The International Roots of Future Neuroethics

By Denis Larrivee 

Denis Larrivee is a Visiting Scholar at the Neiswanger Bioethics Institute, 

Loyola University Chicago and a member of the International Neuroethics Society 

communication committee. He also serves on the editorial board for the journal Neurology and Neurological Sciences, where he is the section head for neuroscience. He is currently the editor of a text on Brain Computer Interfacing and Brain Dynamics. 

The reappearance in 2017 of the Ambassador Session at the International Neuroethics Soci-ety’s annual meeting underlines both the rapid upswing of global investment in neuroscience and the internationally perceived need for ethical deliberation about its interpretive significance, distinctive cultural manifestations, and evolution of complementary policy and juridical structures best serving global versus regional interests. The 2017 session juxtaposed the more mature organizational approaches of the American and European neuroethical programs against recent undertakings in Asia, a juxtaposition that helped to clarify how neuroethics progress is conditioned by local neuroscience research priorities and how more established programs assist in cross-cultural transmission to shape budding, national efforts. 

In this vein, moderator of the panel, Karen Rommelfanger, and co-moderator Ariel Cascio, began by summarizing this year’s theme on common roots and future collaboration in a chart relating national neuroscience priorities to their respective neuroethics postures. Reflecting the early, but growing, international interest in neuroethics, the chart tracked the successive neuroethics awakenings in regional programs, first in Europe, then in the USA and Australia, and now in Korea. Similar initiatives have yet to grow to the same stature in China and Japan but are apparently underway there also. In the USA, for example, the Neuroethics Division formed in late 2015, while the first R01 Neuroethics Research grant was awarded only in 2017. Emphasizing that it takes the world to understand the brain, Rommelfanger proposed that formulating an international neuroethics outlook necessitates a complementary and culturally shaped global contribution. For specific efforts to this end, she pointed to the Global Neuroethics Summit, which convened in Asia in 2017. 

Image courtesy of Flickr.

Building on the theme of responsivity to national neuroscience postures, panel members then described their national and regional neuroethics efforts both in terms of their respective national neuroscience emphases and the most significant and likely ethical impact. Representing the Human Brain Project (HBP) , Europe's flagship research infrastructure for brain research and brain inspired computing, Arlene Salles argued that a fundamental prerequisite for such efforts was a philosophical reflection for charting the neuroethical terrain at three levels: the normative, the empirical, and the conceptual. Salles described neuroethics as concerned normatively with the application of ethical theory to issues of applied neuroscience; empirically, through the assessment of ethical reasoning; and conceptually, in the clarification of neuroscience linguistic and theoretical tools that bear on a human ontology. Her articulation of a philosophical-neuroethical model illustrated how the ethical response in Europe is conditioned by the HBP’s more ontologically-based strategy of determining how the nervous system underwrites human behavior. 

By contrast, Khara Ramos of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Brain Research for the Advancement of Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Neuroethics Division, USA, summarized the more focused risk-benefits-tack used to monitor R01 neuroscience and neuroethics grants, which concern NIH’s circuit-based approach to disease and BRAIN's prioritization of neurotechnology development. In the American pursuit of a more pragmatic approach to the cellular and circuit building blocks of brain operation, Ramos pointed out that ethical priorities were necessarily less concerned with the interpretive aspects of the human dimension, due to the close link of ethics with the practical issues of technology impact and the strategy of elucidating the physical dimensions of brain operation taken in the USA. 

Jinni Jeong of the (South) Korean Brain Initiative described Korea’s new evolving neuroethical effort as one not only subject to the influences of American and European programs but also as a reaction to the nations’ limited scientific infrastructure, now attempting to expand its manpower pool of scientific experts. Despite the nation's neuroscientific emphasis on such practical domains of research as mapping and connectivity architectures, like the Americas, Jeong pointed out that neuroethics in Korea nonetheless also emphasizes the human concerns, seen in its prioritization of brain enhancement and brain death issues. 

Image courtesy of Pixel.

Commenting on the Kavli Foundation’s mission as a worldwide dissemination of science theory and practice as well as the development of a public understanding of this effort, Kavli’s representative Caroline Montojo offered, lastly, a model for mediation between the old and the new through the International Brain Initiative (IBI), a global alliance connecting the multi-institutional brain research projects now underway in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. In recognition of the diversity of efforts in these varied settings, IBI is designed to promote cooperation among various parties to help ensure their benefit to all nations. Kavli's role here, she explained, is that of an exchange facilitator, sponsoring a series of meetings to enhance the process of interregional cooperation. Montojo offered a synopsis of the Coordinating Global Brain Project meeting, jointly hosted by Columbia University and the Rockefeller University in September 2016, and the UN Assembly high level dialogue concerning the prerequisite for its foreign policy priority. Besides Kavli's focused facilitator role in IBI, Montojo also emphasized how the foundation's broader based efforts for spreading and promoting science through data sharing, tool dissemination, and training can assist in promoting neuroethical deliberation and cross regional efforts on neuroscientific discovery. 

With this in mind, promoting neuroethical deliberation and scientific complementarity is a task whose timing is current and coming, and whose international siting is broadly distributed across a number of forums. Representatives from Japan, Korea, Europe, USA and Australia, for example, just announced a formal declaration of cooperation in Canberra, Australia on December 12, to speed progress on the brain's neural coding. The 'Canberra Declaration' to create an IBI is now moving quickly ahead with a meeting for its steering committee planned for January 2018 . Global neuroethics summits like the recent Asia one, moreover, are on the horizon, according to Rommelfanger, which will further international cooperation through alignment of thematic proposals with those of the IBI. Given the international prominence of these undertakings, their consideration in world deliberative bodies, like the World Health Organization (WHO) can be expected to occupy an increasing proportion of program discussion. Already in 2016, WHO's Global Bioethics Summit in Berlin  incorporated issues centering on cognition. This cognitive theme can be expected to undergo exponential growth by 2018, at the Summit's next convening.

Want to cite this post?




Larrivee, D. (2018). The International Roots of Future Neuroethics. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/01/the-international-roots-of-future.html

Neuroethics Women to Watch

By Judy Illes, CM, PHD,

Immediate Past President, International Neuroethics Society (INS)

Dr. Illes is Professor of Neurology and Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia. Her research, teaching and service focus on ethical, legal, social and policy challenges specifically at the intersection of the brain sciences and biomedical ethics. Her latest book, Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future (Oxford University Press) was released in July 2017. Dr. Illes hold many prestigious awards for her work both in neuroethics and on behalf of women in science. She was appointed to the Order of Canada, the country’s highest civilian award, in December 2017. 

During the two years that I was President of the INS, and really since 2002 overall when we first set the modern neuroethics vision in motion, one of my greatest joys has been to work with outstanding people in our field. I have relentlessly sought to create opportunities for leadership especially among early career neuroethicists who seek to contribute, sometimes in the footsteps of more senior people and sometimes along a completely separate path that they set of their own. My focus has been on the women and men of our field alike and, during my term as President specifically, these opportunities unfolded in different forms. Working with remarkable staff led by Karen Graham (INS Executive Director) since the birth of the INS and Elaine Snell (Chief Operating Officer), and the INS Board, I created an Emerging Issues Task Force, for example, a Rising Star Lecture (Kreitmair, 2017), and many podium opportunities at our annual meetings. 

I have always been committed to advancing the careers of young people in neuroscience-related fields, and women in particular. In early 2000, for example, I served as Vice President of Women in Neuroscience (WIN) when WIN was an independent not-for profit organization (Haak, 2002). This continued into 2007 when WIN was merged with the Society for Neuroscience, even while the focus of the effort shifted under the umbrella of professional development. I carried on with my mission in 2008 as Chair of a new IBRO committee that I created at the request of Professor Albert Aguayo called Women in World Neuroscience. Today, as a new member the International Women’s Forum (iwforum.org), a group of more than 6500 women heads of state, leaders in business, industry, and a few in education and research, I am set to learn new ways of harnessing strength and bringing impactful innovation to our neuroethics sister- and brotherhood. 

In keeping with the general theme of women in academia and my special focus on neuroethics, I think about women in our field. Honestly, you will see, my reflections are gender nonspecific. I am, however, inspired by the fact that this piece appears in the NEW blog, a creation of Karen Rommelfanger that seems to grow in number and richness all the time. I won’t name names of those to watch in the future, but I will point out a few who have shaped us to get where we are today. Patricia Churchland, for example, my lifelong mentor, immediately comes to mind. She is well known to us in neuroethics and one of the earliest and deepest thinkers in our field (Churchland, 1991). Helen Mayberg is a force at every level imaginable. Besides her warmth, I call out her scientific rigor and distinction. Rarely acknowledged for the depth of her support is Barbara Gill, Executive Director of the Dana Foundation. She is a leading light for us.



Before them, Alexandra Pontius claimed in an ardent email to William Safire to be one of the first to use the word neuroethics in the context of research (Pontius, 1993). We never managed to engage Professor Pontius in the INS, although it would have been excellent to have her anthropology insights and expertise at the table. Further back in time, well before we ever spoke about neuroethics per se (although Ron Cranford had been using the term neuroethics for years in the clinical context of end of life and neurological care [1989]), there were heroes who were practicing a form of clinical neuroethics in their own way. The Montreal-born physician Lucille Teasdale Corti, for example, was one of ten women among the 110 students enrolled at the University of Montreal’s Faculty of Medicine in 1950. Dr. Teasdale dedicated herself to a career of career of surgical care and training in sub-Sahara, Africa. In 1982, in the course of an operation in the AIDS-plagued region, this Canadian great contracted and eventually succumbed to the disease. Imagine the diversity and extent of CNS-related co-morbidities she saw and treated. 

What are some key attributes of these and other extraordinary women? Creativity, foresight, vigor, patience and resilience. Let me describe how I see the importance of these attributes in the neuroethics leaders of the future: 

Creativity: We need to think about what lies beyond Western lands and the principles that come from them, such as consent, autonomy, and justice. Too narrowly construed, they will not suffice as new technology is continuously integrated into our daily life and, in some cases, overtaking it. Gender, ethnicity, and culture are also taking on ever greater importance in how we think about health, therapy, self-improvement, and self-preservation. Fundamentalism is on the rise again. Creativity is needed to ensure porous, respectful solutions to difficult ethics problems challenging brain health in the very definition of humanity. 

Foresight: Neuroscience is moving fast. Neuroethics has to move faster. We need not only to keep up but stay ahead of technological progress. Our strength is in the way we anticipate and positively address upcoming challenge. 

Vigor: The energy we have exerted to situate neuroethics firmly alongside neuroscience discovery and traditional bioethics inquiry has served well to give us credibility and visibility. I do not think sustainability is a risk any longer, but complacency is our enemy. I read this 1950s quote from Dr. Teasdale during a recent visit to the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, Manitoba: “If you are convinced by what you are doing, if you truly believe in it, then you stay. There is no other way.” 

Patience and resilience: Our world is inundated with violations of fairness. We do not see this in neuroethics per se, but discrimination and inequity are ubiquitous in the academy and industry in which neuroethics resides. Change will not come overnight; continued efforts to undo historical trends come with patience, and with patience comes resilience. 

Let’s embrace these attributes and pursue neuroethics careers that are, as neuroscientist Nobelist Dr. Rita Levi Montalcini said in an interview: "…enriched by excellent human relations, work and interests.” (“Rita Levi-Montalcini, pioneering Italian biologist, dies at 103". The Guardian. 20 December 2012. Retrieved 29 November 2016.) 

Let’s make the next 15 years of neuroethics even better than the first. 

References 

Churchland PS, Roy, DJ, Wynne, BE, Old RW. (Eds.) (1991) Our Brains, Our Selves - Reflections on Neuroethical Questions, Bioscience-society, John-Wiley and Sons, 177-196. 

Cranford, R.E. The Neurologist as Ethics Consultant and as a Member of the Institutional Ethics Committee. (!989). The neuroethicist. Neurologic Clinics, 7:4,697-713 

Haak, L.L. Women in Neuroscience (WIN): The First Twenty Years. (2002) Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 11:1,70-79. 

Kreitmair, K. The Seven Requirements for Ethical Consumer Neurotechnologies. (2017) INS Annual Meeting, November 10-11, 2017, Washington, DC. 

Pontius, A.A. (1993) Neuroethics vs Neurophysiologically and Neuropsychologically Uninformed Influences in Child-rearing and Education. Psychol. Rep. 72, 451–458

Want to cite this post?




Illes, J. (2018). Neuroethics Women to Watch. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/01/neuroethics-women-to-watch.html

Neurodevelopmental Disability on TV: Neuroethics and Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless

By John Aspler and Ariel Cascio

John Aspler, a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience at McGill University and the Neuroethics Research Unit, focuses on the experiences of key stakeholders affected by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the way they are represented and discussed in Canadian media, and the potential stigmatization they face given related disability stereotypes. 



Ariel Cascio, a postdoctoral researcher at the Neuroethics Research Unit of the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, focuses primarily on autism spectrum conditions, identity, subjectivity, and biopolitics. 



Introduction

Television can be an important medium through which to explore cultural conceptions of complex topics like disability – a topic tackled by Speechless, a single-camera family sitcom. Speechless tells the story of JJ DiMeo, a young man with cerebral palsy (CP) portrayed by Micah Fowler, who himself has CP. The show focuses on JJ’s daily life as well as the experiences of his parents and siblings. JJ’s aide, an African-American man named Kenneth, voices for JJ, as the latter uses a head-mounted laser pointer to indicate words and letters on a communication board (explaining the show’s title).

In this post, we explore key themes in disability studies and how they are addressed by the show. We also reflect on the effectiveness of Speechless’ narrative in reflecting on these concepts, specifically: 1) the social model of disability; 2) ‘inspiration porn’; 3) the ‘R-word’; and 4) intersectional feminist concerns about how the show connects disability to discussions on gender, class, and race. Our analysis fits the pragmatic neuroethics paradigm, which centres lived experiences of key stakeholders affected by neuro-diagnoses and disabilities (Racine et al. 2011).

*Spoiler Alert for Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless*

The Social Model of Disability

The cast of ABC's Speechless.

(Image courtesy of Flickr.)

In the mid-1970s, as disability rights activists agitated for change worldwide, a novel way of thinking about disability emerged. Mike Oliver (1983) coined the phrase “the social model of disability” to describe the view that disability is rooted in society rather than in biology. While the traditional (or “individual”) model of disability (also called the “medical” or “deficit” model) refers to assumptions that people are disabled by impairments in their bodies or minds that need fixing, the social model argues that people are disabled by environments with insufficient ramps, discrimination, and other barriers.

In Speechless, typical storytelling tropes found in sitcoms can both highlight and distract from the role the environment plays in enabling or disabling people. Suddenly appearing objects, animals, or characters serve as quick comedic resolutions to seemingly serious problems or as a reset button to ensure a return to the show’s status quo. Speechless applies this trope to accessibility. In the episode “S-U-R---SURPRISE,” as JJ attempts to defend his little brother Ray against a bully, a dog he met earlier that episode appears at just the right moment to scare the bully away¹. In “T-H-- THE C-L—CLUB,” JJ conveniently gains access to an unrealistically effective electronic communication board, which serves as a tool to bring to light JJ’s complicated feelings about his reliance on and affection for Kenneth. When JJ decides not to replace Kenneth with the board, it disappears forever. In this fashion, the show subtly alludes to the social model of disability by demonstrating that, in an environment without barriers, JJ faces little to no problem being the kind of young man, friend, and brother he wants to be.

Inspiration Porn

“Inspiration Porn” is “an image of a person with a disability […] doing something completely ordinary […] carrying a caption” with an inspirational message (Young, 2012). The intent of inspiration porn is to allow non-disabled people to “put their worries into perspective” (e.g., “what’s your excuse?”). It objectifies people with disabilities for the benefit of viewers without disabilities. These messages also erase the challenges faced by people with disabilities (e.g., “the only disability in life is a bad attitude”).

This is the kind of image that might get captioned with an

inspirational quote, creating "inspiration porn."

Image courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. 

In “H-E-R---HERO,” Ray defines inspiration porn as “a portrayal of people with disabilities as one-dimensional saints who only exist to warm the hearts and open the minds of able-bodied people.” A student JJ barely knows chooses to speak about him for a school-wide speech contest on the topic of “My Hero.” JJ and Ray conspire to write the most inspiring speech they can imagine – to outdo the stranger. Despite their efforts, Ray ultimately decides to give a more authentic speech about sibling squabbles: “…he can be a real jerk. He teases me and tortures me – runs me over with his wheelchair… he’s just living his life, and there’s nothing brave about that.” The audience claps awkwardly (one audience member comments: “That did not make me feel good.”), and, of course, the fake-yet-inspiring speech wins instead.

The episode is also metatextual, as the show itself could be read as inspiration porn. The showrunners must balance producing a show ‘about’ disability with avoiding essentializing or objectifying the characters. This episode seeks to counter this risk not only by pointing out that JJ – following a certain cultural script of a typical “older brother” – can be a jerk to his siblings, but also by ‘punching up,’ i.e., making less marginalized people (producers and consumers of inspiration porn) the butt of the joke.

The R-Word

“P-R-- PROM" addresses another important theme through its discussion of “the R-word.” Not only does this episode address the more obvious issue of ableist slurs (i.e., the harms associated with casually employing disability-related terms as an insult), but it also delves into important nuances within disability politics. Even within movements for inclusion such as the disability rights movement, segmentation can have an impact on the way people with different needs are perceived and assisted. For example, the public may assume that someone like JJ, who cannot verbalise, has an intellectual disability (Larivière-Bastien et al. 2011). Although indicating that he does not (as JJ’s mother does in the pilot, saying “he’s all there upstairs”) is completely reasonable and appropriate, doing so can entail shifting stigma onto other groups within the umbrella of disability.

Image courtesy of Twenty20.

Speechless rejects this shift when Ray reflects: “It’s not about JJ and [the r-word] not being an accurate description of him. What about people who do think a different way or at a different pace? Should we reference them in a nasty way when we do something dumb because we think it’s cute?” Setting aside that “dumb” is also an ableist slur, it is refreshing to see the show promote inclusion of all differences.

Intersectionality

A final key theme, drawing from feminist theory broadly, is intersectionality, i.e., the way that “intersections of race and gender, of heterosexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, all of these social dynamics come together” (Crenshaw, TED). Notably, there are glaring tensions in the way that the show explores the intersection of disability and gender.

JJ’s behaviour toward women, which can occasionally be problematic, stems from the understandable goal of normalizing JJ – to have him be just like other teenage boys on TV (i.e., horny and a bit of a jerk). Ray’s behavior toward women and girls, however, reflects larger problems. Ray (again, perhaps like other teenage boys on TV) has a poor understanding of how to treat women and receives frequent encouragement from characters who should know better (e.g., his father). The metatext of the show seems oddly oblivious to how Ray’s attitude toward women reflects the “nice guy” trope – the idea that some men understand relationships as an exchange in which they pay the currency of niceness (through words, acts, gifts) in exchange for the goods of a kiss, a relationship, or a hook up. In other words, niceness is instrumental, not genuine, and sex is treated as a commodity. While we can understand the tension in JJ’s case, the show struggles in how it frames Ray’s treatment of women.

Speechless also explicitly focuses on issues of class. The DiMeo family is not wealthy. Their bathroom doesn’t have a door, they argue with insurance companies, and Dad works as an airport attendant. Ray especially struggles with the pressures to be or appear wealthy, which leads to episodes like “T-H-- THE C-L—CLUB,” where Ray tries to become a country club insider. A later episode (“C-H—CHEATER”), in which Ray similarly tries to get rich quick via a pyramid scheme, nuances Ray’s desires about wealth by exploring the intersection between family, work, and disability. Ray explains that his desire to make money is “for JJ. Later. Do I help? Is there a plan? I want to be ready.”

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Finally, Speechless also addresses issues of race, gender, and voice through JJ’s aides. JJ’s first ‘voice’ is a woman with a higher-pitched voice and a timid approach to repeating JJ’s more colorful language choices. After meeting Kenneth, JJ tells him he “sound[s] cool” and offers him the job instead. Black masculinity is often configured as cool, which the show at once explores with nuance and also casually exploits.

Ultimately, JJ values having an aide whose voice seems more authentic; however, the line between JJ and Kenneth is blurred by the show in sometimes strange ways. In one episode, Kenneth goes to school when JJ does not and finds that he has no one to eat lunch with because he is not, in fact, friends with JJ’s friends – an explicit reflection on that line. In another episode, JJ joins the choir and, in a particularly surreal twist, lands the solo with Kenneth’s voice and, later, dance moves. The other characters here appear to interpret Kenneth as being JJ, not just as voicing for him.

However, the show is careful about drawing comparisons between the types of marginalization Kenneth and JJ experience based on race and disability respectively – exploring some overlap, but not overselling the similarity. For example, when Kenneth hears Ray and JJ writing their inspiration porn speech, he points out similarities with the ‘Magical Negro’ trope, which Kenneth defines as when “the black character is just there to help the white guy on his journey and he mainly speaks in folksy sayings.”

Conclusion

In this post, we highlighted ways in which the television show Speechless addresses challenges and stereotypes faced by people with neurodevelopmental disabilities. While often successful, there are several ways in which the show falls short – especially in how it understands gender. Nonetheless, media portrayals of neurodevelopmental disability provide fruitful material upon which neuroethics scholars can reflect and which will hopefully have a positive impact on the public sphere.

References

Larivière-Bastien, D., Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., and E. Racine. 2011. Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cerebral Palsy on the Ethical and Social Challenges Encountered in Healthcare Services. Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 1(1): 43-54.

Oliver M. 1983. Social Work with Disabled People. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Racine, E., E. Bell, N. C. Di Pietro, L. Wade and J. Illes. 2011. Evidence-Based Neuroethics for Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology 18(1): 21-25.

Young, S. 2012. We’re not here for your inspiration. ABC News. Accessed 12 October 2017 at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-03/young-inspiration-porn/4107006.

**Confusingly, most official ABC videos we link to here do not include subtitles.

Want to cite this post?



Aspler, J and Cascio, A. (2018). Neurodevelopmental Disability on TV: Neuroethics and Season 1 of ABC’s Speechless. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/01/neurodevelopmental-disability-on-tv.html

Dog Days: Has neuroscience revealed the inner lives of animals?

By Ryan Purcell

Image courtesy of Pexels.

On a sunny, late fall day with the semester winding down, Emory neuroscientist Dr. Gregory Berns gave a seminar in the Neuroethics and Neuroscience in the News series on campus. Berns has become relatively famous for his ambitious and fascinating work on what he calls “the dog project”, an eminently relatable and intriguing study that has taken aim at uncovering how the canine mind works using functional imaging technology.

The seminar was based on some of the ideas in his latest book, What It’s Like to Be a Dog (and other adventures in Animal Neuroscience). In it, Berns responds to philosopher Thomas Nagel’s influential anti-reductionist essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” and recounts his journey to perform the world’s first functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) session on an awake, unrestrained dog. Like so many seemingly impossible tasks, when broken down into many small, discrete steps, getting a dog to step into an fMRI machine and remain still during scanning became achievable (see training video here). 

In his book, Berns returns to the central question of “What it’s like to be a dog” several times and offers partial answers that hint at a bigger idea. For example, after training the dogs to exhibit restraint and delayed gratification, Berns observed a homologous brain area (the inferior frontal gyrus of the prefrontal cortex) become active that is also activated in humans when they perform an analogous task. Therefore, he suggested that while it may be a stretch to know all at once what it’s like to be a dog, we may be able to infer pieces of the canine experience. When a dog delays gratification, it feels a lot like it does for us.

A bat's use of echolocation depends on echoes to

build a sonic map of the world around them.

(Image courtesy of Wikimedia.)

Nagel chose to write about bats because, in his words, they are “a fundamentally alien form of life.” To illustrate this point, he highlights how the primary sensory perception for bats as they move through the world is echolocation. On its face, echolocation does indeed seem like a completely separate sense that we humans do not possess, and would preclude our understanding of what it is like to be a bat. Berns, however, noted that while most of us do not use sonar to navigate the world, we can certainly tell the difference between the sound of our voice in a closet and in a concert hall. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that people with vision impairments can, with training, use echolocation to navigate the world. With some effort, the alien can become understandable.

Listening to the presentation I started to wonder, has a study ever found that an animal is less intelligent or less capable than we had thought? Have we – particularly scientists who conduct research with animals (like myself) – been knowingly and willfully ignorant of their conscious experience in order to avoid the really difficult questions? In the audience, Center for Ethics director Dr. Paul Root Wolpe raised the question of whether progress will mean a continued, inexorable expansion of the type of research restrictions that we now have on non-human primates into so-called “lower species.” Is an implication of Berns’ research that fundamental animal experiences are very similar to ours? Essentially, is there something special about dogs, or do they just serve as a highly trainable window into the underappreciated abilities of the animal kingdom? From what I heard, I think Berns would say yes to both—that there is in fact something special about dogs, but that they also can serve as “ambassadors” to teach us about the inner lives of animals. The way that dogs have co-evolved with humans for the past 30,000 years may make them a unique case, particularly because of our ability to work closely with them, even in a research setting.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

Dr. Berns told us that, in his mind, the most subversive element of the dog project is how he tried to offer his canine participants self-determination. He explained that they were effectively treated in much the same way as if they were small children participating in research studies, granting them the right to refuse at any time. The ethicists in the room pushed back on this point – if the dogs were trained with treats, weren’t they coerced, or at least manipulated? It is difficult to know for sure. However, in the book, Berns discusses one particular dog that trained extremely quickly and made him wonder if she had any will of her own that wasn’t shaped by her owner. The dogs may have been manipulated to some degree, but they all climbed into the scanner on their own and faced no physical barriers to leaving it at any time, which is radically different from how most research animals are treated.

A significant, largely unintended consequence of this work has been its implications for animal rights. In the final chapter of his book, Berns lays out his thoughts on what the dog project means for this very issue. He acknowledges, “Neuroscience isn’t going to be able to tell us exactly what we should do, but it…will change what we know about animals’ internal experiences.” For some, the idea that there may be far more similarity in conscious experience among vertebrates than we had thought will change their personal views on the use of animals for food, clothes, and research. For others, this knowledge further muddies an already impossible problem. Perhaps it is time to finally shake off the insidious view of animals as Cartesian automatons and consider, for a change, erring on the side of assuming a bit more conscious self-awareness in animals than we have evidence for at the moment. This is easy for dogs, but what does it mean for less cuddly, more supposedly necessary creatures (e.g. cattle, chickens, lab animals, etc.)? At minimum, this could be an opportune time to remember the three R’s of animal research: replacement, reduction, refinement. Berns himself does not seem to be advocating for ending animal research or livestock production, but instead for taking a hard look at how we treat the creatures that we directly or indirectly depend on while they are in our care.

As he was wrapping up the discussion, Dr. Berns mentioned that in many ways this study tells us more about people, than dogs. Neuroethics program director Dr. Karen Rommelfanger then asked, “so has this changed how you work with human subjects?”

“Yeah.” Berns replied, with a wry smile. “I don’t anymore.”

Want to cite this post?



Purcell, R. (2018). Dog Days: Has neuroscience revealed the inner lives of animals? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/01/dog-days-has-neuroscience-revealed.html