temp_copy

When a friend accidentally burns themselves on a stove-top, their pain is usually very obvious - cursing, gesturing wildly, and even the explicit verbal pronouncement of "I am in pain."  It's also very clear from this display that their pain is viewed as a "bad" thing - they want it to stop, they will be more vigilant in the future to prevent it from happening again, and they very likely either want or even expect you to help out in these endeavors. Pain, while being a survival affirming biological phenomena, is (at least in this simple case here) also inherently ethical. We can then imagine that this same friend's nervous system might be manipulated (whether through mutation , injury, or pharmacological manipulation) to prevent them from feeling pain.  While we might initially be shocked at such a turn of events, we could be convinced of such a change if our friend stopped responding to usually painful stimuli (such as our villain the stove-top) with the sa

What makes humans smart?  This was the primary question posed in the final Journal Club of the Spring 2013 semester.  Led by Riley Zeller-Townson, the club discussed Han et al. (2013), a paper that discusses the enhancement of learning in mice after grafting human glial progenitor cells into their brains. Riley began by explaining the paper and the work leading up to it. Most of the roles of glial cells involve supporting and protecting neurons, such as synaptic plasticity, myelination, and maintaining the blood-brain barrier (Barres, 2003). This study focuses on one subtype of glia, called astrocytes, cells that provide nutrients to neurons (Tsacopoulos et al, 1996). Neurons (shown on left) possess both axons and dendrites and are shaped differently than glial cells ( Source ).  The glial cell shown on the right is an astrocyte, which is more “star” shaped due to its many branched processes (Han et al 2013). While people generally think of neurons as being the important type of brain

By  Kim Lang Graduate Student, Neuroscience Emory University  This post was written as part of the Contemporary Issues in Neuroethics course  As scientists, we’re generally a skeptical bunch (I’ll leave speculation of whether that is a cause and/or effect of a career in science for the Comments section).  While 95% of the American public believe in a deity or higher power (83% believe in God and 12% believe in a higher power) [1], only 51% of surveyed scientists believe the same (33% believe in God and 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power) (Figure 1). [2] According to surveys, this discrepancy is nothing new.  In 1914, sociologist James H. Leuba found that 42% of the polled US scientists believed in God while 58% did not. [1,3]  In 1996, Larry Witham and Edward Larson repeated Leuba’s survey and found that 40% of scientists believe in a personal God while 45% do not 4 .  While the wording of questions can be critiqued [3], the overall trend remains and is fairly constant a

The International Neuroethics Society announces its 5th Annual Meeting (a satellite of the Society for Neuroscience Meeting) November 7 & 8 San Diego.  Abstracts are due June 15, 2013.  For more information and the program see here .  Listen to INS Member Molly Crockett cordially invite you here . Bring your friends and family to the open-to-the-public program November 7 on Neurogaming: What’s Neuroscience and Ethics Got to Do with It? Register for the meeting on November 8 here . The speaker lineup includes Barbara Sahakian & John Pickard, University of Cambridge, Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford, Patricia Churchland, University of California-San Diego, Molly Crockett, University of Zurich, Jens Clausen, University of Tubingen, Lisa Claydon, Bristol Law School, University of the West England, Joe Fins & Niko Schiff, Weill Cornell Medical College, Holly Moore, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Mauricio Delgado, Rutgers University, Catherine

A unique opportunity for graduate students to get high-level editorial experience for the premier neuroethics journal and the official journal of the International Neuroethics Society. Interns will have access to an international community of renowned neuroethics scholars and innovation in neuroethics scholarship.  As editorial intern, you will be responsible for attending biweekly editorial meetings and contributing intellectually to the editorial responsibility of the journal; organization and transcription of interviews of prominent neuroethicists for publication in the journal; publicity of the journal to the neuroscience community; and maintenance of an internal organizational database. Innovation and initiative is valued and there is some liberty to pursue projects of your own design within the scope of the journal’s mission. Work runs approximately 10-20hrs a week, depending on the editorial cycle.  Please contact jequeen@emory.edu for more information.  Deadline for application

By Stepheni Uh Undergraduate Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology Major Emory University This post was written as part of the Contemporary Issues in Neuroethics Course Although decades have passed since the world first heard of Billy Milligan , his predicament and story still cause confusion and wonder. As the field of neuroscience is expanding, more light has been shed upon his condition: an extreme case of dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly known as multiple personality disorder. Advancements in neuroscience (i.e. in research techniques) has led to the investigation of possible neurobiological correlations to the symptoms of DID – yet, due to the rare cases of this disorder, the possible neurobiological basis for DID has not been established. Despite the lack of raw data, per se, neuroscience has fueled new perspectives regarding the nature of DID such as those involving the ideas of culpability, personhood, and individuality. Billy Milligan Billy Milligan, whose birth nam