Search results

Neuroscience, with its promise to peer into the brain and explain the sources of human behavior and human consciousness, has captured the scientific, clinical, and public imaginations. Among those in the thrall of neuroscience are a group of ethicists who are carving out a new subspecialty within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. Neuroethics has taken as its task the policing of neuroscience. By virtue of its very existence, neuroethics presents a threat to its parent field bioethics. In its struggle to maintain authority as the guardian of neuroscience, neuroethics must respond to criticisms from bioethicists who see no need for the subspecialty. We describe the social history of neuroethics and use that history to consider several issues of concern to social scientists, including the social contexts that generate ethical questions and shape the way those questions are framed and answered; strategies used by neuroethicists to secure a place in an occupational structure that includes life scientists and other ethics experts; and the impact of the field of neuroethics on both the work of neuroscience and public perceptions of the value and danger of the science of the brain.

This paper critiques the scope of neurotechnologies in significantly expanding the epistemological field of tourism and warns of their potential to undermine the cognitive capacity of tourists to act responsibly and responsively.

This study explores the intersections of neurotechnologies and tourism through an analysis that entails a two-step process: firstly, identifying key themes and debates within neurotourism literature; secondly, critically evaluating these discussions through the lenses of social tourism theory and neuroethics.

Firstly, the work questions the potential of neurotechnologies to significantly expand epistemological boundaries concerning a perennial question in tourism studies: namely, the goal pursued by tourists. Secondly, the paper introduces the framework of an ethics of neurotourism, which can aid in developing the ethical research agenda on neurotechnologies applied to tourism. This framework is used to argue that one of the key risks associated with the use of neurotechnologies in tourism is their capacity to encourage non-responsive and non-responsible tourist behaviour.

Both due to the traditional lack of interest in philosophy in tourism and the pro-business orientation of the tourism academy, critical studies on the relationship between neurotechnologies and tourism are limited. The primary contribution of this work is to underscore that the implementation of neurotechnologies in tourism not only has the potential to foster non-responsible behaviour by undermining tourists’ cognitive capacities to act responsibly, but also can diminish their responsiveness. In a neural context where tourists may already exhibit a reduced inclination towards moral engagement, this reduction in responsiveness can be particularly significant.

Extant and newly developing techniques and technologies generated by research in brain sciences are characteristically employed in clinical medicine. However, the increasing capabilities conferred by these approaches to access, assess and affect cognition, emotion and behavior render them viable and attractive for engagement beyond the clinical realm, in what are referred to as “dual-use” applications. Definitions of what constitutes dual-use research and applications can vary so as to include utilization in the public sector for lifestyle or wellness purposes – with growing participation of a do-it-yourself (i.e., biohacking) community, and an iterative interest and use in military and warfare operations. Such uses can pose risks to public safety, and challenge research ethics’ principled imperative for non-harm (although while complete avoidance of any harm may be in reality impossible, certainly any/all harms incurred should be minimized). Thus, it is important to both clarify the construct of dual-use brain research and address the ethical issues that such research fosters. This chapter provides a review and clarification of the concept of dual-use brain science, and describes how current and emerging tools and techniques of brain research are actually or potentially employed in settings that threaten public health and incur ethical concerns. Key ethical issues are addressed, and recommendations for ethical guidance of potentially dual-use research are proposed.

This chapter takes the ‘wakefulness promoting’ drug modafinil as an exemplarity case in the sociology of pharmaceutical enhancement. The chapter draws on empirical data collected through 25 interviews with prospective users of modafinil, focusing on two of the ways in which prospective users of modafinil imagined how the drug might be used in their specific social domains: the use of modafinil as a safety tool in the workplace and its use as a study aid by university students. The data presented in this chapter suggests that although a therapy-enhancement dichotomy is a useful heuristic; it could also be limiting to uphold as it may direct attention away from other ways in which uses for new technologies can be positioned, negotiated, realised and resisted by (potential) users in the context of their daily lives.

While reiterating the benefits of applications of neuroscience to both research and practice, we also acknowledge in this concluding chapter the potential issues that will continually need to be addressed. Specifically, we overview ontological and epistemological concerns, such as the potential for excessive reductionism. We also address ethical issues that could come into play for both researchers and practitioners. Finally, we conclude with a look forward to the future by suggesting that the “approach,” rather than the “avoidance,” of organizational neuroscience is likely to grow over time. One exciting possibility is how an examination of the human brain in work and organizational settings is likely to be a prime example of the “big data” trends that the future will bring.

As one of the most dynamic and consequential areas of biomedical research, neuroscience must be analyzed in a broader political context. Research initiatives, individual use, and aggregate social consequences of unfolding knowledge about the brain and the accompanying applications require particularly close scrutiny because of the centrality of the brain itself to human behavior and thoughts. As one of the last frontiers of medicine, neuroscience has strong support because it promises to benefit many patients suffering from an array of behavioral, neurological, and mental disorders and injuries. Given the inevitability of expanded strategies for exploration and therapy of the brain, it is important that the political issues surrounding their application be clarified and debated before such techniques fall into routine use.