Meet a Member: Dr. Kerry Gutridge

1 (2)I am a lecturer in biomedical ethics and law, primarily interested in the ethical and philosophical issues of psychiatry. I have a background in bioethics, social science, psychology and biology. I also host and co-edit a website psychiatricethics.com which features articles and multimedia on a wide range of issues in psychiatry, neuroethics and bioethics.

For several years I have been researching the ethical and philosophical issues raised by self harm and its treatment. In particular, I have been concerned with the ethical questions which arise when doctors or nurses allow patients to self harm in psychiatric hospitals. I first encountered this issue when it was reported in the British press that patients were being allowed to self cut in some NHS hospitals. For example, one inpatient was allowed to keep a piece of glass in a locked draw in her room and use it to cut her knees.

My work on self harm has had an empirical component. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Leave a comment

A review of The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand Enhance, and Empower the Mind

*This post by Katie Strong was initially featured on The Neuroethics Blog.

IMG_20140523_172321Katie Strong is a 4th year chemistry graduate student working in Dr. Dennis Liotta’s laboratory at Emory University. Prior to graduate school, Katie received a Bachelor of Science from the University of Mary Washington, where she worked towards the development of polyethylene glycol guanidinylation reagents for protecting alkylguanidines. Katie’s graduate school research has focused on the development and synthesis of N-methyl-ᴅ-aspartate (NMDA) receptor subunit selective potentiators to be used as therapeutic probes for the study of schizophrenia and cognitive enhancement. Katie is also an Editorial Intern at the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience (AJOB Neuroscience), along with a supporting editor and regular contributor to The Neuroethics Blog, the official blog of AJOB Neuroscience.

The Future of the Mind, authored by physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, explores how neuroscience might inform questions that philosophers have been debating for centuries: Do we have a soul? What happens after we die? Do we even have to die? And what would it take to produce a robot with human consciousness or emotions? To explore these questions, Dr. Kaku interviewed hundreds of scientists who are actively conducting ground breaking work in labs around the world, and from these conversations he made predictions on how these scientific findings would shape our future. The work that Dr. Kaku discusses, such as the latest advances in brain-computer-interfaces (BCI) for the disabled,1 recording dream images with MRI machines,2 or implanting memories in mice,3,4 makes for a fascinating and engrossing read from start to finish. The Future of the Mind is at its best when taking readers through these areas of research and explaining the long-term significance, however many of the neurophilosophical questions posed are largely left to the readers’ imaginations for resolution.

The Future of the Mind is divided into three parts or books, and each book delves more and more into the technology of the future and the type of society that will exist decades and centuries from now. Book I sets the stage for how important physics is for neuroscience; the revolutionary technologies such as MRI, PET, and DBS have used basic physics knowledge, as Dr. Kaku notes, to promote the explosion of advances in the field of neuroscience. The state of these technologies in current research is introduced, along with how to conceptualize consciousness, and in Book II, he discusses how these technologies will enable us to conduct acts similar to telepathy and telekinesis, manipulate thoughts and memories, and enhance intelligence. Book III revisits the idea of consciousness and explores the possibilities related to mind-altering technologies, and suggests we reframe our understanding of consciousness beyond a single type of consciousness (i.e., dreaming, drug-induced states, and mental illnesses). He also suggests that the future understandings of consciousness may move beyond humans to include robots and aliens. Book III also explores ideas straight out of science fiction such as that one day our physical bodies will be too cumbersome for travel to other galaxies through deep space, so we’ll simply leave them behind.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Translating Preclinical Test Results into “Real World” Consequences

By Jalayne J. Arias, JD, MA

Jalayne J. Arias is the Associate Director of the NeuroEthics Program and Assistant Professional Staff in the Department of Bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic. Ms. Arias’ work incorporates empirical and conceptual projects addressing critical legal and ethical issues inherent in diagnosing, treating, and researching Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions. Most recently, she served as the principal investigator for the study Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Preclinical Alzheimer’s Diagnosis: Patients, Families and Care Givers. Her recent publication, Confidentiality in preclinical Alzheimer disease studies (Neurology), addresses confidentiality concerns relevant to biomarker testing in Alzheimer’s.

In 2007, Dr. Dubois and co-authors introduced the concept of prodromal Alzheimer’s disease in their Lancet article revising diagnostic criteria. In 2011, the National Institutes of Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association supported a series of papers introducing a new paradigm for diagnostic criteria, including Mild Cognitive Impairment and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Both papers and new definitions of Alzheimer’s disease incorporate the discovery of Amyloid beta, a biomarker that purports to indicate disease pathology. The concept of using biomarkers, which are detectible years before a patient begins experiencing symptoms, offers the potential for offering preclinical testing in the clinical context. Yet, as researchers continue to validate biomarkers, little is known about how preclinical test results may affect patients and their families.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Meet a Member: Jessica Birkett

birkettjJessica Birkett is a doctoral candidate with the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Medicine based with the Children’s Bioethics Centre at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Brought to the faculty through the Australian Research Council discovery grant in response to her initial research with the University of Sydney’s Department of Philosophy following her BA (Humanities & Philosophy) at California State, her work explores the use of phenomenological methods in conceptualising neurobehavioural disorders. The ARC project ‘Addiction Moral Agency and Moral Identity’ on which Jessica was a researcher, conducted a longitudinal, combined theoretical and empirical study into the phenomenology of addiction experience as an experimental project in the addiction subset of neuroethics. Her own dissertation concerns the integration of phenomenology into clinical practice, particularly in the diagnosing of neurological or mental health disorders and inferences around patient agency therein. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Meet a Member: Dr. Veronica Johansson

bild V1Dr. Veronica Johansson is an ethicist with a specialization in neuroethics and nanoethics. The foci of her research have been deep brain stimulation, brain-machine interfaces, major depressive disorder, human enhancement, nanomedicine and notions of authenticity and identity raised by neuromodulation techniques. Her current work foremost addresses ‘embedded ethics’, a method within bioethics that draws on both empirical ethics and casuistry, and ‘embedded patients’, i.e. patients integrated as collaborators in research, for instance in the formulation of research questions, to set research priorities and in validating research outcomes. A general theme throughout all her research is to detect and elaborate on biases and underrepresented perspectives, as well as separating facts from fiction and unfounded beliefs. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Meet a Member: Stephanie Hare

Steph_Hare HeadshotStephanie Hare is a first year PhD student in neuroscience at Georgia State University (GSU) and the recipient of the first doctoral Neuroethics (NE) research fellowship. Since coming to GSU, she has been afforded the opportunities to collaborate with both philosophers and psychologists, and to attend fascinating talks by speakers from across the country.

Currently, Steph is leading work on a paper (co-authored with her Ph.D. advisor Dr. Nicole Vincent) about whether the cognitive and behavioral neurosciences (CBN) might have anything useful to tell us about how we might best live a happy life. Might behavioral and imaging data reveal to us things about ourselves that we would otherwise be ignorant of — for instance, that we would be happier if we pursued a different career, or if we chose different life partners? They relate this discussion to a larger, looming normative question: Could the CBN data, at least in principle, tell us something about the lives that we ought to live? An early version of this paper was presented at the International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting on November 8, 2013 in San Diego. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Meet a Member: Mallory Bowers

BowersMallory Bowers is a 5th year Neuroscience doctoral candidate working with Dr. Kerry Ressler at Emory University. Prior to graduate school, Mallory received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania. Mallory is interested in behavioral neuroscience, with a particular focus on how neural plasticity contributes to learning. Furthermore, she is interested in how aberrant neural plasticity can instantiate psychiatric disease. With Dr. Ressler, Mallory is using a mouse model of exposure-based psychotherapy to better understand the neurobiology of learned fear. Specifically, her research focuses on a putative interaction between the cholecystokinin and endogenous cannabinoid systems that may underlie the extinction of cued fear. A list of her publications can be found here. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

1 Comment

It’s Complicated: Molly Crocket and Patricia Churchland Discuss the Future of the Neuroscience of Morality

This blog post written by Julia Haas was originally featured on The Neuroethics Blog.

Last month, as a recipient of the Emory Neuroethics Program Neuroethics Travel Award, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending the International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting in San Diego, California. The conference brought together leading neuroethics scholars from around the world and focused on the themes of moral enhancement, disorders of consciousness, and the role of neuroscience in the courtroom. (The conference was structured around three star-studded panels. For a full program, please visit here. For full videos of the panels, please visit here.) There were also five oral presentations and a poster session. As part of the event, I exhibited a poster entitled “Revising Weakness of Will: A Reply to Neil Levy,” where I challenged Levy’s use of the theory of ego depletion as an explanation of weakness of will and provided an alternate, neurocomputational account.

Presenting my poster at INS.

Photo credit: Karen Rommelfanger

As a philosopher interested in the intersection of the computational neurosciences and morality, “The Science and Ethics of Moral Enhancement” session was a particularly enlightening one for me. It brought together three leading women neuroethics scholars, Barbara Sahakian (as Moderator), Molly Crockett, and Patricia Churchland, as well as neuroethicist Julian Savulescu of the Oxford University Center for Neuroethics. It was a remarkable conversation. Throughout their discussions and even in the question period that followed, I was struck by how clearheaded the panelists were about the challenges facing the field. At the same time, and despite their very different perspectives, they evidently shared a real optimism about the future of this area of research. As the session moderator, neuroscientist and neuroethicist Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge University set the tone by explaining that the panelists would tackle, “the science of what’s possible now,” but also look at “what we may be able to do in the future.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

UPDATED LOCATION: Join Us at International Neuroethics Society on Friday, Nov. 8, 2013 @ 7 pm.

JOIN US FOR DINNER AND DRINKS (each person will be responsible for his/her bill).

  • Date: Friday, November 8
  • Time: 7pm until 830pm or until ?
  • UPDATED LOCATION: Marina Kitchen, 333 West Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92101 (in the same hotel where INS is being held)

We will meet immediately after the International Neuroethics Society meeting on Friday 7pm at the Marina Kitchen‘s lounge area which located in the Marriott Marquis Marina (the same location as the INS venue) at 333 West Harbor Drive *each person will be responsible for his/her bill*

Please RSVP to Karen Rommelfanger (krommel@emory.edu) by Fri, November 1 at 5pm EST.

 

,

Leave a comment

Needed: Objective measures of subjective well-being

This piece was contributed by Dr. Syd Johnson. Learn more about her here and here.

Disorders of consciousness (DOC), including the vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, and the minimally conscious state, have long fueled legal and ethical debate, and are also a source of considerable anguish for families forced to make life and death decisions on behalf of their loved ones. Particularly contentious are decisions concerning the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for patients who have a poor prognosis for further recovery. Implicit assumptions about the value of life in a state of impaired consciousness often inform decisions, but persistently unanswered questions about the quality of life of persons with DOCs remain a source of uncertainty and distress. Yet, despite the importance of quality of life in end-of-life decision making, there are no validated methods for assessing quality of life in this population. A significant obstacle to doing so is the inability of these patients to communicate. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers