Title: NESSHI The 'Neuro-turn' in European Social Sciences and Humanities: impacts of neurosciences on economics, marketing and philosophy
Funder: Economic and Social Research Council

Abstract: It is widely believed that the brain sciences have the potential to transform European knowledge-based industries, policymaking, even the very foundations of democracies. By uncovering the biological mechanisms driving an individual's decision-making, decision neurosciences question the very concept of an individual's autonomy: decisions might be driven by relatively mechanistic processes out of reach of an individual's will and consciousness. A voter might ignore the ultimate reasons for her voting decision, a consumer for his buying impulse, a citizen for her moral attitudes. This fundamental reconfiguration of the individual has already begun to be translated into new social practices, such as private consulting firms in neuromarketing selling advice on how best to influence consumers. Our ORA project will explore the essential role played by SSH in this process: how does neurological research find an interpretation in the social realm? How do social theories, once informed by decision neuroscience, give birth to new social institutions and practices? Our proposal will focus on three fields which have already formed into academic sub-fields and that have had a clear impact on societies: neuromarketing, neuroeconomics and neurophilosophy. The industry of neuromarketing has developed exponentially in the last five years, and brain imaging techniques are now routinely used by Fortune 100 companies to evaluate the effectiveness of marketing campaigns, as measured by brand awareness or purchase intentions. This is paralleled by intense research in "consumer decision neuroscience" by the marketing departments of top-ranking business schools (in Europe, one can mention the Rotterdam School of Management, INSEAD, and Copenhagen Business School). Likewise, economists revisit their models and concepts to take into account the latest biological findings about how individuals make decisions. Neuroeconomics implies that economists might endorse a new position as your "financial brain" 's doctor, with recent publications suggesting a variety of domains of application for neuroeconomic policies (see Harbaugh, Mayr, and Burghart 2007 on taxation; Thaler and Sunstein 2008 on saving rates; Krajbich et al. 2009 on public investments). This is not a perspective situated in the distant future: policies informed by neuroeconomics have been proposed by two renowned scholars now working in executive positions in Barack Obama's administration (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). It is also the focus of a current European research project (www.xdelia.org). Philosophy entertains a two-way relationship with neurosciences: basic problems in moral philosophy, the philosophy of ethics and the philosophy of mind are now investigated by neuroscientists using a combination of behavioral, neurological and neuroimaging evidence (Greene et al. 2001; Illes 2003; Nado 2008), while philosophers develop a reflection on the new ethical problems opened by the applications of brain sciences in medicine (Suchy-Dicey 2009; Giordano 2010) and pharmaceutics (Capps 2010). These academic debates may reform large sections of the regulatory frameworks in medicine and pharmaceutics, the judiciary system and many other domains where the rules of deontology may be deeply influenced by the emerging neuroethics.


Research activity codes: 8.2 HEALTH AND WELFARE ECONOMICS;8.3 POLICY, ETHICS AND RESEARCH GOVERNANCE
Health categories: MENTAL HEALTH;NEUROLOGICAL