Making sure good science doesn’t go bad
I picked up a copy of Cerebrum 2007, a collection of essays related to neuroscience published by Dana Press. There were a couple good articles on stroke and pain (arguing that cancer patients have little danger of addiction even using infamous opioids like morphine), but I was disappointed by Henry Greely’s scaaarrry article about the potential negative uses of neuroscience discoveries. He catalogs past misuses of scientific authority, perhaps the most egregious of which was the widespread use of lobotomy. But what to make of this:
Before eugenics disappeared in America after World War II, about 60,000 men and women were surgically sterilized by court order, for conditions such as feeblemindedness, alcoholism, insanity, epilepsy, and criminality, which have little or no genetic basis.
Alcoholism? Really? Somebody better tell the NIAAA quick.
In response to the overwhelming evidence from twin, family, and adoption studies for a major genetic influence on vulnerability to alcoholism, NIAAA has funded the Collaborative Studies on Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) since 1989, with the goal of identifying the specific genes underlying this vulnerability.
When it comes time to argue about whether fMRI lie detection schemes should make their way into court, let’s hope we can get our facts straight at least. As to the actual ethical questions raised, as in coerced fMRI or drug treatments I find my utilitarian standbys running up against my empathy. I suppose if you are doing nothing criminal and have no expectations of running up against the government you should have no concern about efficacious lie detection. On the other hand, I already think we have unjust laws on the books.
A Clockwork Orange
whether fMRI lie detection schemes should make their way into court
At least in the case of the Implicit Association Test, the researchers have publicly stated they will testify against the test in court (if it were ever allowed, of course).
It is indeed scary that “no genetic basis” rather than “no government totalitarianism” is the basis for arguments against these procedures.
It is indeed scary that “no genetic basis” rather than “no government totalitarianism” is the basis for arguments against these procedures.
Exactly. You’d think that all of the “philosophy / sociology of science” types would point this out, but they typically base their attack on there being no genetic basis for traits A, B, and C, rather than civil libertarian ideals.
Like, if there were a genetic basis, then forced sterilization wouldn’t have been such a bad policy. It also misses the chance to distinguish negative from positive eugenics, but again, you’re expecting subtlety from a bunch of buffoons.
^^
Having now read the article it seems to me you’re nit picking to score points for your particular ideology. Most of the article is a descriptive discussion of the past not an endorsement of the social and political conditions that led to those abuses.
i hope its not nitpicking to point out that there is, in fact, a genetic influence for alcoholism.
i found the article frustrating because he didn’t go into any of the finer points about these ethical arguments. there are arguments for an against the use of nuclear weapons in WWII just as there are arguments for and against forced administration of neuroactive substances. but instead he spent the first half of the article showing that he’s on the side of the good guys and the last half asking questions. i would’ve liked to see some discussion of the considerations at hand and their validity instead of a catalog of possible future mishaps.
i didn’t disagree with the original point. political orientation does motivate some to minimize individual differences