Tag: brain

Bioethics Blogs

Neuroethics as Outreach

By Adina Roskies
Adina Roskies is The Helman Family Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and chair of the Cognitive Science Program at Dartmouth College. She received a Ph.D from the University of California, San Diego in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science in 1995, a Ph.D. from MIT in philosophy in 2004, and an M.S.L. from Yale Law School in 2014. Prior to her work in philosophy she held a postdoctoral fellowship in cognitive neuroimaging at Washington University with Steven Petersen and Marcus Raichle from 1995-1997, and from 1997-1999 was Senior Editor of the neuroscience journal Neuron. Dr. Roskies’ philosophical research interests lie at the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience, and include philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and ethics. She has coauthored a book with Stephen Morse, A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience

As I write this, I am thinking more broadly about ethics and neuroscience than I usually do, pushed by political necessity. The topic of my concern is science education, construed generally. In this era in which “alternative facts” are allowed to bear that name, rather than their true name — which is “lies and misinformation” — and in which science is ignored, deemed irrelevant, or actively suppressed, I see a growing need for people in all the sciences and in ethics to speak out and to educate, wherever possible.

Neuroscientists and neuroethicists may actually have an easier time doing this than many scientists whose work has either been so politicized that they have no voice, such as people working on climate change or other environmental issues, or whose research is taken to be so esoteric that it is hard to get ordinary people to care (though much of it, like gravity waves, is really cool!).

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

The Neurolaw Revolution: A lecture by Francis X. Shen

The Neurolaw Revolution: A lecture by Francis X. Shen September 13, 2017 4:00 PM Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East A (2036) Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA Rapid advances in the brain sciences offer both promise and peril for … Continue reading

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Cells from human umbilical cord blood revitalized part of aged rats’ brain

Cord blood stem cells revitalized part of the brain in aged rats.

Umbilical cord blood is known to contain stem cells that can be used for different clinical objectives  (see HERE), especially in the promotion of cell banks. Now, a new possibility for the use of umbilical cord blood has been described. In a recent study published in Nature (see HERE), the authors report that human cord plasma when injected in the brains of rats revitalized the hippocampus and improves cognitive function in aged  rats. These findings suggest that umbilical cord blood shows plasticity that could be used to treat hippocampal dysfunctions, especially those that are age-related. Since the use of umbilical cord blood presents no ethical difficulties, any new clinical application is considered welcome.

La entrada Cells from human umbilical cord blood revitalized part of aged rats’ brain aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

New clinical celular trial for treatment of Parkinson’s disease injecting stemcells in the patient brain

A first step to a Parkinson treatment with stem cells.

The first clinical trial conducted in China (see HERE) to treat Parkinson’s disease and age-related macular degeneration and the second most common neurodegenerative disorder is to be launched shortly. In the next few months, surgeons from the city of Zhengzhou have planned to conduct a clinical trial to inject neurons derived from human stem cells into the brain of patients with Parkinson’s disease. This trial would be the first in the world to treat this disease with stem cells obtained from human embryos. Some researchers who work on Parkinson’s disease, however, worry that the trials might be misguided. In a second trial, a different team from the same city also hopes to use cells derived from human embryonic stem cells to treat age-related macular degeneration. Both experiments will be the first conducted in China since these practices were regulated in 2015. From an ethical point of view, it should be highlighted that both trials start from the use of human embryonic stem cells, with the difficulties that this entails, because it must not be forgotten that human embryos have to be destroyed to obtain them, which ethically cannot be justified from any point of view.

La entrada New clinical celular trial for treatment of Parkinson’s disease injecting stemcells in the patient brain aparece primero en Bioethics Observatory.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Israel Stinson Brain Death Lawsuit Continues

Judge Mueller

This week, the Alameda County Superior Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary adjudication in the Jahi McMath case.


Meanwhile, over in Sacramento, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California heard oral arguments on those defendants’ motion to dismiss the action brought by the family of Israel Stinson against the State of California. 


Attorneys, Kevin Snider, Matthew McReynolds, and Alexandra Snyder appeared for the plaintiff. Attorney, Ashante Norton appeared for defendant Karen Smith.The court took the matter under submission with a formal written order to issue. 

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

“She Can’t Help The Choices She Makes”

Image via

STUDENT VOICES | CHYNN PRIZE FIRST-PLACE WINNER

By Madeleine Cardona

I will never forget the day my mother got diagnosed. I could swear that just yesterday I was thirteen years old waiting anxiously to be called in from the waiting room of some fancy New York State doctor’s office. I was young, but I had some idea of what was going on. I knew my parents and I were there because they were going through a divorce and fighting for custody of me. What I did not know was that we were about to endure a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation and that the results were going to change my life forever.

“Madeleine, your mom is very sick,” the psychiatrist attempted to explain to me. I did not understand. I did not know a sick person could look perfectly healthy. “It’s not a physical sickness, it’s in her head. She has a mental disorder called Paranoid Schizophrenia.” She went on using big words to explain how my mother’s brain “wasn’t like other people’s brains.” I sat there listening closely, hanging on every word the woman was saying to me. “She can’t help the choices that she makes, it’s not her fault that she is the way that she is. She needs help.” Every day since that day in the doctor’s office, that remark replays in my head over and over. “She can’t help the choices she makes.”

That is what gave me the most trouble. I sat around for years and years watching the choices that my mother was making, unable to intervene.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Animal Consciousness Conference at NYU

On November 17-18, 2017, the NYU Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness, the NYU Center for Bioethics, and NYU Animal Studies will host a conference on Animal Consciousness. This conference will bring together philosophers and scientists to discuss questions such as: Are invertebrates conscious? Do fish feel pain? Are non-human mammals self-conscious? How did consciousness […]

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Judge Opens Door for Lawsuit Over Girl Declared Brain Dead

September 8, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

Alameda County Judge Stephen Pulido ruled Tuesday that it’s up to a jury to determine whether Jahi McMath is alive, which would increase the damages jurors could award if they determine doctors at Children’s Hospital in Oakland botched a routine operation to remove the girl’s tonsils.

In California, non-economic damages such as pain and suffering are capped at $250,000 for medical malpractice. But juries can award unlimited economic damages far above that cap for ongoing medical care, which Jahi’s family could not claim if she were declared dead.

Jahi’s case has been at the center of national debate over brain death since the girl’s mother refused to remove her daughter from life support after doctors declared the then-13-year-old dead after surgery in December 2013.

… Read More

Image: By Blcksx – I took this photograph while visiting Riverside, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44291738

Be the first to like.
Share

Yahoo News

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

A Modest Proposal

FDA should regulate digital games, and potentially other apps, as medical devices.

Why, pray tell?

One doesn’t have to look very hard to find a growing belief (recognition?) that video games are addicting.  CBS has been on the story since at least 2007.  In 2014, “60 minutes” suggested that a violent video game could prompt murder.  Well, they posed it as a question, but to raise it as they did sounds kind of like asking someone, “have you stopped beating your wife?”  And this past April, they did a piece with a former Google employee who suggested that tech companies are designing games, if not apps in general, to draw people into compulsive use.  They revisited the topic, with the same interviewee, in June, using the term “brain hacking.”  Frontline on PBS did a series on the topic in 2010, looking at concerns about internet addiction as well as arguments that some games may hone desirable skills.

Concern about the effect our entertainment media have on us, especially on our kids, is certainly not new.  Remember Tipper Gore, who, among other things, wrote a book about the subject 30 years ago?

The difference comes if our apps and games are not just addictive and self-reinforcing, but if their creators and marketers not only know it but make them that way on purpose.

According to the FDA, a medical device, subject to premarketing and postmarketing regulatory controls by the FDA, is defined in Section 201(h) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as (emphasis mine in what follows):

  • “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:
    • recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them,
    • intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, OR
    • intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes.”

That strikes me as a pretty broad remit.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

States Tackle Youth Sports Concussions – New Data!

By Benjamin Hartung, JD, Joshua Waimberg, JD, and Nicolas Wilhelm, JD While brain injuries and studies associated with professional football get the majority of media attention, student athletes, especially young football and soccer players, are also at risk for similar … Continue reading

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.