Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009;4:291–324.

12. Ackerman SJ. Hard Science, Hard Choices: Facts, Ethics, and Policies Guiding Brain Science Today. New York: Dana Press; 2006:25–8.

13. See note 5, Logothetis 2008:871; Lorberbaum JP, Bohning DE, Shastri A, Nahas Z, George MS. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for the psychiatrist; available at http://www.musc.edu/fnrd/primer_fmri.htm (last accessed 18 Aug 2009).

14. See note 12, Ackerman 2006:12.

15. Illes J, Racine E. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5:5–18 at p. 6.

16. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics iii.1, 1109b30–1111b4.

17. See, e.g., Greene J, Cohen J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London 2004;B359:1775–85; Burns K, Bechara A. Decision making and free will: A neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2007;25:263–80. For criticism, see Morse SJ. New neuroscience, old problems: Legal implications of brain science. Cerebrum 2004;6:81–90; Morse SJ. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2006a;3:397–412; Morse SJ. Moral and legal responsibility and the new neuroscience. In: Illes J, ed. Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006b:33–50; Morse SJ. The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 2007;25:203–20.

18. Snead OC. Neuroimaging and the “complexity” of capital punishment. New York University Law Review 2007;82:1265–339 at p. 1292.

19. See note 18, Snead 2007:1292.

20. 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005).

21. One amicus brief was led by the American Psychological Association (APA), the other by the American Medical Association (AMA). Roper v. Simmons, 125 S Ct 1183, 1200 2005. Brief for the American Psychological Association, and the Missouri Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent. Available at http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/roper-v-simmons.pdf (last accessed 5 Sep 2009). Roper v. Simmons, 125 S Ct 1183, 1200 2005. Brief of The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, National Association of Social Workers, Missouri Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, and National Mental Health Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent. Available at http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/amicus/03-633.pdf (last accessed 5 Sep 2009).

22. See note 17, Morse 2006a:410.

23. Siever LJ. Neurobiology of aggression and violence. American Journal of Psychiatry 2008;165:429–42. See also note 17, Burns, Bechara 2007:267.

24. See note 17, Burns, Bechara 2007:271–2.

25. Macmillan M. Phineas Gage: Unravelling the myth. The Psychologist 2008;21:828–31.

26. Mobbs D, Lau HC, Jones OD, Frith CD. Law, responsibility, and the brain. PLOS Biology 2007;5:693–700 at pp. 694–5.

27. See note 26, Mobbs et al. 2007:697–8.

28. See note 26, Mobbs et al. 2007:694–5. See note 17, Burns, Bechara 2007:272.

29. See note 17, Burns, Bechara 2007:272–3.

30. Vincent NA. Neuroimaging and responsibility assessments. Neuroethics 2009, online prepublication, available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/120989 (last accessed 12 Sep 2009).

31. See note 2, Fuchs 2006:601.