temp_copy

I have wanted to write about this issue for a few months now and have finally gotten around to it. Science writer Kayt Sukel created a small splash in the blogosphere in January when she wrote a few blog posts (see here and here ) about her experiences orgasming in an MRI machine (or, as she puts it, “coming for science”) as part of a study conducted by Barry Komisaruk and Nan Wise at Rutgers University. Sukel’s posts were intended to serve as teasers for her book, Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships (full disclosure, I haven’t read her book yet). For an earlier account of an attempt to “come for science” see science writer Mary Roach’s highly entertaining book, Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex . About the Research and Its Contributions: Barry Komisaruk has been a pioneer in the use of fMRI to study orgasm (for an example of his work, see here ), and a number of other researchers have also used PET and fMRI technologies to try to understand

Abstract submission for the 2012 International Neuroethics Society meeting in New Orleans is now open!     The International Neuroethics Society welcomes abstracts reporting recent results in the field of neuroethics and related topics. Investigators at any career stage are encouraged to submit abstracts. Five submissions will be selected for Oral Presentations. Two submissions will receive a $250 Travel Award. Twenty-five abstracts will be published in the online version of American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience . The deadline is 5:00 p.m. EDT on JULY 2, 2012. Submit your abstract to administrator@neuroethicssociety.org. Accepted presentations will receive notification by August 1.

In their paper on the neuroenhancement of love and marriage , Savulescu and Sandberg argue that “there is no morally relevant difference between marriage therapy, a massage, a glass of wine, a fancy pink, steamy potion and a pill.” [1] But is this quite right? At a recent Emory Neuroethics Journal Club, participants discussed whether a distinction might be drawn between attending couples’ counseling and being exposed to oxytocin and, more broadly, whether there are differences between ‘traditional,’ conscious improvements and more immediate, pharmacological neuroenhancements. How should we go about comparing and contrasting these two processes? Since this issue has important implications for research, treatment, and education, I invited Dr. Joshua Greene to weigh in on the debate for the Neuroethics Blog. Dr. Greene is the John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and widely recognized for his experimental wor

As many of us might be aware, previous research has shown that having people read anti-free will text tends to lead to more cheating ( Vohs and Schooler, 2008 ) and more aggression and less helping ( Baumeister, Masicampo, and DeWall, 2009 ). These findings have garnered a lot of attention in the scientific community and in the media. These findings have also led to a number of interesting ( and sometimes heated !) ethical debates. The primary (ethical) question of interest asks (roughly): If telling people they don't have free will leads to more anti-social behaviors and less pro-social behaviors, do we as academics have an ethical duty not to publicly tell people they don't have free will? Of course, the answer to this question is very complicated and will depend on a number of factors ... As complicated as answering this question may be, there are clearly some data that could help shed some light on the importance of this question. For example, data that may help answer the