Neuroethics
When we read in the news about discoveries in the neurosciences, they are often presented in an optimistic manner. We are told they will help us treat medical disorders or learn more about how we think and feel. This is true. However, traditionally, societies have based codes of conduct and the law on observable behaviors. An important question that is currently being asked is who should have access to data and scans of your internal processes. LENS: Neuroethics: Ethical Considerations When Using Neuroscience Techniques examines the field of inquiry that is asking these questions. It is referred to as neuroethics.
Figure 2.20 Spatial and Temporal Resolution of Imaging Techniques
Source: Meyer-Linderberg (2010, p. 194).
Cultural Lens
Using Brain Imaging to Understand Culture
A traditional healer in the Shona village in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Robert Fried/Alamy
For thousands of years, humans have traveled and been fascinated by the diversity of human behavior and thinking around the world. Historically, those interested in psychopathology and neuroscience research have focused more on the universality of human processing rather than the diversity found in different cultures. This is beginning to change with an integration of human diversity and neuroscience perspectives on human behavior and experience (see Chiao, 2009, 2011; Henderson, Vincenzi, Yeung, Fricchione, 2016; Kitayama & Cohen, 2007).
In terms of assessment and classification of mental disorders, it is critical when working with individuals from different cultures to understand the rules of expression as well as the labeling of mental disorders. This is especially true if the rules for expression of distress and emotion differ greatly from the interviewer’s culture. It is also important to understand what would be considered a mental disorder in another culture. For example, in some cultures such as the Shona of Zimbabwe, there is a disorder referred to as thinking too much (Kufungisisa). Thinking too much is seen to cause anxiety and depression as well as headaches and dizziness. A common theme in Latin America is to speak of nerves (nervios) as a common idiom of psychological distress. People may say that they cannot function because of nerves. In Japan, there is a broad concept of social concern when interacting with others (taijin kyofusho). This can include concern that one is making too much or too little eye contact, has an unpleasant body odor, or is making inappropriate body movements (see Mezzich & Ruiperez, 2015, for an overview). Cultural displays of emotional expression vary. Individuals from different cultures may display their emotions differently even though the underlying experience of the emotion may be similar. Some of the early work on this topic was performed by Paul Ekman and his colleagues (Ekman & Oster, 1979). In these studies, individuals from North America and Asia were shown emotionally arousing films that brought forth feelings of disgust or happiness. Although in private both cultural groups showed similar facial expression, the situation changed drastically when another person was present.
In that situation, those from Asia showed fewer facial expressions in reaction to the films than when they were alone. Western individuals, on the other hand, showed similar reactions to the films both alone and in the presence of another. Thus, different cultures have different display rules for the expression of similar underlying emotions.
Neuroscience research has shown that human reactions are also culturally sensitive. We know that the amygdala shows increased activity in response to emotional reactions—especially fear. Native Japanese and Caucasian Americans show greater amygdala responses to fear expressions of those of their own culture. To put it another way, a person shows less response when viewing an emotional expression of someone who is not part of his or her own culture (see Figure 2.21).
Thought Question: What cultural factors need to be considered in the assessment and classification of mental disorders? How could the failure to notice cultural differences lead to an incorrect assessment?
Figure 2.21 Cultural Specificity in Bilateral Amygdala Response to Fear Faces
Source: Chiao (2009).
neuroethics: a field of ethical inquiry related to the ethical, legal, and social policy implications of neuroscience, which explores questions about who should have access to data and scans of an individual’s internal processes
Concept Check
Describe four major types of brain imaging techniques currently being used, and identify a psychological disorder for which each is especially valuable.
What are some of the trade-offs that researchers and clinicians must consider when choosing a brain imaging technique? What questions help inform their decision?
Lens
Neuroethics: Ethical Considerations When Using Neuroscience Techniques
Safety and ethics are global concerns in the age of neuroscience.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Through genetics, brain imaging, and other neuroscience procedures, it is now possible to know not only about one’s behaviors but also about one’s internal processes. For example, predictions can be made from genetics about certain types of medical and psychological disorders that are more likely to develop in one’s future. This raises ethical questions concerning who should have access to this information and how it may be used by a society.
In the first half of the twentieth century, certain Western societies attempted to make changes in future populations. This was referred to as eugenics. The basic idea was that it was possible to improve the human race by discouraging reproduction among those considered to be inferior and encouraging reproduction among those who were considered to be healthy or otherwise preferable. Individuals with mental disorders and mental retardation were among those sterilized. The eugenics movement impacted policies in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere, then reached its extreme in Nazi Germany during World War II.
Although today eugenics is thought of as a disreputable crusade of the past, ethical issues in terms of one’s own genetic information raise important questions. Should people who want to have children be told about the possible characteristics, including potential disorders such as autism, of their future child? Should an insurance company know whether you might have the potential to experience schizophrenia or depression in your lifetime? Should companies be able to patent human genes that could prevent disease? Should people be told early in their life which disorders they might develop 40 or 50 years in the future? These are just a few of the complex questions to be considered.
There are also
