Transcript AHRC Network on Teaching of Ethics for Neuroscientists

Workshop 1 – The Present State of Ethics
Education in Neuroscience
Scoping Visit – Sweden
Uppsala University – Biomedical Centre
• Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
– general ethics teaching for undergraduate
science students
– research ethics and philosophy of science
teaching for postgraduate science students
– neuroethics teaching for PG neuroscience
students
– research into education on ethics and dual-use
for life scientists
The Neuroethics Course
• ten week course
• web-based
• taught in English
• assessment by essay
• includes lectures from prominent neuroscientists and
philosophers
• mix of:
– applied neuroethics;
– fundamental neuroethics; and
– clinical perspectives
Three elements:
The goal of the course is to provide knowledge of
neuroethical theories and concepts that apply to:
a) ethical questions arising in connection with
developments in neuroscience and neurotechnology
[applied neuroethics]
b)questions concerning how knowledge of the brain’s
functional architecture and its evolution can deepen our
understanding of the evolution of moral thinking and
judgement [fundamental neuroethics]
c)ethical questions arising in clinical contexts [clinical
perspectives]
(www.medfarm.uu.se/utbildning/forskarniva/for_doktorander/kurs76.html)
After the completed course, we expect the student to
be able to:
• give an account of the relevance of neuroscience to
understanding the development of moral judgement;
• critically analyse different neuroethical approaches to
central philosophical problems, such as whether the
human being can have a free will, or moral
responsibility;
• give an account of some ethical problems that arise in
connection with applications of neuroscientific or
neurotechnological advances, e.g. new techniques to
measure brain activities, new methods for cognitive
enhancement, or new drug uses in
psychopharmacology;
• give an account of ethical problems that arise in
clinical contexts, such as how to assess autonomy or
decision-capacity in patients with neuro-degenerative
disorders;
• write an independent essay in which a coherent and
constructive – i.e. not merely descriptive –
argumentation is presented concerning some freely
chosen neuroethical question.
(http://www.uu.se/en/education/master/selma/kurser/?kKod=3
FV236&lasar=11/12&typ=1)
Who should teach and who should it
be taught to?
• More suitable at the postgraduate level
• Difficult to teach at the undergraduate level because it
requires some basic understanding of the brain and
some philosophy
• While different perspectives are important, science
faculty were not felt to generally have the skills to teach
neuroethics, unless they had an ethics background.
• All universities ought to have ethics teaching for
scientists, but not sure that this applies to neuroethics
because it is much more specialised.
Ethics education in Swedish universities
• Ethics education is very strong in Sweden and obligatory within
higher education, so you don’t have young scientists that aren’t
exposed to ethics teaching.
• Critical thinking is one of the goals of Swedish higher education,
extending across all university courses.
• Swedish ethics education spreads throughout undergraduate
degrees.
• So, most postgraduate neuroscience students in Sweden already
have some background knowledge of ethics and its relationship
to scientific practice. This may well not be the case in the UK
(and presumably in some other countries).
Reflections from dual-use ethics education
• Ethical awareness (i.e. the ability to identify issues) is
necessary, but insufficient.
• Ethics education is not just about awareness of
guidelines, nor is it just a matter of common sense.
• There is a need for individual ethics competency and
a culture of responsibility.
• Emphasis should be on responsibility and not threat,
but there is also a need for contextual information.
• The appropriate place for dual-use ethics is
integrated into research ethics.
• Having programmes of ethics education for scientists
can contribute to demonstrating responsibility (both
of individuals and the community) and an ability to
effectively self-regulate.
• It is therefore beneficial to the reputation of science;
it demonstrates e.g. recognition of the seriousness of
issues and can form the basis of better
communication.
• It should also help individuals to deal with ‘moral
stress’ i.e. stress caused when we have the insight
that something is morally problematic but no way of
dealing with this.
Issues to consider:
• What are the aims of such courses?
• What learning outcomes do we want?
• What would make an ‘ethically competent’
neuroscientist?
• What background knowledge of ethics are we likely
to find in students?
• Whose knowledge should we be drawing on?
• Who do we consider able / appropriate to teach
ethics to neuroscientists?