The Brain In Context

By Sarah W. Denton

Sarah W. Denton is a research assistant with the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center. Denton is also a research assistant with the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University. Her research primarily focuses on ethical and governance implications for emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, gene-editing technology, and pharmaceuticals. 

Tim Brown, University of Washington PhD student and research assistant with the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering’s (CSNE) Neuroethics Thrust, introduced the session titled, “The Brain in Context,” at the International Neuroethics Society’s 2017 Annual Meeting moderated by Husseini Manji, Janssen Global Therapeutic Neuroscience Area Head. This session provided a multidisciplinary view of the challenges we face today in understanding the context of lived experiences and how our brains impact our environments. Getting at the heart of the context in which our brains develop and grow may help us to reduce stigma by increasing our understanding of how our environments impact our brains in a myriad of ways.

Socioeconomic Status and the Brain

Martha Farah, Director of the Center for Neuroscience & Society at the University of Pennsylvania, kicked off the panel discussion by speaking about her recent research on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and the brain. The factors affecting the brain not only arise from our physical bodies, but also include our social environments [1]. Specifically, Farah has focused her attention on socioeconomic status and how it affects everything, from life expectancy to education to income – all of which are inherently connected to the context and the environments in which our brains develop.

The way the brain develops is a causal pathway to a variety of outcomes. For instance, there is a surprisingly strong relationship between cognitive ability, as measured by IQ and school achievement, and SES [2]. Farah’s lab performed three studies that aimed to characterize SES disparities in terms of cognitive neuroscience’s model of mind, rather than through intelligence and standardized test scores [3,4,5]. Cognitive neuroscientists employ the ‘information processing’ view of the mind, which is a fundamental construct of cognitive psychology that “refers to the rule-governed transformation of [both unconscious and conscious] metal representations” (e.g., explicit perception, implicit learning, implicit memory [6]. This view of the mind appeals to computational methods in both cognitive psychology and neuroscience to understand the molecular mechanisms implicated in information processing [7].

Developed from a slide shown during Farah’s panel 

discussion titled, “Socioeconomic Status and the Brain,” 

at the 2017 International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting 

on November 10, 2017 at the American Academy for the 

Advancement of Science (AAAS) building in Washington, D.C.

Farah’s findings suggest that the most pronounced socioeconomic-derived disparities were both executive function associated with the prefrontal cortex and declarative memory associated with the hippocampus. We know that the brain is usually discussed in a descriptive and mechanistic way, but this conception may be unhelpful. Although there are currently no unique implications, research moving towards a more illustrative and actionable understanding of the brain in context is adding to the weight of evidence that our environment, including SES, has profound affects on our brains. Thus, neuroethics and neuroscience policy is relevant precisely because it increases the weight of evidence. The end goal of Farah’s research program is to understand poverty using insight from neuroscience in order to help “break the cycle” and guide future policy decisions. 

Prenatal Programming of Human Fetal Brain Development 

The second panelist, Moriah Thomason, Director of the Perinatal Neural Connectivity Unit of the Perinatology Research Branch with the Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University School of Medicine, built upon this discussion and defined the first context of our brain – the womb. Her research centers around prenatal programming of human fetal brain development and has found that alterations in brain development in utero have significant cognitive effects.

Earlier this year, Thomason published a study in Scientific Reports that suggested differences in how certain brain regions communicate with each other in fetuses that were later born prematurely when compared to fetuses that were carried to term [8].

Thomason’s research team used fMRI to determine which brain regions were involved in synchronized activity between brain regions, which suggests that these regions are well connected and share information [9]. The brain in utero is essentially in a state of becoming and sets the stage for our future abilities even before we take our first breaths outside of the womb. For instance, a mother experiencing high levels of stress seems to imprint this stress on the fetal brain [10]. This fetal programming affects the functional connectivity in the fetal brain prior to birth. Her “Prenatal Imaging of Neural Connectivity (PINC)” study has found that the prenatal stress score (depression, perceived stress, satisfaction with life, and anxiety) is correlated to fetal brain connectivity in several notable brain areas, including three subregions of the cerebellum.

Image courtesy of Pexels.

One implication of Thomason’s research is that we no longer need to limit the brain to a postnatal context– neural connectivity begins prior to birth. This suggests that prenatal brain development is intimately tied to the mother’s environment and psycho-physio state, which may have a wide range of implications that have yet to be explored. This is just the beginning for Thomason and prenatal neuro-connectivity research, and I am eager to see neuroethicists explore the implications of the brain in the context of the womb.

Do Brains Matter Using Screens?

The final panelist, Hervé Chneiweiss, Research Director at École des Neurosciences Paris Île-de-France, moved us from the brain in the context of the womb to the brain in the context of our increasing use of technology – particularly screens like those found in our phones, televisions, and tablets. The social context is perhaps the most important while we learn; yet, our increasing reliance on screens as an educational tool may hinder our ability to learn how to interact with others in our physical environments [See 11,12,13].

In this context, neuro-education has evolved from two-dimensional to five-dimensional; but now we are moving back to 2D screens. Moreover, there is a correlation between excessive screen time and the development of psychiatric disorders, lack of sleep, and impaired cognition [14]. Beyond the potential cognitive effects of excessive screen-time, Chneiweiss is also concerned about the marketing of attention, i.e., the subjection to excessive screen time in the workplace and nonmaleficence in advertising the educational benefits of brain training apps.

On the latter, Chneiweiss is particularly concerned about the vague educational benefit claims made by many apps directed at vulnerable populations like children and seniors [15]. The democratization of screens has created two new kinds of pathology: nomophobia, phobia of being without a phone; and fomo, the fear of missing out, fear of being disconnected of the social network. While these characterizations are a bit tongue-in-cheek, they highlight real problems that can significantly affect our cognitive abilities.

Image courtesy of Pixabay.

As a general rule of thumb, owning a console or tablet presents more risks than benefits, such as insomnia and social-skill development, for children under the age of six [16]. But, by the time they reach their teenage years, certain action-oriented games can indeed improve cognitive abilities such as visual attention and decision-making [17]. To address this discrepancy, we must educate children and their parents on how their brains work and how screens affect their brain functions.

Conclusion



All three panelists presented neuroscience research in the social context. Martha Farah’s presentation showed how social and other environmental factors, like income, can have significant effects on brain development. Moriah Thomason’s presentation of her research went even farther – connecting stress levels of mothers to prenatal brain development. Finally, Hervé Chneiweiss spoke on how the use of screens, like those found in television sets and iPhones, can not only affect child and adolescent brain development but can also affect how they interact in the social environments around them.
The primary takeaway from this session is that our brains do not develop in a neuropsychiatric vacuum– our social and cultural environments can have significant implications for neuroscience. In the Q&A after the presentations, I found it of particular interest that each panelist agreed that the social context is the most important context when it comes to understanding the brain and conducting neuroscientific research.

Now, as we move forward, we should approach neuroscience research and its findings in the context of our social environments if we are to create a more holistic understanding of the brain.

References

[1] M. Farah. 2012. “Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience,” The Annual Review of Psychology: University of Pennsylvania, 63: pp. 571-91 [https://neuroethics.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/farah-Neuroethics-The-Ethical-Legal-and-Societal-Impact-of-Neuroscience.pdf ]; B. Avants, et al. 2012. “Early childhood environment predicts frontal and temporal cortical thickness in the young adult brain,” presentation at The Society for Neuroscience 2012 Meeting, abstract can be found here: [http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=734b1ccd-cfcf-4394-a945-083ca58f8033&cKey=7b3e8587-f590-4d94-ae3f-e050d52e8488&mKey=%7b70007181-01C9-4DE9-A0A2-EEBFA14CD9F1%7d]; M. Mariani. 2017. “The neuroscience of inequality: does poverty show up in children’s brains?” The Guardian, (13 July) [https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/13/neuroscience-inequality-does-poverty-show-up-in-childrens-brains].

[2] Martha Farah, Socioeconomic Status and Brain. University of Pennsylvania, Center for Neuroscience & Society. [https://neuroethics.upenn.edu/martha-j-farah-phd/research/socioeconomic-status-and-brain/].

[3] K. Nobel, M.F. Norman, and M. Farah. 2005. “Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children,” Developmental Science, 8(1): pp. 74-87. [https://neuroethics.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Development-kindergarten.pdf].

[4] M. Farah, et. al. 2006. “Childhood poverty: Specific associations with neurocognitive development,” Brain Research, 1110: pp. 166-174. [https://neuroethics.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Development-povertyassociation.pdf ].

[5] K. Noble, B. McCandliss, and M. Farah. 2007. “Socioeconomic gradients predict individual differences in neurocognitive abilities,” Developmental Science, 10(4): pp. 464-480. [https://neuroethics.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Development-gradiants.pdf]

[6] D. David, M. Miclea, and A. Opre 2004. “The Information-Processing Approach to the Human Mind: Basics and Beyond,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(4): pp. 355,357. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15022267].

[7] "The Philosophy of Neuroscience" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Chapter 6: A Result of the Co-Evolutionary Research Ideology - Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience. 2010. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/#ResCoEvoResIdeCogComNeu].

[8] M. Thomason et. al. 2017. “Weak functional connectivity in the human fetal brain prior to preterm birth,” Scientific Reports, 7(39286). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5221666/]. Of course, these findings are preliminary, but Thomason is enthusiastic and plans to continue this research with larger sample sizes.

[9] G. Miller. 2017. “Pioneering study images in fetal brains,” Science Magazine, (9 January). [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/pioneering-study-images-activity-fetal-brains].

[10] M. Thomason et. al. 2017. “Weak functional connectivity in the human fetal brain prior to preterm birth,” Scientific Reports, 7(39286). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5221666/].

[11] J.E. Brody. 2015. “Screen Addiction is Taking a Toll on Children,” The New York Times (6 July) [https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/screen-addiction-is-taking-a-toll-on-children/]

[12] USC Center for Work and Family Life, “Sleep Deprivation in the Age of Electronics,” [http://cwfl.usc.edu/wellness/sleephandouts/Sleep_Deprivation_in_the_Age_of_Electronics-CWFL.pdf]

[13] G.S. Goldfield, et al., “Screen time is associated with depressive symptomatology among obese adolescents: a HEARTY study,” European Journal of Pediatrics, v. 175(7): pp. 909-919 (July) [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-016-2720-z].

[14] P. Reany. 2011. “Not Getting Enough Sleep? Turn off the Technology,” Reuters (7 March) [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sleep-technology/not-getting-enough-sleep-turn-off-the-technology-idUSTRE7260RH20110307].

[15] R. Robbins. 2016. “U.S. Cracking Down on ‘Brain Training’ Games,” Scientific American, STAT (6 September) [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-cracking-down-on-brain-training-games/]; E. Yong. 2016. “The Weak Evidence Behind Brain-Training Games,” The Atlantic (3 October) [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-weak-evidence-behind-brain-training-games/502559/].

[16] K. Subrahmanyam, et al. 2000. “The Impact of Home Computer Use on Children’s Activities and Development,” The Future of Children, (Fall/Winter): Princeton University [https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/10_02_05.pdf].

[17] I. Granic, et al. 2014. “The Benefits of Playing Video Games,” American Psychologist, (January) [https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0034857.pdf]; D. Bavelier, et al. 2011. “Brains on video games,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12: pp. 763-768 (18 November) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4633025/]. 

Want to cite this post?




Denton, S. (2018). The Brain In Context. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/03/the-brain-in-context.html

International governance of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology: Whom to trust with the assessment of future pathways?

By Nina María Frahm

Nina María Frahm is a research fellow and PhD candidate at the Munich Center for Technology in Society, Technical University Munich. Previously, she obtained a BA in European Studies and an MSc in Science and Technology Studies at Maastricht University, and was a research fellow at the Technical University of Berlin, where she investigated heterogeneous cultures of cooperation in collaborative forms of research and development of emerging technologies. Her interest in the crossroads of science, technology, and public policy was fueled during a junior research position at University of Quilmes, Buenos Aires, where she conducted a project on technologies for social inclusion. Her current interest in neuroethics focuses on different cultures of responsible knowledge-making in emerging brain science, and the limits and opportunities these cultures represent for transnational neuroscience. 

There is a growing consensus about the need to better align neuroscience and neurotechnology (NS/NT) with societal needs, values, and expectations. In particular, researchers and policy-makers are increasingly calling for better international coordination of neuroscientific research and neuroethical consultation.

One major challenge for establishing international governance principles in NS/NT is the difference in national and regional cultures of integrating society into research and innovation, which is a crucial prerequisite to achieving a sustainable and socially robust agenda. A comparative perspective on European and American brain projects and key reports reveals such substantial differences. In Europe, the main emphasis has been on ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ frameworks and corollary public engagement mechanisms for neuroscience. In contrast, the U.S. has focused primarily on ‘Ethical, Legal, Social Implications’ (ELSI) frameworks and bioethical expert assessments, with a smaller role for lay publics.

At the heart of this divergence is a difference in understanding of who we trust with the assessment of future pathways in NS/NT. Different political cultures embrace questions of risk and uncertainty in emerging neurotechnology in different ways. Attempts to mainstream brain science on a global scale might profit from being sensible towards regional and national political commitments to the inclusion of society into neuroscientific advancements. In these situations, some scholars have argued for a model of ‘epistemic subsidiarity’ (Jasanoff, 2013) in which these fundamental commitments are calibrated and guaranteed, which is paramount to addressing the grand challenges for global brain sciences in the future.

European Neuroscience and Society

The European Citizen Deliberation 'Meeting of the Minds,'

image courtesy of dialogbasis.

Brainscience in Europe, for example, is deeply embedded in the growing European commitment to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Drawing heavily on previous social science research on the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (Wynne, 1992; Irwin, 2001), Public Engagement (Wynne, 2006; Stilgoe et al., 2014), Anticipatory Governance (Barben, 2008; Guston 2013), Constructive Technology Assessment (Rip 2008), and Sociotechnical Integration (Fisher 2008), as well as on strong traditions of deliberative and participatory democracy in countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, RRI has become a ‘cross cutting issue’ in the European Commissions’ Horizon2020 framework program. The political commitment to this inclusive form of scientific and technological governance builds on repeated experiences in Europe with public controversy around and opposition to the unprepared push of emerging technologies into society (e.g. debates around Nanotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms) and the risks of such resistance to the widespread dissemination of technological innovations.

Key to this framework is the upstream engagement of society in the governance of emerging technologies through a variety of tools, in which the general public is considered as an active partner in knowledge co-creation, the role of the expert is one of facilitation (not authority), and the touchstone of validity is robustness in the real world (not in the lab). Taken seriously, RRI is hence a move towards democratizing sources of assessing the perils and pitfalls of emerging technologies, including neurotechnology— an ambitious project, which is still very much in the making and, to be fair, has been taken up rather patchily by member states of the European Union (Mejlgaard and Griessler, 2016).

Nevertheless, talk and practice of responsibility is prominent in European recommendations on NS/NT, as well as in European brain projects. For example, the most significant European reports in the field, the Royal Society’s ‘Brain Waves’ series (2011) and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ ‘Novel Neurotechnologies’ report (2013), call for the principle of responsibility for the governance of neuroscience. According to the authors, this includes accountable public engagement practices in neuroscientific research and innovation governance. To date, the only recommendation brought forward by citizens themselves on the future handling of neuroscience and technology has taken place in Europe: the Meeting of Minds European Citizen Deliberation. This large public engagement exercise, which has brought together 126 participants from all over Europe, already took place in 2006 and resulted in an extensive list of recommendations on questions such as regulation and control, normalcy vs. diversity, and the equal access to treatment. Informed by the new governance regime of RRI, European brain projects such as the HBP, BNCI Horizon 2020, and BrainLinks-BrainTools feature new mechanisms for the responsible conduct of brain science and the early integration of the public into ethical assessments, such as participatory foresight labs (HBP) or User Centered Design (BNCI Horizon2020). While such exercises might not yet be seen as authoritative decision-making instruments, experiments with public engagement represent an increasing trend in Europe to open up knowledge-making for the governance of neuroscience to society at large. 

American Neuroscience and Society

Former President Barack Obama speaking about the BRAIN

Initiative, image courtesy of Flickr user Open Knowledge.

Sources of brain science assessment in the U.S., in contrast, are operating mainly under the framework of ‘Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications’ (ELSI). Drawing on roots in the Human Genome Project, ELSI approaches – like RRI – are striving for better integration and anticipation of societal needs and concerns in neuro-innovation. Unlike its European counterpart, however, the impact assessment and foresight is mostly left to scientific experts, with a strong preference for professional ethicists and other powerful stakeholders, such as industry or the military. Here, the general public more is frequently considered to be lacking the required knowledge and skills for assessing the risks and benefits of complex technologies such as NS/NT, and great efforts are put into strengthening the scientific and ethical ‘literacy’ of and ‘outreach’ to society.

This preference for including societal concerns through expert bodies is also apparent in two of the most prominent U.S. reports on NS/NT – Gray Matters Volumes I and II – which were drafted by the Presidential Commission for Bioethics (2014). Albeit the terminology of responsibility, engagement, and early integration of ethics is used in these reports, to my knowledge there is no institutionalized practice for putting these recommendations into action. The U.S. Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, which was initiated by the BRAIN 2025 report, covers questions of neuroethics through a voluntary, unpaid multi-council working group that consists of members of the U.S. American regulatory apparatus and academia. A similar construct can be found in the BRAIN Initiative’s partner institution, the Defense and Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), where an expert panel meets regularly to discuss ELSI issues in neuroscience and technology.

Given these national differences in public knowledge-making about the brain, frameworks and mechanisms for aligning NS/NT with society at an international level will likely face considerable challenges and will require cautious negotiation. Simply agreeing on “responsible and ethically sound conduct and application of neuroscience” alone will not suffice to straddle these vastly different institutionalized traditions of technology assessment. This challenge becomes even more exigent when including other emerging neuroscience leaders such Korea, Japan, China or Latin America, where the commitment for responsible conduct in NS/NT rest on yet different social, economic, and institutional foundations. Eventually, the perceived need to harmonize the governance of NS/NT across the globe will have to find an appropriate model of subsidiarity for countries and regions to maintain compatibility with local values and participatory cultures and will need to continue emphasizing communicating and learning from each other’s principles and procedures for assessing shared futures.

References

Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D.H. (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett, E.J. et. al. (Eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.

Fisher, E. et. al. (2006) Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 26 (6).

Guston, D. (2013) Understanding anticipatory governance. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 44(2): 218-242.

Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 10(1): 1-18.

Jasanoff, S. (2013) Epistemic Subsidiarity – Coexistence, Cosmopolitanism, Constitutionalism. European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 2: 133-141.

Mejlgaard, N. and Griessler, E. (2016): Monitoring RRI in Europe: approach and key observations. In: Lindner, R. et. al. (Eds.): Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation. Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project, Karlsruhe, p. 115-118.

Rip, A. and Te Kulve, H. (2008) Constructive Technology Assessment and Sociotechnical Scenarios. In: Fisher, E. et. al. (Eds.), The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures, Berlin etc: Springer, pp.49-70.

Stilgoe, J., Lock, S.J., Wilsdon, J., 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23: 4–15.

Wynne, B. (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, Vol.1(3): 281-304.

Wynne, B. (2006) Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Community Genetics, Vol. 9: 211-220.

Want to cite this post?



Frahm, Nina. (2017). International governance of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology: Whom to trust with the assessment of future pathways? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/11/international-governance-of.html

Do prison sentences alter oxytocin levels?

Editor’s Note: Guest post by NEWest Leader, Livia Merrill



Livia Merrill is a
recent graduate from Tulane University in New Orleans, LA, where she has
received both her B.S. and M.S. in Neuroscience. Her research of 4 years under Dr. Fiona Inglis, PhD, consisted of dendritic morphological changes
in the prefrontal cortex of non-human primates after the administration of PCP.
Having psychomimetic effects, this model was utilized to contribute to the study of
schizophrenia and to provide for more effective anti-psychotics. Her current
pursuit is under Dr. Stacy Drury, PhD to examine cortisol levels of pregnant mothers
in some of the underprivileged neighborhoods of New Orleans and the epigenetic effects on their offspring. Livia’s future plans consist of research
behind deviant behavior and rehabilitating subjects. Ideally, she hopes to
contribute to change in the criminal justice system, where punishment can
transition to rehabilitation, by demonstrating the negative effects of adverse
experiences, including punishment-based systems.



The United States has the largest population of incarcerated individuals in the world; the latest available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate there are approximately 1.6 million inmates. Such numbers not only reveal the number of imprisoned individuals but also provide an idea of the massive impact on family members, victims, and other members of society. Furthermore, recidivism rates have revealed that one-quarter to two-thirds of released persons from state prisons are rearrested within 3 years.ⁱ Personal accounts, governmental reviews, and actions by prison activists and social workers have unveiled the grave conditions of these institutions. Such examples include a 2012 case where Los Angeles deputies were accused of violently beating inmates of the L.A. County Jail Complexⁱⁱ and a case in 2013 where a Mississippi prison for the mentally ill was accused of being understaffed and having deplorable living conditions, such as rat infestations, rampant diseases, sexual assaults, and malnourishment of food and medicinal treatment.ⁱⁱⁱ

An example of a typical cell in Orleans Parish Prison, New Orleans, LA. (Via therightperspective.org)

Health and concerns for these men and women are virtually non-existent, such as one prison in California^iv that had an appalling amount of suicides last year. A counterargument for lack of concern for incarcerated individuals might include the lack of finances to support such a cause; however, with shorter sentences and reduced willingness to commit nonviolent offenders, there would be funds available to focus on making prison a less negative and oppressing environment, where proper staff, medical care, and basic human rights are concerns. It is important to note that all prison facilities have varying security levels depending on the crime and how violent the offender is considered, with maximum-security prisons undoubtedly having the most questionable conditions concerning the rights of inmates. Under such conditions, we are arguably creating more antisocial individuals than the ones who were originally sentenced. Such transformation can be explicitly seen through past reviews and experiments, like the Stanford Prison Experiment.^v This was designed to mimic prison conditions, where research volunteers played the role as guards or prisoners. The experiment lasted only 6 days, despite its original 14-day plan, due to the anxiety, depression, and overall dehumanizing effects on the “prisoners” and the power and aggressive traits that accompanied the “guards.” This experiment in itself portrays the effects of such drastic hierarchies on human emotion, psychology, and action.




With the increasing evidence of epigenetics demonstrating the effects of the environment on the expression of genes and hormones, I think it is important to realize that the first step of rehabilitating prisoners and transitioning them back into society in a way that minimizes recidivism would be to focus on the conditions of their prison environment. I do believe there is a need for prisons, without such, crime may run rampant, putting the safety of society at risk. However, the corruption in the system lends itself to release inmates back into society and out of prison more hostile than when they entered because of the environment in which they were held throughout their sentence. Typically, such examples includes physical abuse by guards and other prisoners and long-term solitary confinement.^vi




Is this type of environment leading to emotional, physiological, and biological changes within these men and women? And if so, is there a (neuro-)intervention that we can use to further explore harmful effects on prison-mates (and reverberating effects on society)?




A possible candidate for such an exploration is oxytocin. Oxytocin (OT) is a peptide with a wide array of functions in the human body both as a hormone and a neurotransmitter released by the hypothalamus, an area of the brain that is primarily responsible for homeostasis throughout the body. Because recent research has indicated the role of OT in social interaction and behavior, OT is being explored as a potential treatment for antisocial disorders, autism^vii, and psychopathologies.^viii In recent years, OT has been dubbed the “love drug,” via experiments with intranasal administration of OT and its effects on empathy, trust, and generosity. These intranasal deliveries have resulted in improved emotional recognition,^ix cooperation, and social affiliation in human relationships.^x Oxytocin even seems to facilitate romantic attachments and physical intimacy.^xi Higher levels of OT have also been linked to a decrease in anxiety and the release of glucocorticoids^xiii, or stress hormones.

Oxytocin has been socially misconstrued to be the solution to romantic obstacles (Via marriageresourcecentre.org)

The behaviors correlated with OT release, as seen in both human and animal models,^xiv seem to be highly dependent on context and the environment. In positive environments, those with social support and camaraderie, OT release does link to pro-social behavior and an increase in trust. However, in a negative environment, such as experiences with infidelity and dishonesty, without positive social cues, OT has been shown to increase defensiveness and decrease cooperation.^xv Another experiment demonstrated that intranasal OT administration stimulated in-group conformity, when given visual stimuli of “teammates,” while creating a bias against out-groups, when given visual stimuli of the “opposing team.”^xvi Others have shown an increase in defensive aggression towards threatening out-groups.^xvii




Due to the research indicating the potential positive or negative role of OT in societal interactions and how its actions are contextually based, the question arises, how do the levels of OT vary for prisoners–who have engaged in anti-social or negative social behaviors as deemed by our legal system– in comparison to those who are not incarcerated? Would experiencing imprisonment facilitate a decrease or increase in OT release, leading to decreased prosocial behaviors like empathy or increased hostility?

The location of the hypothalamus in the brain (Via MedlinePlus)

Longitudinal studies with individuals during prison sentences would be useful in determining if OT levels vary at the start or end of a prison sentence. To ensure the noninvasive nature needed to conduct such a study, saliva has been used to detect OT levels.^xviii Through personal interviews and salivary samples, exploring the conditions and relationships formed in prison may provide a useful tool for not only physiological changes within a subset of our population but also biological coping mechanisms for the whole of society, such as involvement of immune function and stress responses, which have been shown to improve in the presence of OT with social support.^xix Perhaps by demonstrating changes in OT release, modifications in prison conditions may be recommended, like the elimination of solitary confinement and the death penalty. These types of changes ideally could decrease the recidivism rate, by providing for a smoother transition upon release of prisoners back into society, where the inmates wouldn’t carry the antisocial mindset of proving strength by violence. For example, one prison in Norway is modeled as a respectful and collaborative community, and despite having violent offenders, it boasts one of the lowest reoffending rates. This type of environment removes the culture shock returning to society after engraining an aggressive attitude during prison.^xx




The hope would be to use biological changes, like differing OT levels before and after a prison sentence, as evidence to demonstrate the need for improvements in prison conditions and allow for a more rehabilitative system versus a retributive one.






References




ⁱ Bureau of Justice Statistics

ⁱⁱ Rosas v. Baca. Central District of California. 24 July 2012. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.

ⁱⁱⁱ Dockery v. Epps. Southern District of Mississippi. 30 May 2013. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.

^iv Rodriguez, S. 15, March 2013. California Prison Conditions Driving Prisoners to Suicide. Solitary Watch: News from a Nation in Lockdown.

^v Zimbardo, P. 1971. Stanford Prison Experiment. A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University.

^vi Ridgeway, J. and Casella, J. 14, May 2013. America’s 10 Worst Prisons. MotherJones.

^vii Opar, A. 2008. Search for potential autism treatments turns to ‘trust hormone.’ Nature Medicine 14: 353.

^viii Feifel, D., et al. 2010. Adjunctive intranasal oxytocin reduces symptoms in schizophrenia patients. 68(7):678-670.

^ix Di Simplicio, M., et al. 2009. Oxytocin enhances processing of positive versus negative emotional information in healthy male volunteers. Journal of Pyschopharmacology 23(3): 241-248.

^x Ross, HE., and Young, LJ. 2009. Oxytocin and the neural mechanisms regulating social cognition and affiliative behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 30(4):534-547.

^xi Schneiderman, I., et al. 2012. Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic attachment: relation to couples’ interactive reciprocity. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(8): 1277-1285.

^xii Missig, G., et al. 2010. Oxytocin reduces background anxiety in a fear-potentiated startle paradigm. Neuropsychopharmacology 35(13): 2607-2616.

^xiii Heinrichs, M., et al. 2003. Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress. Biological Psychiatry 54(12): 1389-1398.

^xiv Reviewed in Yamasue, H., et al. 2012. Integrative approaches utilizing oxytocin to enhance prosocial behavior: from animal and human social behavior to autistic social dysfunction. The Journal of Neuroscience 32(41):14109-14117.

^xv Declerck, C., et al. 2010. Oxytocin and cooperation under conditions of uncertainty: the modulating role of incentives and social information. Hormones and Behavior 57(3): 3368-374.

^xvi Stallen, M., et al. 2012. The herding hormone: oxytocin stimulates in-group conformity. Psychological Science 23(11): 1288-1292.

^xvii De Dreu, C., et al. 2010. The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328(5984):1408-1411.

xviii White-Traut et al. 2009. Detection of salivary oxytocin levels in lactating women. Developmental Pyschobiology 51(4):367-373.

^xix Chen, F., et al. 2011. Common oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) polymorphism and social support interact to reduce stress in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:19937-19942.

^xx James, Erwin. 24, Feb. 2013. The Norwegian prison where inmates are treated like people. The Guardian.






Want to cite this post?




Merrill, L. (2014). Do prison sentences alter oxytocin levels? The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/07/do-prison-sentences-alter-oxytocin.html

A review of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand Enhance, and Empower the Mind

The Future of the Mind, authored by physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, explores how neuroscience might inform questions that philosophers have been debating for centuries: Do we have a soul? What happens after we die? Do we even have to die? And what would it take to produce a robot with human consciousness or emotions? To explore these questions, Dr. Kaku interviewed hundreds of scientists who are actively conducting ground breaking work in labs around the world, and from these conversations he made predictions on how these scientific findings would shape our future. The work that Dr. Kaku discusses, such as the latest advances in brain-computer-interfaces (BCI) for the disabled,¹ recording dream images with MRI machines,² or implanting memories in mice,^3,4 makes for a fascinating and engrossing read from start to finish. The Future of the Mind is at its best when taking readers through these areas of research and explaining the long-term significance, however many of the neurophilosophical questions posed are largely left to the readers’ imaginations for resolution.



The Future of the Mind is divided into three parts or books, and each book delves more and more into the technology of the future and the type of society that will exist decades and centuries from now. Book I sets the stage for how important physics is for neuroscience; the revolutionary technologies such as MRI, PET, and DBS have used basic physics knowledge, as Dr. Kaku notes, to promote the explosion of advances in the field of neuroscience. The state of these technologies in current research is introduced, along with how to conceptualize consciousness, and in Book II, he discusses how these technologies will enable us to conduct acts similar to telepathy and telekinesis, manipulate thoughts and memories, and enhance intelligence. Book III revisits the idea of consciousness and explores the possibilities related to mind-altering technologies, and suggests we reframe our understanding of consciousness beyond a single type of consciousness (i.e., dreaming, drug-induced states, and mental illnesses). He also suggests that the future understandings of consciousness may move beyond humans to include robots and aliens. Book III also explores ideas straight out of science fiction such as that one day our physical bodies will be too cumbersome for travel to other galaxies through deep space, so we’ll simply leave them behind.

Dr. Kaku excels at taking complex, difficult scientific research and explaining the work in such a way that is easily accessible to the public. His predictions are based on the most recent advances in science, and the criteria for his predictions are that 1) they must obey the laws of physics and 2) a working prototype must exist. For these reasons, even the most far-fetched ideas seem reasonable when presented in his easy to read, pop-culture referenced style. He describes proof-of-concept experiments that take place in mice or primates today and then tries to relate this to what could happen by the end of the century in humans. The Future of the Mind mostly takes place in the science of today and the science of decades and centuries from now, however it does not critically describe the science of tomorrow or even the immediate future.  For example, although we are probably quite far away from directly transferring complex memories to other people, recent work has shown that devices like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can enhance memory. This could potentially be used to change how the law operates by enhancing eyewitness memories,⁵ although the current implications of TMS are hardly mentioned. Despite focusing more heavily on the technologies that seem almost like science fiction in nature, Dr. Kaku makes current research clear, accessible, and informative to general audiences. The conversations within the book and Dr. Kaku’s effective communication style are perhaps particularly relevant now. With the announcement of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative by President Obama and the Human Brain Project by the European Union, the general public will increasingly need to find resources to enhance their awareness of what neuroscientific advances could potentially be forthcoming



The Future of the Mind is the most engaging when it presents a well-organized breakdown of future technologies; however, a large portion of the books is dedicated to theory of consciousness and altered states of consciousness. Even though Dr. Kaku is well-versed in these subjects and acknowledges the help of over 200 individuals in researching material, he overly simplifies what it means for humans to be conscious and then applies his overly simplistic definition to complex areas of study such as altered consciousness, the consciousness of the future, and alternative beings that may be conscious. Dr. Kaku refers to his theory of consciousness as the “space-time theory of consciousness” and is defined as “the process of creating a model of the world using multiple feedback loops in various parameters in order to accomplish a goal.” In physics, space-time is any formula or model where space and time are placed onto one continuum, and Dr. Kaku, a theoretical physicist who also studies string theory, defines consciousness within these two parameters. In this theory, there are four levels of consciousness, 0 – III, and every organism is assigned a second numerical value associated with how many feedback loops, or parameters of space, he is able to interact with. For example, plants are placed in the lowest level, level 0, but if a plant is able to regulate itself based on 3 parameters (temperature, sunlight, and moisture) it would have a value of 0:3, where 0 represents the level of consciousness on his space-time theory continuum and 3 is the number of feedback loops that the plant is able to use for regulation. Humans are distinct from other organisms in that humans are able to model a situation not only in respect to space, but also time; we can plan ahead not only for tomorrow, but also for times beyond our lifetime. We are capable of “mediating and evaluating many feedback loops in order to accomplish a goal.” A numerical value can also be assigned to humans based on how many realistic outcomes, or parameters of time, a person can model for a specific outcome (e.g., III:100). Human consciousness is understandably a huge task and an enormous area of evolving research, but Dr. Kaku aims to dissolve the difficulties with his theory in explaining this concept and providing a definition in terms that are well applied in the physics field. However, it is unconvincing that consciousness can be reduced to a two value numeric though, especially when discussing disorders of consciousness. Dr. Kaku applies his theory to a few mental disorders including schizophrenia and OCD, stating that problems arise when feedback loops are in conflict. For example, paranoia is an imbalance between the amygdala that recognizes fear and the prefrontal cortex that evaluates this fear. Dr. Kaku does state that this is only a “preliminary sketch,” and future research will unveil the complexities of mental illness that are not discussed in The Future of the Mind.

Photo from: psychpulse.com

While the description of human consciousness is shaky at best throughout the entire book, one of the most engrossing chapters describes the ideas behind silicon consciousness, or how machine intelligence could evolve so that robots are able to feel emotionally and conduct sophisticated thought processes, including those that involve ethical choices. The space-time theory of consciousness is applied to robots that have been developed today and the future state of robotics. While this model is overly simplified in terms of the complexity that is human consciousness, this model actually works quite well when describing robots because robots are still mostly confined to laboratory settings. Today, robots are really simple machines that belong in level I in Dr. Kaku’s space-time theory (one step above plants) because they do have the ability to use physical space as a parameter and they may have a few different sensors that act as feedback loops.  In his model of consciousness, robots would have to be able to interact with others and use this interaction as a feedback loop to enter level II to have any sense of emotional value. To be on par with humans on level III where the threat of take-over is near, robots must be able to use time as a parameter in which they make decisions. Placing robots on the same level as a worm puts the idea of the singularity, the point when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, into perspective. Although the space-time theory works to describe the state of robotics today, this theory will eventually fall short as technology become more sophisticated.



In speaking of the future that is decades and centuries away Dr. Kaku heavily references the transhumanist Dr. Ray Kurzweil’s ideas that we will have the potential to upload our consciousness onto computers, clone humans, or have nanobots that will keep us healthy, although Dr. Kaku is a bit more conservative in acknowledging many of the obstacles for each of these causes. Similarly to Dr. Kurzweil though, Dr. Kaku does believe that silicon consciousness and advances from the BRAIN project will carry us into the future and trusts that “the real impact of this technology…will be to liberate the mind, not enslave it.” This is a powerful statement and idea that is continually conveyed, and ultimately what makes a reader want to live to experience a day in the not so near future if it is anything like what The Future of the Mind predicts. In making these bold predictions Dr. Kaku delivers a book that laudably describes the science taking place today and potentially in the future. These scenarios raise numerous ethical questions such as how using such consciousness scales will impact our healthcare practices or the legal status of nonhuman animals and silicon “minds,” or even how cognitive privacy will be protected in a society where mind-reading is possible.  If the society that The Future of the Mind poses is realized, the socioethical implications of such technological advances will need to be addressed beyond just the readers’ imagination, but by scientists and policy makers alike.





References



(1) Homer, M. L.; Nurmikko, A. V.; Donoghue, J. P.; Hochberg, L. R. Sensors and Decoding for Intracortical Brain Computer Interfaces. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 15, 383–405.



(2) Horikawa, T.; Tamaki, M.; Miyawaki, Y.; Kamitani, Y. Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep. Science 2013, 340, 639–642.



(3) Liu, X.; Ramirez, S.; Pang, P. T.; Puryear, C. B.; Govindarajan, A.; Deisseroth, K.; Tonegawa, S. Optogenetic Stimulation of a Hippocampal Engram Activates Fear Memory Recall. Nature 2012, 484, 381–385.



(4) Ramirez, S.; Liu, X.; Lin, P.-A.; Suh, J.; Pignatelli, M.; Redondo, R. L.; Ryan, T. J.; Tonegawa, S. Creating a False Memory in the Hippocampus. Science 2013, 341, 387–391.



(5) Vedder, A.; Klaming, L. Human Enhancement for the Common Good—Using Neurotechnologies to Improve Eyewitness Memory. AJOB Neurosci. 2010, 1, 22–33.







Want to cite this post?



Strong, K. (2014). A review of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand Enhance, and Empower the Mind. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/05/a-review-of-future-of-mind-scientific.html

About the Physiological Society of Japan Ethics Symposium

By Tamami Fukushi, Ph.D



Tamami Fukushi is a Senior Research Scientist at the Platform for the Realization of Regenerative Medicine at the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation in Kobe, Japan and a member of the AJOB Neuroscience editorial board. Her research focuses on areas in neuroethics, neurophysiology, and the regulation and ethics of stem cell research.



At every annual meeting since 2003, the Physiological Society of Japan has scheduled a research ethics symposium, usually dealing with animal experiments and research misconduct. One purpose of the symposia has been to raise audience awareness regarding current ethical issues in neuroscience research. In addition, the symposia have sought to open their audience’s eyes to taking action regarding ethical practices in their daily research activities.



This year, the society took up ethical issues in neuroscience. The symposium was organized by Dr. Kiyoshi Kurata, the society’s Chief of Research Ethics Committee, and Dr. Atsushi Iriki, the Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience Research, which is published as the official journal of the Japan Neuroscience Society.



The development of neuroscience research in the past several decades has brought two characteristic trends to the research community. From the experimental perspective, progress in research protocols has extended research targets in various biological scales, from molecule(s) to intact animal or human subject(s); technical innovations in imaging, recording, and stimulating tools have enabled us to observe the neural function of these subjects more precisely. However, it also puts subject(s) at risk of invasive procedures with neurosurgery and encroaches on the autonomy of human subjects. In addition, the advancement of computer software has brought us various methodologies for data illustration which may encourage the modification of unfavorable original data for unethical reasons. Several articles have reported that between 2-14% of academic journal papers may have ethical problems, which should be seriously considered in efforts to preserve just practices among peer-reviewed publications [1].



On the other hand, from the social perspective, neuroscience has been getting more popular and familiar to the general public through mass media and entertainment  devices such as TV programs, the internet, the Nintendo Brain Age game, and free online software for brain training. A popularization of neuroscience has led researchers to explain their research results with “broader” and “easier” words, as well as to consider the ethics of neuroscience research in the public sphere and in their scientific practices. The symposium organizers and speakers considered both of these trends in preparing their presentations.



The Ethical Components of Neuroscience Research



At the symposium presentation, I first outlined a history of neuroethics in Japan and Asia, and summarized the ethical components of neuroscience research using a matrix with two different X-axes. In figure1, the lower X-axis indicated the biological hierarchy of experimental targets and the upper one represented social layers in the research community [2]. The lower components in the figure were mainly related to safety and efficacy issues, which might be regulated by quantitative criteria based on the (pre-clinical) experimental data and case studies of subjects/patients. On the other hand, the upper components referred to more complicated issues in social, legal, and public contexts, and more qualitative approaches and open discussions would be needed to provide a suitable solution. The matrix was useful for categorizing current issues in neuroethics and their relationships with other presentations, in which each speaker explained further details of selected topics.



Dr. Kurata discussed the significance of information disclosure in relation to the renewal of Japanese laws pertaining to animal experiments in 2012, and recent changes in guidelines regarding conflicts of interest in the Physiological Society of Japan [3]. He also suggested a possible role for non-profit organizations (NPO), where researchers could help address legal and political issues surrounding animal experimentation.



Dr. Iriki reported on ethical problems in scientific publishing, which he has experienced as the editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal Neuroscience Research. These problems have included multiple submissions, gift authorship (or the practice of awarding authorship to an individual who has not significantly contributed to the study), data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism [4]. While certain kinds of misconduct can technically be prevented, it is important to engage with the personal morality of individual researchers to ensure transparency in peer-review process.



The last speaker, Dr. Tashiro, introduced recent developments in ethical principles geared toward clinical research. He focused on the concepts of “collaborative research partnerships” and “respect for human research participation,” and drew upon the eight ethical principles issued by the Bioethics department at National Institutes of Health Clinical Center [5, 6]. He also emphasized the importance of support from the ethics consultation system as well as the IRB system and the needs of professionals for effective consultation.

Figure 1. Ethical Components of Neuroscience Research

There were 30 audience-members who had various backgrounds in different fields of physiology, with various  roles and responsibility at their institutions/academic research communities. Through the open discussions, we recognized that appropriate actions based on the morality of individual researchers would be key to keeping competition fair in peer-reviewed science, in both the basic and clinical settings. It was also suggested that institutional/organizational monitoring systems at higher levels of the research community are needed to strengthen the community's accountability to the public. While we had less opportunity to discuss ethics of neuroscience from the perspective of the general public (or in the media), which might be the “third X-axis” on our matrix, the meeting was a successful in encouraging the researchers to refine their moral principles in both their individual and societal dimensions.



In recent years, the Japanese neuroscience community has achieved great progress in laboratory ethics by revising experimental guidelines and developing safety criteria for human brain research (see http://www.jnss.org/en/guideline/rinri/ (in English) and http://jscn.umin.ac.jp/news/index.html#121116-2 (in Japanese)). The next neuroethical issue to be faced by the Japanese research community, and which should be more extensively considered, is “how to visualize, explain, and share the experimental result(s) more ethically to others.” This kind of ethical problem must be considered by integrating media ethics, research misconduct, and public relations.



References



[1] Fanelli, Daniele. “How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.” PLoS ONE 4, (2009) e5738.

[2] Fukushi, T. "A decade of neuroethics: Impact on neuroscience in Japan and Asia." The journal of physiological Sciences 63 supplement 1, (2013):S88.

[3] Kurata, K. "Importance of information disclosure in animal experiment ethics and conflict of interest." The journal of physiological Sciences 63 supplement 1, (2013):S88.

[4] Iriki, A. "Responsible conduct of research and ethics of scientific publishing." The journal of physiological Sciences 63 supplement 1, (2013):S88.

[5] Tashiro, S. "New trends in clinical research ethics: Eight ethical principles and research ethics consultation" The journal of physiological Sciences 63 supplement 1, (2013):S89.

[6] Emanuel, Ezekiel J. et al. (2008). “An ethical framework for biomedical research,” Emanuel, Ezekiel J. et al. eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, Oxford University Press, 123-135.



Want to cite this post?



Fukushi, T. (2013). About the Physiological Society of Japan Ethics Symposium. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/07/about-physiological-society-of-japan_23.html