Neuroethics for the New Millenium

As with all newborns, picking a name is a difficult and contentious task. One of the most animated debates at the close of the NMTF conference was about the appropriateness of the label “Neuroethics.” Some claimed it was an unfortunate name for this fledgling field, because ethics is the purview of philosophers, while the field clearly needs the concerted interaction of policy makers, lawyers, journalists, and the public, as well as the philosophers and neuroscientists. Others suggested that “Neuroethics” was ill-chosen because ethics excluded nonethicist philosophers and other humanists. I disagree on both counts. “Neuroethics” is a name well-chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is concise, catchy, and evocative. Second, it is a sad misconception of all too many that ethics is merely an academic exercise of philosophers. Rather, our ability to think and act ethically is arguably one of the defining things of what it is to be human: it is an inclusive rather than an exclusive term. Part of what it is to be a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, or a journalist is to execute one's office in accordance with the values of one's profession and the society at large. Witness the Hippocratic oath, the courtroom oath, the swearing in before taking office, and the injunction not to fabricate stories or data. Ethics should therefore not be a domain foreign to nonethicist professionals. Moreover, in the time of Plato and Aristotle, it was considered imperative for every citizen to have a moral education and to take part in the ethical deliberations of society. It is perhaps reflective of some of the ills in our society that ethics is thought to be a philosopher's concern and not the common man's. But this is not a misconception we should yield to—it is an invitation to reeducate the public that ethics is a forum that needs the participation of everyone. Rather than capitulate to a narrow view of what ethics is and who it concerns, we should embrace the dialectical model of the NMTF meeting and demonstrate that ethics is as broad and inclusive a category as any.We should not merely pay lip-service to this inclusiveness. Neuroethics has the potential to be an interdisciplinary field with wide-ranging effects. However, because it ultimately impinges on the well-being of the individual and our society, it is not a study that can or should be undertaken in the ivory tower. It is imperative that neuroethicists take part in a dialogue with the public. To make this possible, however, it is important in the short term to strive for “neuroliteracy” of the public and the media. We must make a concerted effort to make the subtleties of neuroscientific research accessible to the lay public via the media and refrain from the current practice of feeding it sound bites. For it is only with a nuanced understanding of the science, and a renewed trust in the goals of neuroscientists, that real progress will be made on these difficult issues. In the last few months, we have heard just the first noises of such a dialogue. As Dana Foundation executive director Francis Harper aptly noted at the close of NMTF, “You can call it what you want, but the neuroethics train has left the station.”