The article, Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience , provides the different ethical implications of using neuroimaging in the psychology, medical and social fields. The findings made by the author can are instrumental, and they can act as guidance to the application of the field in the future. First, the author indicates the possibility of neuroscience being used for commercial services by institutions due to the over the objectivity of lay persons who may be using it. It is noteworthy advertising and other leading companies across the world may try to offset competition by deriving images from their consumers and improving their products and services using the feedback (Farah, 2012). Although this would result in consumers enjoying quality products, it would lead to a frantic race towards knowing what the customers are thinking and, therefore, commercializing the process. Such an insight would provide guidance on the limits to which the technology should be used.
Neuroscience also interferes with brain privacy. The information that people give verbally or through emotional expression is taken to represent their true feelings since their brain activity is not laid bare for all to see. With neuroscience, this privacy is infiltrated, and individuals have no reserve for keeping their feelings secret. Although its application can be crucial in sensitive cases requiring the absolute truth of the respondents, it may expose the fact that would rather remain confidential. Also, as Evers (2016) observes, the images obtained in good faith by psychologists for a given purpose might end up being used for other purposes without the consent of the respondents. Although the article points out that the concurrence of the interviewees is necessary when performing such functions, it is unpredictable that such privilege would be allowed after the use of the technology is allowed to infiltrate diverse fields.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
By looking at how the brain functions, it is possible for individuals to understand their traits, personality and predict their character. Therefore, there is a possibility of altering brain functions that are not considered to be desirable (Farah, 2012). As the author observes, this has been used as the basis used by individuals to use brain stimulants to alter their moods. Although this might have a positive effect in keeping the mind alert, it interferes with the unaltered reactions that would demonstrate a person’s real character.
Q2
There are various limitations observed in the study which can be addressed through a continuous research process that is more comprehensive. First, the article does not address the issue of whether there is a possibility of having a uniform application of neuroscience across the world. As a conventional method of understanding human behavior, the method is likely to be used in different domains ranging from medicine, psychology, legal field among others. Therefore, it is imperative to address the contentious issues surrounding its use (Farah, 2012). Future research should focus on detailing the negative implication of neuro imaging on people’s lives. This would be instrumental in generating a universal guideline for its use. However, due to the lack of field-specific guidelines, the technology does not have defined limits that can be adopted internationally.
Secondly, the research does not indicate whether the results obtained from neuroimaging are authentic and the extent of their errors. This would have been imperative since it would have pointed out the limit to which the results can be applied. In studying human behavior by observing the mind, the article should have identified the degree of error. Further research is necessary to indicate the limits and advise the users on the extent to which they can go while making conclusions from the images (Farah, 2012). It is worth pointing out that neuroscience is considered for use in sensitive areas that are intrusive and of legal nature. For example, it has been recommended in trials involving serious criminal offenses. If the technology is to be used in determining whether the respondents are giving true or false information, the limits must be precisely defined. The rationale for this is that it cannot be free from errors either human or emanating from the process. A high rate of accuracy would make it admissible in courts and other situations that require the absolute truth from the subjects.
The article also treats the question of whether the use of brain enhancers affects the authenticity of people’s thought as rhetoric. The author does not examine the issue further, and it is presented in the article as an ethical question. By using brain enhancers, individuals are in a position to shape their emotions in a predetermined way. Further research should delve into this issue and determine the extent t to which an individual’s personality is affected by the use of enhancers, either self-prescribed or administered by a physician.
Q3
From the article, it would be imperative for the class to ponder on some questions regarding neuroscience and its application in people’s lives.
Is the use of brain enhancers to increase brain activity and productivity ethical? If so, in what fields should it be applied?
Does neuroscience replace the conventional understanding of humans? That is, consisting of the body, mind, and the soul?
Should brain activity be the supreme reserve of secrecy and is it acceptable to infiltrate it?
References
Evers, K. (2016). The contribution of neuroethics to international brain research initiatives. Nature Reviews Neuroscience .
Farah, M. J. (2012). Neuroethics: the ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. Annual review of psychology , 63 , 571-591.
