Neuroscience Ethical Issues

Brain research like this generally requires a live subject whether it is to be an animal or a human. Any experimental medical testing is always an ethical issue because of the potential risks that it poses such as pain, discomfort, death, or altercations to the subjects current state. There are many risks with brain research involving what might happen in the present and what could happen in the future.

Human experimentation has always been a topic of ethical controversy, recently the draw towards this practice has become increasingly more appealing; due to the expanding medical advancements and progress within the last decade. It is obvious why experimenting on humans is an attractive option, but how far can we push these experiments before it's considered criminal and inhumane? Many medical researchers push for the use of human experimentation because of the general good that these experiments may have on not only the medical community but also the general public. However, there are many ethical questions that need to be addressed before such experiment is conducted.

Bioethics is a very diverse and subjective issue in Buddhism that bases its self around fundamental Buddhist laws such as the five precepts, the four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold path. Each Buddhist variant approaches bioethics differently based on the variants primary goal, ideals or practices. However all Buddhists views of bioethics are somewhat influenced by the universal goal of Buddhism to become liberated from the constant cycle of reincarnation or samsara. In conjecture with Buddhism, the occurrence of samsara allows for one to attain a new view on everything including bioethics allowing for the chance to discover or come to an ultimate realisation which in turn allows for the ultimate realisation of issues relating to

In the patient confidentiality case of Carlos, a 21 year old Hispanic male is being discharged from his hospital stay for a gunshot wound. Carlos is intended to receive nursing care at home from his sister, Consuela. Carlos is secretly a homosexual and is concerned that his secret will be revealed and be disgraced by his family. Carlos pleaded with his physician not to inform his sister that he is HIV-positive. Not informing Consuela would seem to increase her risk of contracting HIV while attending to Carlos’ wounds. The ethical issue is whether Carlos’ physician is justified in breaching confidentiality on the grounds that he has the “duty to warn”

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was created to make guidelines to protect human subjects from harm in projects and experiments in 1979; this was the Belmont Report (Shutt, p. 67). Horrendous acts such as the Tuskegee Experiment (African American subjects who had or were given syphilis were unknowingly not cured and then monitored by researchers for the U.S. Public Health Services starting from the 1930’s until the early 1970’s) (Gamble, p. 1773) and the Milgram Experiment (people were told by a “person in a lab coat” (researcher) to test the memory of other “subjects” (portrayed by actors), and if an incorrect response were given then a shock was administered to the “subject” in which the level of shock would increase each time a wrong answer was given until a lethal shock was administered under orders from the “person in a lab coat”) (Shutt, p. 64 – 65). were allowed until the Belmont Report was created. The Belmont Report set three basic principles to safeguard subjects. These are: respect for persons (making sure all patients’ autonomies (of any capacity) are protected), benefice (minimal harm with maximum benefits), and justice (balancing harm and risk in all aspects of the experiment/project) (Shutt, p. 67).

A hypothetical experiment is proposed that inquires into the effects of cutting a specific part of the hypothalamus of cats. In the experiment, cats would have a surgery in which their hypothalamus is cut, when the cat would recover from the surgery, their behavior would be observed. The cats would then be painlessly euthanized via an injection of poison. This research raises a question as to whether the experiment is ethical and follows the guidelines described in the Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals (developed by the American Psychological Association's Committee on Animal Research and Ethics [CARE]). After careful examination of the APA CARE guidelines, the experiment would be ethical because there were no technical

Over the years human experiments has developed the knowledge of human physiology and psychology. However, the use of human’s subject in research have to become a controversial issue in our society. It has become a debatable questions whether it’s ethical or not. There has to be a limit to where certain experiments can be implemented on humans such as trials for drugs and social experiments. There are moral principles that guides our research into deciding what is “right or wrong”. This principles is governed by two philosophical theory which is deontology and utilitarianism. However, they need to balance the risk and benefit for the participant associated with the research.

Human subjects are recruited to participate in a variety of research projects to include clinical trials, experiments, data collection, sampling, surveys, etc. Over time it has come under fire because of the influx of ethical issues associated with human participant research. The American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code which is made up of 5 principles and 8 standards) provide guidance and serves to protect the public from ethical misconduct, it also serves to guide and protect professionals.

Emotions run the world: many buy the “perfect dress” to feel confident, others run for fun, and others sleep as their sadness increases. Thus, in a world where emotions lead, mankind struggles to reason. Dr. Mark G. Baxter, a neuroscientist at Harvard University, and Dr. Elisabeth A. Murray, a Senior Investigator at the National Institute of Mental Health, are perfect examples of why many professionals in the science and medical field should start to investigate the amygdala, an “almond-shaped group of nuclein” associated with emotion, due to it being one of the most important parts of the brain as it is what defines what people do in their everyday basis. Nature, one of the most respected journals in the scientific community, published Dr. Baxter and Dr. Murray’s “The Amygdala and Reward” on July 2002 Nature Publishing Group arguing through ethos and logical appeals that the amygdala processes reward in the brain as well a negative emotions. Both neuroscientists prove the importance of understanding the connections between reward and emotions by analyzing their experiments performed on moneys and other primates, and including facts and statistics from other scientists and doctors. This well crafted article conscientiously analyzes how the amygdala’s role in stimulus-reward learning might be just as important as its role in processing negative fear and conditioning by providing credibility, reliability, logic, and reason to the audience.

Cognitive enhancement is a rapidly evolving medical advancement which has the potential to drastically change society as we know it. Cognitive enhancement technologies, such as pharmaceutical and genetic cognitive enhancement methods, raise a wide variety of ethical concerns despite their potential to greatly benefit society. This paper will focus on cognitive enhancement drugs, also known as nootropics, such as Adderall, Ritalin, and Modafinil. In this paper, I will argue that we have a moral obligation to utilize pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement methods in order to benefit society as a whole. I will also consider a potential objection to the presented argument which questions the benefits of cognitive enhancement drugs if their successful

Animal experimentation has been at the forefront of brain research for decades. Rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, pigs, and monkeys are all used to develop drugs and treatments to benefit humans. Even though animal brains do not precisely mimic the biology of the human brain, their brains have many of the same basic structures and functions. Animal research, that is, the use of animals as experimental subjects in biomedical and behavioural fields of learning, has been institutionalised on the basis of two key assumptions, one factual and one moral. The factual assumption is that animal research provides a reliable basis for predicting the effects of drugs, products and yield significant scientific conclusions and medical benefits for society. The

This Report enforces the private institutions to uphold a certain ethical standard in regards to human subjects research (HHS.gov, 1979). The APA is only entitled to live up to these principles set by the commission, but not entitled to do any follow up investigations of their biomedical research to ensure, develop, and uphold their biosafety and biosecurity of their medical and human subject research. What is interesting about these two policies is that both NIMH and APA must enforce the Belmont Report by law, but since the NIH is a government institution, it is supposed to live up to the new criteria for biosafety and biosecurity. These differences of the policies of biomedical research between governmental and private institutions can be

The subject of ethics has been one for the ages. Since man could think and reflect on his state, the question of right and wrong has been contemplated. Bioethics is a relatively young field, only beginning to develop institutionally and professionally in the late 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless, this field has grown exponentially over these past decades and will continue to develop in conjunction with the advancement of medicine, science, and biotechnology

The scenario where engineers have created an exact replica of my brain is created by engineers raises several questions as to whether brain would experience things like me and whether or not creating such a thing is ethical. The scenario furthers complicates itself by making it so that the artificial brain would receive signals as I received them and making it so that the artificial brain would be able to grow and adapt. Being that science is almost in complete agreement that everything that makes an person who they are as a human is primarily the product of the brain both questions are completely valid.

The human brain is utterly baffling. A small organ weighing merely three pounds as an adult has the ability to control and shape a human’s life. Without it there would be nothing. There are so many different functions… and with that there are so many things that can go horribly wrong. It is amazing the capacities and that it possesses and we do not even realize it. That is why studying neurology and working on the treatment of neurological disorders is so critically important. Through the examination of Huntington’s disease, Bell’s Palsy, and Aphasia, neurologists can work to better the human mind and cure the diseases that attack it, which will infinitely enhance the lives of humans and create a brighter future for us all.