Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 23–41 | Cite as

Not so Fast. On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims Concerning Human Agency

  • Andrea LavazzaEmail author
  • Mario De Caro
Article

Abstract

According to a widespread view, a complete explanatory reduction of all aspects of the human mind to the electro-chemical functioning of the brain is at hand and will certainly produce vast and positive cultural, political and social consequences. However, notwithstanding the astonishing advances generated by the neurosciences in recent years for our understanding of the mechanisms and functions of the brain, the application of these findings to the specific but crucial issue of human agency can be considered a “pre-paradigmatic science” (in Thomas Kuhn’s sense). This implies that the situation is, at the same time, intellectually stimulating and methodologically confused. More specifically—because of the lack of a solid, unitary and coherent methodological framework as to how to connect neurophysiology and agency—it frequently happens that tentative approaches, bold but very preliminary claims and even clearly flawed interpretations of experimental data are taken for granted. In this article some examples of such conceptual confusions and intellectual hubris will be presented, which derive from the most recent literature at the intersection between neurosciences, on the one hand, and philosophy, politics and social sciences, on the other hand. It will also be argued that, in some of these cases, hasty and over-ambitious conclusions may produce negative social and political consequences. The general upshot will be that very much has still to be clarified as to what and how neurosciences can tell us about human agency and that, in the meantime, intellectual and methodological caution is to be recommended.

Keywords

Human agency Free will Neuropolitics Neuroethics Social neuroscience 

References

  1. 1.
    Churchland, P.S. 2002. Brain-wise. studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Churchland, P.S. 2008. The impact of neuroscience on philosophy. Neuron 60(6): 409–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edelman, G.M. 2007. Second nature: brain science and human knowledge. New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gazzaniga, M.S. 2008. Human. The science behind what makes us unique. New York: Ecco Books.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rasmusson, A. 2009. Neuroethics a s brain-based philosophy of life: the case of Michael S. Gazzaniga. Neuroethics 2: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hughes, J. 2004. Citizen cyborg. why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iacoboni, M. 2008. Mirroring people: the new science of how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinker, S. 1999. How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinker, S. 2002. Blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Caro, M. and D. Macarthur. (eds). 2010. Naturalism and Normativity. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Putnam, H. 2002. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farah, M.J., et al. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logothetis, N.K. 2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453: 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keil, F.C. 2003. Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(8): 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cacioppo, J.T., et al. 2003. Just because you're imaging the brain doesn't mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sirotin, Y.B. and A. Das. 2009. Anticipatory haemodynamic signals in sensory cortex non predicted by local neuronal activity. Nature 457: 475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devor, A., et al. 2008. Stimulus-induced changes in blood flow and 2-deoxyglucose uptake dissociate in ipsilateral somatosensory cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience 28: 14347–14357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rossier, J. 2009. Wiring and plumbing in the brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3(2): 10.2289/neuro.09.002.2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Illes, J. and E. Racine. 2005. Imaging or imagining: a neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 2: 5–18.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kane, R. (ed). 2002. Handbook of free will. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walter, H. 2001. Neurophilosophy of free will: from libertarian illusions to a concept of natural autonomy. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soon, C.S., M. Brass, H.-J. Heinze, and J.-D. Haynes. 2008. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11: 543–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dennett, D.C. 2003. Freedom evolves. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bickle, J. 2008. The molecules of social recognition memory: implications for social cognition, extended mind, and neuroethics. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iacoboni, M., et al. 2007. This is your brain on politics. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html.
  27. 27.
    Aron, A., et al. Letter: Politics and the brain. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/1web14brain.html
  28. 28.
    Alter, A. 2007. Reading the mind of the body politic. Wall Street Journal, 14 December, W1.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Editorial. 2007. Mind games: How not to mix science and politics. Nature, 450: 457.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Westen, D., et al. 2006. Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Neuroscience 18(11): 1947–1958.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amodio, D.M., et al. 2007. Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatives. Nature Neuroscience 10: 1246–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aguirre, G.K. 2008. The political brain. Cerebrum. http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=13242.
  33. 33.
    Editorial. 2008. It’s the genes, stupid. New York Times, May 27. http://nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27tue4.html?r=1
  34. 34.
    Fowler, J.H., L.A. Baker, and C.T. Dawes. 2008. Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review 102: 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fowler, J.H. and C.T. Dawes. 2008. Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics 70: 579–594.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Settle, J., C.T. Dawes, and J.H. Fowler. 2009. The heritability of partisan attachment. Political Research Quarterly 62: 601–613.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dawes, C.T. and J.H. Fowler. 2009. Partisanship, voting, and the dopamine D2 receptor gene. Journal of Politics 71: 1157–1171.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ballew II, C.C. and A. Todorov. 2007. Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 17948–17953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Little, A.C., et al. 2007. Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior 28: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walum, H., et al. 2008. Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(37): 14153–14156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Young, L.J. 2009. Love: neuroscience reveals all. Nature 457: 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whittle, S., et al. 2008. Prefrontal and amygdala volumes are related to adolescents’ affective behaviors during parent-adolescent interactions. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences 105: 3652–3657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cantor, J.M., et al. 2008. Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men. Journal of Psychiatric Research 42: 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shergill, S.S. 2007. A diffusion tensor imaging study of fasciculi in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 164: 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Szeszko, P.R., et al. 2008. Clinical and neuropsychological correlates of white matter abnormalities in recent onset schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 33: 976–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vikingstad, E.M., et al. 2000. Cortical language lateralization in right handed normal subjects using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the neurological sciences 175: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Savic, I. and P. Lindström. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences 105: 9403–9408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pickett, B. 2006. Homosexuality. In E.N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
  49. 49.
    Han, S. and G. Northoff. 2008. Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: a transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 646–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Singh, J., J. Hallmayer, and J. Illes. 2007. Interacting and paradoxical forces in neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8: 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Skolnick Weisberg, D., F.C. Keil, J. Goodstein, E. Rawson, and J.R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McCabe, D.P. and A.D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107: 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes. 2006. Brain imaging: a decade of coverage in the print media. Science Communication 28: 122–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vohs, K.D. and J.W. Schooler. 2008. The value in believing in free will. Psychological Science 19: 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Greene, J. and J. Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359: 1775–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hart, H.L.A. 1968. Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Michaels, A.C. 2004. Fastow and Arthur Andersen: some reflections on corporate criminality, victim status, and retribution. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2: 551–571.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fowler, J.H. and D. Schreiber. 2008. Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature. Science 322: 912–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lakoff, G. 2008. The political mind: why you can’t understand the 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Settle, J., C.T. Dawes, P.K. Hatemi, N.A. Christakis, and J.H. Fowler. 2008. Friendships moderate an association between a dopamine gene variant and political ideology. Working paper. http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu.
  61. 61.
    Westen, D. 2007. The political brain: the role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fredrickson, G.M. 2003. Racism: a short history. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xiaojing, Xu, et al. 2009. Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. The Journal of Neuroscience 29(26): 8525–8529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Akirav, I. and M. Maroun. 2007. The role of the medial prefrontal cortex-amygdala circuit in stress effects on the extinction of fear. Neural Plasticity. doi: 10.1155/2007/30873.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brown, S., et al. 2006. Neural basis of individual differences in impulsivity: contributions of corticolimbic circuits for behavioural arousal and control. Emotion 6: 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Luiten, P.G. 1985. The cortico-medial amygdale in the central nervous system organization of agonistic behaviour. Brain Research 322: 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rammes, G., et al. 2000. Synaptic plasticity in the basolateral amygdala in transgenic mice expressing dominant-negative cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) in forebrain. European Journal of Neuroscience 12: 2534–2546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Tebartz Elst, L., D. Ebert, and B. Hesslinger. 2007. Amygdala volume status might reflect dominant mode of emotional information processing. Archives of General Psychiatry 64: 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fradin, J. and C. Lefrançois. 2007. Dominant ou dominé (dominating or dominated). Cerveau et Psycho 20: 36–41.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fradin, J. and F. Fradin. 2006. Personnalités et psychophysiopathologie. Paris: Éditions Publibook Université.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pezawas, L., et al. 2005. 5-HTTLPR polymorphism impacts human cingulate-amygdala interactions: a genetic susceptibility mechanism for depression. Nature Neuroscience 8: 828–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gianaros, P.J., et al. 2007. Perigenual anterior cingulated morphology covaries with perceived social standing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Eisenberger, N.I. 2007. Using neuroimaging techniques to explore the relationship between social status and health. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2: 159–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Edwards, D.H. and E.A. Kravitz. 1997. Serotonin, social status and aggression. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 7: 811–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics: challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dupré, J. 2001. Human nature and the limits of science. Oxford: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrer, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hart, A., et al. 2000. Differential response of human amygdala to racial outgroup versus ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport 11: 2351–2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Phelps, E., et al. 2000. Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wolpe, P.R. 2006. Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell 125: 1023–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bennett, M.R. and P.M.S. Hacker. 2003. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rose, S. 2005. The future of the brain: the promise and perils of tomorrow's neuroscience. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Uttal, W.R. 2001. The new phrenology: the limits of localizing cognitive processes in the brain. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes. 2005. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    De Caro, M. and D. Macarthur (eds). 2004. Naturalism in question. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Vul, E., et al. 2009. Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4: 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Abbott, A. 2009. Brain imaging studies under fire. Nature 457: 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Poldrack, R.A. and J.A. Mumford. 2009. Independence in ROI analysis: where is the voodoo? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4(2): 208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Klein, C. 2009. Images are not the evidence in neuroimaging. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axp035. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Smilansky, S. 2000. Free will and illusion. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wegner, D. 2002. The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kane, R. 1996. The significance of free will. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Searle, J. 2004. Freedom and neurobiology: reflections on free will, language, and political power. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Roskies, A. 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kaplan, J.T., J. Freedman, and M. Iacoboni. 2007. Us versus them: political attitudes and party affiliation influence neural response to faces of presidential candidates. Neuropsychologia 45: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ceccarelli, L. 2001. Shaping science with rhetoric: the cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Nahmias, E. 2006. Folk fears about freedom and responsibility: determinism vs. reductionism. The Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Nichols, S. and J. Knobe. 2007. Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Noûs 41: 663–685.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Morse, S.J. 2006. Moral and legal responsibility and the new neuroscience. In Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. J. Illes, 33–50. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kaposi, C. 2009. Will neuroscientific discoveries about free will and selfhood change our ethical practises? Neuroethics 2: 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Marmot, M.G. 2006. Status syndrome: a challenge to medicine. JAMA 295(11): 1304–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sapolsky, R.M. 2005. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science 308(5722): 648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Zink, C.F., et al. 2008. Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron 58(2): 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zak, P.J., A.A. Stanton, and S. Armadi. 2007. Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLos One 2(11): e1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kosfeld, M., et al. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435: 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zak, P.J. 2008. The Neurobiology of trust. Scientific American, June: 88–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di FilosofiaUniversità Roma TreRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations