https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3606-587X
![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
An increasing amount of very diverse scholarship self-identifies as belonging to the field of neuroethics, illuminating a need to provide some reference points for what that field actually entails. We argue that neuroethics is a single field with distinct perspectives, roles, and subspecialties. We propose that—in addition to the three traditional perspectives delineated by Eric Racine—a fourth, socio-political perspective, must be recognized in neuroethics. The socio-political perspective in neuroethics focuses on the interplay between the behavioral as well as the brain sciences and the socio-political system; this interplay includes social regulation in addition to all other realistic elements of social and political neurodiscourses. Thus, defining what—if any—roles the socio-political perspective in neuroethics might have is a pressing issue. Doing so could provide guidance for defining the criteria for prospective ethical evaluations in neuroethics. A promising approach to doing this could be by describing the roles of neuroethics in terms of the more concrete examples of the roles of political philosophy in general, as in the tradition of John Rawls. We take klotho, the supposed “longevity protein,” as a modern neuroethics case to exemplify the obstacles faced in securing neuroethics’ legitimacy and how the Rawlsian framework we propose may be applied to handle cases such as this. Ultimately, the socio-political perspective in neuroethics should not be swayed by the media hype and ought to offer useful ethical guidance and articulation of genuine ethical concerns to policy makers and the public alike.
Notes
1 The second branch should not be limited to neuroscience of ethics because relevant discussions in neuroethics frequently draw on findings from other fields of empirical moral psychology (e.g. cognitive science of ethics), so the proper name could be behavioral and brain science of ethics. Whichever name is ultimately favored, an important task for neuroethics is to identify and analyze the extent to which our concept of morality and moral theory are affected by insights from different sciences.
2 These different views discussed should be considered as identifying certain legitimate areas of emphasis, not as mutually exclusive definitions of neuroethics. Furthermore, the socio-political perspective goes beyond the recognition that political powers once in leadership roles have advanced or discouraged a particular research trajectory. It also goes beyond the recognition of structural barriers in the pursuit of research for certain populations (e.g., women, people of color, etc.) and the fact that the socio-political system rewards certain kinds of conduct to the detriment of others (see Pickersgill et al. Citation2019). All of this is certainly true, but we further assume that the very nature of the socio-political system may be impacted by the development of behavioral and brain sciences and implementation of resulting technologies. We follow John Rawls in articulating the conceptual tools for this socio-political perspective in a liberal democracy, but other approaches from political philosophy are not only possible but highly desirable, as they will enrich the extant neuroethics scholarship. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and editors for the constructive comments that have prompted us to make this clear.
3 Of course, this should not signal that Rawls’ philosophy is the only one relevant for delineating such roles. Further work by other neuroethicists should uncover additional relevant conceptual tools from political theory. In this paper, we are merely arguing that this is a fruitful endeavor. It also remains an open question for further investigation, to what extent the roles of neuroethics rely on specific forms of government such as liberal democracy. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for a constructive discussion that prompted us to make this clear.