Hello, everyone. It’s the Spring 2014 semester and you’ve enrolled in PSYC 690 Neuroethics! Please download the syllabus [link deactivated] and read it carefully. Let me know if you have any questions.

In addition, please download the Word template [link deactivated] for typing up your Weekly reading assignment, which is based on the template for submitting to the Cognitive Science Society.

This website will feature class lecture highlights and the complete reading list for the course. So scroll down and check it out!

---

January 28, 2014 Assignment

Please read the following in advance of class on Thursday.

• Reading 2.1 in Farah (2010), Lifestyle drugs: Pharmacology and the social agenda
• Reading 2.2 in Farah (2010), Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do?

Please bring your printed comments to class and submit them electronically, as well. Your comments need to be in the two-column format (see above) and address the following:

• What are the pros and cons of neurocognitive enhancement and neurotechnology more broadly? Do you or do you not favor such?

February 6, 2014 Assignment

Please start the following in advance of class on Tuesday. There is no written assignment.

• Reading 2.3 in Farah (2010), The run on Ritalin: Attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s
• Reading 2.5 in Farah (2010), Toward responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the heathy: Policy suggestions

In class we will start watching:

• Dixon, L., Kroopf, S., & Kavanaugh, R. (Producers), & Burger, N. (Director). (2011). Limitless [Motion picture]. United States: Relativity Media.

February 11, 2014 Assignment

Today we started Limitless. Please take careful notes about specific issues and scenes from the film. We’ll finish Limitless on Thursday, but in the meantime, consider the movie thus far, as well as Readings 2.3 and 2.4 (which you read over the weekend), in the context of the following (to be read in advance of Thursday):

• Reading 2.4 in Farah (2010), Beyond therapy: Essential sources of concerns

Be prepared to address the following questions:

• Which authors hold positions that are at odds with one another? (Please also consider the characters in Limitless.)
• What does this disagreement say about neuroethics as a discipline?
• What neuroethical issues from lecture and the readings were dealt with satisfactorily in Limitless? For example, consider issues of safety, coercion, etc.

Please bring 1 page of printed comments to class and submit them electronically, as well. Your comments need to be in the two-column format (see above).

February 13, 2014 Assignment

Today we finished up Limitless and had a good discussion of some of the neuroethical issues in the film, with specific reference to several of our readings thus far. Your last assignment was a 1 page review of these matters in preparation for discussion. This time we’ll do something a little different. Please read the following paper:

• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7-19.

Please bring your printed comments to class and submit them electronically, as well. This assignment will be the last one submitted via email. We’ll move to Dropbox for document exchanges. If you haven’t already accepted my Dropbox invite, please do so. If you already have Dropbox, please just let me know this (and specify your Dropbox email/account). Your comments need to be in the two-column format (see above), be at least 2 pages, and address the following:

• What is ‘the extended mind’? Are you in favor or not of this decidedly unorthodox position regarding cognition?
• How does ‘the extended mind’ factor into discussions of neuroethics? Please specific the positions of various authors from our readings (and the film Limitless) and how the idea of the extended mind supports or refutes their positions.
• Feel free to expound upon your most recent comments, especially if anything in your mind has changed, given today’s lecture discussion or the film’s resolution.

February 27, 2014 Assignment

Today we continued our discussion of Clark and Chalmers (1998) and related it to certain neuroethical issues of what it means to be a being vs and object. (Make sure to reconsider Reading 2.4 above in light of Clark and Chalmers.) Next week we’re moving into our next unit, Brains, Self, and Authenticity: Who are you?. Recall that next Thursday we will not have a class meeting. In advance of next class and in anticipation for a written commentary assignment after Tuesday, please read the following:

• Reading 3.1 in Farah (2010), Memory blunting: Ethical analysis
• Reading 3.2 in Farah (2010), Ethical implications of memory dampening
• Reading 3.3 in Farah (2010), Prozac as a way of life

Be prepared to address the following questions:

• Are you in favor of ‘adjusting’ memories? Why or why not?
• What are the societal and familial consequences of altering memories?
• How might believing in the extended mind come to play regarding the ethics of altering memory or memories?

Finally, there is or are students in our class who need the help of a volunteer notetaker. Students who perform this valuable service will be recognized with a certificate attesting to their service to students and to the University of Kansas. The notetaker should have the following characteristics:

• well-organized and detailed notes
• legible handwriting
• willingness to interrupt the teacher during class and ask questions to clarify the information
• five minutes before or after class to review the notes with the student when necessary (This can also be done electronically.)

Should you wish, Disability Resources provides NCR (“no carbon required”) paper which makes the duplicate set of your notes as you write. The student or students and the notetaker should decide which person will obtain this paper from the Disability Resources office in Strong Hall.

Please let me know by email if you are interested. Thanks for any assistance you can provide!

March 4, 2014 Assignment

By now you’ve already reviewed Readings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 in Farah (2010) regarding neuroethics, memory, and authenticity. I’m interested in discussing how these issues are portrayed in the film Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, which was started today.

• Are you in favor of ‘adjusting’ memories? Why or why not? Is one simply a collection of their own memories? How is this notion of self affected by dampening or otherwise ‘adjusting’ memories?
• Is there a societal obligation to ‘remember’ that outweighs an individual’s ‘right to forget’? Please provide examples on both sides of this argument.
• Feel free to bring in past readings and discussions that bear on these neuroethical issues (e.g., the extended mind).

Please email 1 full page of printed comments to me no later than the normal start time of class on March 6th. As always, your comments need to be in the two-column format (see above); to prevent technological issues, please also paste the text in the body of this email. Failure to do this will result in a ‘late’ assignment (see syllabus for details). You will provide for me the hard copy when we next meet.

March 13, 2014 Assignment

Today we had a very productive discussion on Readings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 in Farah (2010) regarding neuroethics and memory dampening. After Spring Break, we’ll work in specific elements from the film Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. There is no specific written assignment due next class, but you might want to take the opportunity to read ahead (Readings 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 are up next!).

March 27, 2014 Assignment

Today we continued our productive discussions on memory dampening. Having read Readings 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.6 in Farah (2010) I’m interested in your comments on the following neuroethical issues regarding mind/brain reading, mind control, and privacy:

• What is the status (as of the publication of these readings) of using brain imaging to ‘detect lies’ or otherwise ‘read one’s thoughts’?
• What evidentiary status do brain images have for you personally? (That is, independent of their status in the courtroom, when you see a brain image in a scientific report, what does it mean to you?)
• Can we predict ‘future crime’? Why or why not? What are the benefits and dangers of such an ability?
• Do you have a right to privacy for your thoughts? (Now address that question in the context of the debate over the extended mind, as well as societal obligation to ‘remember’ certain things and memory dampening from today’s class.)

Please bring with you to class 2 full pages of printed comments. These are due promptly at the beginning of class on Tuesday. As always, your comments need to be in the two-column format (see above). Be prepared to read your brilliantly crafted arguments and evidence when called upon.

April 10, 2014 Assignment

I would like you to read Gray and Thompson (2004) and Racine, Bar-Ilan, and Illes (2005), Readings 4.2 and 4.4. Consider again, as well, your most crop of readings Canli and Amin (2002), Wolpe, Foster, and Langleben (2005), Phelps and Thomas (2003), and Reading 4.6, with respect to the following:

• What is a ‘picture’ of the brain’s activation? What does it tell you? What ought you to conclude?
• Do you believe that the public is adequately informed about how to interpret, for example, fMRI data? What could be done about this?
• What is the responsibility of the public to understand the domain of neuroscientists?
• Regarding discussion in lecture, explain what makes studying the mind ‘scientific’? What makes studying the brain (perhaps even more) ‘scientific’?

Please bring with you to class 2 full pages of printed comments on Tuesday. Make sure to cite specific examples from your readings.

April 24, 2014 Assignment

Today’s assignment is a little different. Keep in mind that we will not hold a class meeting on Tuesday April 29, 2014, to accommodate students who wish to present or attend the Psychology Department’s 5th Annual Symposium for Undergraduate Psychology Engagement and Research (SUPER). Your assignment is, thus, due on Thursday May 1, 2014, as always promptly at the start of class. To complete your assignment, you must first watch online episode 1 of the anime Psycho-Pass. It may play in the window below, but regardless the link is here. It is in Japanese with English subtitles. Please consider the most readings from the units “Brain reading, Mind reading, Mind control, Privacy” and “Neuroscience, the Public, and Responsibility”.

• How ‘realistic’ is the portrayal of predicting crime in the episode, given the literature we’ve read and covered in lecture. You may find the following articles of interest on this matter (article 1, article 2 [links deactivated]).

Psycho Pass – Episode 1 “Crime Coefficient” by ypnoy21
Please bring with you to class 2 full pages of printed comments on Thursday. Make sure to cite specific examples from your readings and the episode. In addition, please read in advance the unit on “Neuroscience, Morality, and Justice” for Thursday’s class meeting.

---

 

Below is a select list of the planned readings for the course by topic. 

Better Brains: The Pros and Cons of Neuroenhancement

Reading 2.1 in Farah (2010), Lifestyle drugs: Pharmacology and the social agenda

Flower, R. (2004). Lifestyle drugs: Pharmacology and the social agenda. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 25, 182-185.

Reading 2.2 in Farah (2010), Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do?

Farah, M., Illes, J., Cook-Deegan, R., Gardner, H., Kandel, E., King, P., Parens, E., Sahakian, B., & Wolpe, P. (2004). Neurocognitive enhancement: What can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 421-425.

Reading 2.3 in Farah (2010), The run on Ritalin: Attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s

Diller, L. H. (1996). The run on Ritalin. Attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s. Hastings Center Report, 26, 12-18.

Reading 2.4 in Farah (2010), Beyond therapy: Essential sources of concerns

Reading 2.5 in Farah (2010), Toward responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the heathy: Policy suggestions

Media assignment
Dixon, L., Kroopf, S., & Kavanaugh, R. (Producers), & Burger, N. (Director). (2011). Limitless [Motion picture]. United States: Relativity Media.

Brains, Self, and Authenticity: Who are you?

Reading 3.1 in Farah (2010), Memory blunting: Ethical analysis

Kass, L. (2003). Memory blunting: Ethical analysis [excerpt]. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness (pp. 225-234). A Report by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Harper Collins.

Reading 3.2 in Farah (2010), Ethical implications of memory dampening

Kolber, A. (2006). Therapeutic forgetting: The legal and ethical implications of memory dampening [excerpt]. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 1561-1626.

Reading 3.3 in Farah (2010), Prozac as a way of life

Media assignment
Golin, S., & Bregman, A. (Producers), & Gondry, M. (Director). (2004). Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios.

Brain reading, Mind reading, Mind control, Privacy

Reading 4.1 in Farah (2010), Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Ethical considerations

Canli, T., & Amin, Z. (2002). Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Scientific evidence and ethical considerations. Brain and Cognition, 50, 414-431.

Reading 4.3 in Farah (2010), Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection: promises and perils

Wolpe, P. R., Foster, K. R., & Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 39-49.

Reading 4.5 in Farah (2010), Race, behavior, and the brain: The role of neuroimaging in understanding complex social behaviors

Phelps, E., & Thomas, L. (2003). Race, behavior, and the brain: The role of neuroimaging in understanding complex social behaviors. Political Psychology, 24, 747-758.

Reading 4.6 in Farah (2010), Regulating neuroimaging

Neuroscience, the Public, and Responsibility

Reading 4.2 in Farah (2010), Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics

Gray, R., & Thompson, P. (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 471-482.

Reading 4.4 in Farah (2010), fMRI in the public eye

Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., & Illes, J. (2005). fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 159-164.

Neuroscience, Morality, and Justice

Reading 5.1 in Farah (2010), An overview of the impact of neuroscience evidence in criminal law

President’s Council on Bioethics (2004). An overview of the impact of neuroscience evidence in criminal law. Staff Working Paper.

Reading 5.2 in Farah (2010), For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything

Greene, J. D., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359, 1775-1785.

Reading 5.3 in Farah (2010), The neurobiology of addiction: Implications for the voluntary control of behavior

Reading 5.4 in Farah (2010), Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note

Morse, S. (2006). Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 397-412.

Reading 5.5 in Farah (2010), State-imposed brain intervention: The case of pharacotherapy for drug abuse

Brains, Persons, and Free will

Reading 6.2 in Farah (2010), Personhood: An illusion rooted in brain function?

Farah, M., & Heberlein, A. (2007). Personhood and neuroscience: Naturalizing or nihilating? The American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 37-48.

Reading 6.3 in Farah (2010), Animal neuroethics and the problem of other minds

Reading 6.5 in Farah (2010), From neurons to politics—Without a soul

*Additional topics we will address include the literature relating to religion, God, and the brain, as well as military applications of neuroscience, or being all you can be, and the psychology of the ‘post-human’.*

---