Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Biopolitics of Neuroethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Debates About Neuroethics

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

Abstract

Neuroethics is an interdisciplinary endeavor committed to promoting responsible innovation and ethical understanding in neuroscience and neurotechnology. As the field develops, closer examination will be needed concerning how neuroethics discourse could, either implicitly or explicitly, shape our brains and our minds, and ultimately, what it means to be human. Borrowing the notion of biopolitics from Michel Foucault, this chapter explores and critically examines the biopolitical dimension of neuroethics. In the first section, the concept of biopolitics is examined through the lens of Michel Foucault’s analysis with a particular focus on the politicization of science and technology. The second section outlines the key features of neuroethics and the main challenges of attempting to pinpoint the identity of the neuroethics community. The third section delineates some positive developments in establishing the field and in building a community of scholars and researchers interested in the ethical and social implications of advances in neuroscience. The fourth section provides a rationale as to why the neuroethics community has the moral obligation to scrutinize the socioeconomic motivations and political drives behind any research project to ensure both as much transparency as possible and state neutrality. The final section of the chapter discusses the challenges of establishing a dominant discourse in light of political and moral pluralism and suggests a potential approach (i.e., procedural ethics grounded on a deliberative democracy approach) to shape such discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, this challenge is not unique to neuroethics but applies to the entire applied ethics domain. For example, similar problems have been addressed by scholars within the fields of bioethics and medical ethics (Hellsten 2008; Tangwa 2004). In addition, the very idea of moral universalism is often disputed in moral philosophy by proponents of moral relativism. While taking a stance in the debate on moral universalism vs. moral relativism is beyond the scope of this chapter, it suffices to consider here that if universal moral norms were true, the lack of consensus about them within neuroethics would undermine its ability to provide indisputable moral guidance.

  2. 2.

    The point here is not to discuss the desirability of a dominant neuroethics agenda. For further clarification on this issue, see sections 17.5 and 17.6 where we suggest a pluralistic approach: a procedural ethics grounded on a deliberative democracy framework.

  3. 3.

    For example, the International Neuroethics Society (INS) describes its mission as “to promote the development and responsible application of neuroscience through interdisciplinary and international research, education, outreach and public engagement for the benefit of people of all nations, ethnicities, and cultures.” See: http://www.neuroethicssociety.org/history.

  4. 4.

    The metaphor of the “guardian and mediator” should not be interpreted as a constituted body or force, like an Orwellian “ethics police,” but as a system of knowledge and expertise with a critical advisory function.

References

  • Bachynski KE, Goldberg DS (2014) Youth sports & public health: framing risks of mild traumatic brain injury in american football and ice hockey. J Law Med Ethics 42(3):323–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caron JG, Bloom GA (2015) Ethical issues surrounding concussions and player safety in professional ice hockey. Neuroethics 8(1):5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler JA, Dodek AM (2016) Cognitive enhancement in the courtroom. Cognitive enhancement: ethical and policy implications in international perspectives, 329

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1888) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, vol 1. Murray, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt HT (1996) The foundations of bioethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund D (1997) Beyond fairness and deliberation: the epistemic dimension of democratic authority. Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics, 173

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (1980) An introduction: the history of sexuality, vol 1. Hurley R (trans). Vintage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (2000) The birth of social medicine. Power 3:1954–1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (2007) Security, territory, population. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunst D (1978) Biopolitik zwischen Macht und Recht. Mainz: v. Hase und Köhler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann A, Thompson D (2000) Why deliberative democracy is different. Social Philos Policy 17(01):161–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten SK (2008) Global bioethics: utopia or reality? Dev World Bioeth 8(2):70–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry S, Plemmons D (2012) Neuroscience, neuropolitics and neuroethics: the complex case of crime, deception and fMRI. Sci Eng Ethics 18(3):573–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson MA, Mier-y-Teran-Romero L, Reefhuis J, Gilboa SM, Hills SL (2016) Zika and the risk of microcephaly. N Engl J Med 375(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen AR (1998) The birth of bioethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand F (forthcoming) Cognitive enhancement of today may be the normal of tomorrow. In: Illes J, Hossain S (eds) Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice and policy, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand F, Giordano J (2015) Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging–brain-computer interfacing in the assessment and treatment of psychopathy: potential and challenges. In: Handbook of neuroethics. Springer, pp 763–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman LM (2009) Bioethics as public discourse and second-order discipline. J Med Philos 4:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leefmann J, Levallois C, Hildt E (2016) Neuroethics 1995–2012. A bibliometric analysis of the guiding themes of an emerging research field. Front Hum Neurosci 10:336

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke T (2011) Biopolitics: an advanced introduction. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemm V, Vatter M (2014) The government of life: Foucault, biopolitics, and neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McNamee M (2014) Professional football, concussion, and the obligation to protect head injured players. Sport Ethics Philos 8(2):113–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda RA, Casebeer WD, Hein AM, Judy JW, Krotkov EP, Laabs TL et al (2015) DARPA-funded efforts in the development of novel brain–computer interface technologies. J Neurosci Methods 244:52–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noll G (2014) Weaponising neurotechnology: international humanitarian law and the loss of language. Lond Rev Int Law 2(2):201–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J (2008) The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. J Appl Philos 25(3):162–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J (2012) Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Persson I, Savulescu J (2013) Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics 27(3):124–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rihn JA, Anderson DT, Lamb K, Deluca PF, Bata A, Marchetto PA et al (2009) Cervical spine injuries in American football. Sports Med 39(9):697–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose N, Rabinow P (2003) Thoughts on the concept of biopower today. http://www.molsci.org/research/publications_pdf/Rose_Rabinow_Biopower _Today. Pdf. Accessed 1 June 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangwa GB (2004) Between universalism and relativism: a conceptual exploration of problems in formulating and applying international biomedical ethical guidelines. J Med Ethics 30(1):63–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tennison MN, Moreno JD (2012) Neuroscience, ethics, and national security: the state of the art. PLoS Biol 10(3):e1001289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Daele W (2005) Einleitung: Soziologische Aufklärung zur Biopolitik Biopolitik. Springer, pp 7–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky MW (1992) Technology, power, and truth: political and epistemological reflections on the fourth revolution. In: Democracy in a technological society. Springer, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman J (2002) Real science: what it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Fabrice Jotterand Ph.D., M.A.

  2. Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Fabrice Jotterand Ph.D., M.A. & Marcello Ienca M.Sc., M.A.

Authors
  1. Fabrice Jotterand Ph.D., M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcello Ienca M.Sc., M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrice Jotterand Ph.D., M.A. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IRCM, Université de Montréal, and McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Eric Racine

  2. IRCM and McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    John Aspler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jotterand, F., Ienca, M. (2017). The Biopolitics of Neuroethics. In: Racine, E., Aspler, J. (eds) Debates About Neuroethics. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54650-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54651-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation