Neuroethics

Today, we were treated to a series of presentations on the exploding field of neuroethics, a subcategory of bioethics concerned with neurobiology and neurotechnology, in which issues of memory, cognition, pain, perception, personal identity, free will, personal responsibility, and a host of other topics find a home.

The presentation began with information from Dr. Pranee Fuchareon about science, technology, and research at Mahidol University, which is probably the most advanced university in Thailand in this area. I was interested to hear about the close link between research in the academic setting and broader social and political goals, a theme that was common in our classes in Taiwan, but is not often broached in the US. The language that’s been used to describe this so far has been quite vague: the university and the government have “shared resources and objectives” concerning this or that aspect of biomedical research or public health initiative, but how close these objectives are is somewhat vague. It’s not clear to me how much of this talk concerns actual government funding (and thus control) of research objectives, how much derives from an impulse on the part of the scientists themselves to do research in areas which are likely to be remunerative (whether from the government or from private industry), and how much genuinely reflects a spirit of civic responsibility that can be lost in larger or more individualistic countries.

After some words by Dr. Naphinic Kotchabhakdi, also of Mahidol University, concerning frontiers in neurotechology (emphasizing brain-machine interfaces, neuropharmacology, neurogenetics, and neuroimaging), we wrapped up with a great presentation by Dr. Gerry Fischbach, husband of BIOCEP organizer Dr. Ruth Fischbach and emeritus professor at Columbia. He spoke in particular about neurodegeneration and varieties of neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, stroke, prion diseases, ataxias, lipofuscinosis, Usher’s disease, MS, AIDS, and even brain trauma, spinal cord injury, epilepsy, alcoholism, depression), as well as emerging technology to treat them. I found this particularly interesting since Kevin’s research at Harvard dealt with the disease mechanism of Parkinson’s, a neurodegenerative disease on which much discussion was focused. We watched a video of a woman undergoing something called deep brain stimulation, which shows promise in treating not just Parkinson’s but many other degenerative diseases as well.

We also spent some time on emerging stem cell technologies and the way in which they might be used to treat neurodegenerative diseases. What interested me most was the stress Dr. Fischbach placed on how much we still don’t know about stem cells: what determines renewal, what factors affect differentiation and potentiality, and which uses might be possible for direct therapeutic benefit. We also discussed – and here again I was thinking of the work done at Kevin’s old lab – different laboratory sources of pluripotent stem cells. The ones we usually think of are embryonic stem cells (ES cells) derived from blastocysts in, e.g., IVF clinics, but there are also ES cells created using somatic nuclear transfer with enucleated eggs, a process for which Kevin’s old PI was quite famous. The newest source, which has recently been garnering a large amount of press coverage, does not require the destruction of human embryos. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are created via the de-differentiation of adult cells (skin cells, cells from the lining of your mouth, etc.) to pluripotentiality.

IPS cells are the “new big thing” because they seem to get around some of the controversy swirling around stem cell research in the US. Opposition to stem cell research often arises from the idea that the destruction of human embryos is equivalent to the taking of human life, and with iPS cells no embryos are involved. However, according to Dr. Fischbach, there is still some opposition to the use of iPS cells in clinical research, either because the dedifferentiated cells still reach a stage in which one might possibly be able to form an embryo with the full potential to create a new human life (and one which is genetically identical to an already living person, no less), or because there is a fear that opening the door to let iPS cells through might generate a “slippery slope” in which biologists become greedy for new sources of stem cells and go back to using ES cells, which are still considered the “gold standard” in the field.

After that we had a large panel discussion in which both Drs. Fischbach and the lecturers from Mahidol took questions ranging from Josh Greene’s research at Harvard to the prefrontal cortex as “executive brain” to the ever-present spectre of determinism (lack of human free will) that haunts any discussion of the biological basis of human behavior. I am so impressed by the passion and intellect of the people who are participating in this program -- it was really an honor and a thrill to take part in the discussion today and I look forward to many more to come!