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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    It has to be said, however, that there is no shortage of neuroscientists and philosophers who have pointed to what they feel are the undue extensions, in philosophical, methodological and applicative terms, of the researches on the brain to issues of human agency [8183].

  2. 2.

    In presenting a critical view similar to the one defended in this article, Racine, Bar-Ilan and Illes [84] have coined two neologisms, “neuro-realism” and “neuro-essentialism”. According to them, the first term can be used to describe “how coverage of fMRI investigations can make a phenomenon uncritically real, objective or effective in the eyes of the public. This occurs most notably when qualifications about results are not brought to the reader’s attention. For example, commenting on an fMRI study of fear, one article states, ‘Now scientists say the feeling is not only real, but they can show what happens in the brain to cause it’”. As to the term “neuro-essentialism”, it refers to the cases in which fMRI research is presented “as equating subjectivity and personal identity to the brain. In this sense, the brain is used implicitly as a shortcut for more global concepts such as the person, the individual or the self”.

  3. 3.

    For a defense of a liberal form of naturalism, which does not imply that, even potentially, the sciences of nature, including neurobiology, could exhaustively account for human mind and agency, see [85]. For one thing, for example, some of the explanations of the social sciences may well be proved to be informative and irreducible to the explanations of the natural sciences.

  4. 4.

    A recent paper by Ed Vul et al. has sparked a great deal of debate among social neuroscientists even before publication [86]. It consists in a meta-analysis of fifty published articles that explore the high correlations between measures of personality or emotionality in individuals and fMRI scans of specific brain areas. The authors maintain that those “correlations often exceed what is statistically possible assuming the (evidently rather limited) reliability of both fMRI and personality/emotion measures”. A problem arises when “using a strategy that computes separate correlations for individual voxels, and reports means of just the subset of voxels exceeding chosen thresholds”. The authors call it “non-independent analysis”, and allegedly it “grossly inflates correlations”. Then they argue that “other analysis problems likely created entirely spurious correlations in some cases”. According to them, “if researchers select only highly correlated voxels, they select voxels that “got lucky”, as well as having some underlying correlation. So if you take the correlations you used to pick out the voxels as a measure of the true correlation for these voxels, you will get a very misleading overestimate”. Several neuroscientists have replied, however, that the study is flawed and unfair [87, 88; and a series of commentaries published along with 86]. The debate is surely bound to continue.

  5. 5.

    Another recent line of criticism of the indiscriminate use of neuroimages questions the statistical methods underlying the interpretation of fMRI data. Indeed, according to Colin Klein, “neuroimages present the results of null hypothesis significance tests performed on fMRI data. Significance tests alone cannot provide evidence about the functional structure of causally dense systems, including the brain. Instead, neuroimages should be seen as indicating regions where further data analysis is warranted” [89].

  6. 6.

    Cf. [90, 91].

  7. 7.

    According to many authors, including Leibniz, Hume, J.S. Mill, and legions of contemporary philosophers, intentions, desires and wills have to be causally determined if freedom is to be possible at all. The opposite would actually generate mere casualness, which is incompatible with freedom.

  8. 8.

    Cf. [92, 93].

  9. 9.

    Bennett and Hacker [81: 228–231] raised a similar criticism against Libet’s experiment.

  10. 10.

    Our italics.

  11. 11.

    Enlightening analyses of what neurosciences can do for the free will issue are developed in [94]; (Roskies, A. 2009. Can neuroscience resolve issues about free will?, unpublished manuscript).

  12. 12.

    The group of scientists complained also that the data presented by Iacoboni and colleagues was not peer-reviewed. It has to be noted, however, that Iacoboni’s team had already published the results of similar research in a peer-reviewed journal [95].

  13. 13.

    The participants in the experiment did not have any previous knowledge of the candidates whose political competence they were asked to assess.

  14. 14.

    This comment was inspired by an anonymous post on the Brainethics website (accessed on 21 January 2008).

  15. 15.

    The social constructionist approach to homosexuality is “that there is no ‘natural’ sexuality; all sexual understandings are constructed within and mediated by cultural understandings”; on the contrary, essentialism is the view that “sexuality is innate or biologically driven”, “a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation” [48].

  16. 16.

    One could make the case that the often unjustified expectations that today surround neurosciences are similar to those that were provoked by the astonishing results that Newtonian physics reached in its own domain. For a couple of centuries, most intellectuals were confident that Newtonian explanations of fields as different as atomic theory, ethics, and the social sciences were at hand. We now know that that confidence was ungrounded—but this fact, of course, does not affect the huge intellectual value of the Newtonian theory in itself.

  17. 17.

    Cf. [96] for a defense of this claim based on the discussion of some historical cases.

  18. 18.

    On this line, cf. [97, 98]. A different point of view is defended in [99, 100] and also [94].

  19. 19.

    It should be noted, that while the Hartian version of utilitarianism accepts the idea of negative retribution, it refuses the idea of positive retribution—i.e., it does not claim that all people who deserve punishment should be punished, whatever consequences their punishment may have.

  20. 20.

    On the compatibilist tradition, see above, “Neurosciences and Free Will”.

  21. 21.

    It is fair to say, however, that there are also studies that, more prudently, only aim at investigating the cerebral basis of social hierarchies (and remain neutral in the evaluations of the data) or at discovering the neural mechanisms underlying the correlation between low social status and poor health [101103].

  22. 22.

    It is important to consider how the investigations on the role that oxytocin plays in the cerebral mechanisms linked to trust are presented to the general public. Sometimes, an overambitious framing of these investigations may lead to the deceptive impression that such a nuanced and decisive component of social interactions can be reduced to the prevalence or lack of a certain neuropeptide. For example, if the experiments carried out with an oxytocin spray (which seems to increase the generosity of individuals exposed to it) are not properly put into context, they may generate the unjustified expectation that we are on the verge of inventing a “kindness pill” [104]. Moreover, in the long term, this attitude could lead to a sort of “neurobiological resignation”, reinforcing beliefs such as that the brain of mistrustful individuals is predisposed to diffidence, and therefore there is no point in trying to change their behavior or that the egoism of uncooperative individuals merely depends on a lack of oxytocin. In that scenario, investments in pharmaceuticals would of course be considered much more effective than the attempts at increasing the trust among the members of a society [105, 106].

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Logothetis, N.K. 2008. What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 453: 869–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Keil, F.C. 2003. Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(8): 368–373.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  29. 29.

    Editorial. 2007. Mind games: How not to mix science and politics. Nature, 450: 457.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Little, A.C., et al. 2007. Facial appearance affects voting decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior 28: 18–27.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Young, L.J. 2009. Love: neuroscience reveals all. Nature 457: 148.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Cantor, J.M., et al. 2008. Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men. Journal of Psychiatric Research 42: 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Shergill, S.S. 2007. A diffusion tensor imaging study of fasciculi in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 164: 467–473.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Vohs, K.D. and J.W. Schooler. 2008. The value in believing in free will. Psychological Science 19: 49–54.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Edwards, D.H. and E.A. Kravitz. 1997. Serotonin, social status and aggression. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 7: 811–819.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wolpe, P.R. 2006. Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell 125: 1023–1025.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Abbott, A. 2009. Brain imaging studies under fire. Nature 457: 245.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Marmot, M.G. 2006. Status syndrome: a challenge to medicine. JAMA 295(11): 1304–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Sapolsky, R.M. 2005. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science 308(5722): 648–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Zink, C.F., et al. 2008. Know your place: neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron 58(2): 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Zak, P.J., A.A. Stanton, and S. Armadi. 2007. Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLos One 2(11): e1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Kosfeld, M., et al. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435: 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Zak, P.J. 2008. The Neurobiology of trust. Scientific American, June: 88–95.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Lavazza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lavazza, A., De Caro, M. Not so Fast. On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims Concerning Human Agency. Neuroethics 3, 23–41 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9053-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Human agency
  • Free will
  • Neuropolitics
  • Neuroethics
  • Social neuroscience