About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 Am. J. Bioethics 1 (2009)

handle is hein.journals/ajbio9 and id is 1 raw text is: The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(1): 1-2, 2009 Copyright (c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1526-5161 print / 1536-0075 online DOI: 10.1080/15265160802617902 Internationalism and Global Norms for Neuroethics Stephen J. Toope, The University of British Columbia Today, we embrace a new challenge. We wade into the very seat of social, cultural, and physical understanding-the hu- man brain-and we contemplate the ramifications of med- dling with that most precious organ. Of course, meddling is a loaded word, but as the ethicists among you will attest, every word comes with its own bag- gage, with suppositions and preconceptions. And I think it is important-or at least highly relevant-to acknowledge how charged the public conversation could become if we were to pursue advances in neuroscience without consider- ing the social, cultural, personal, and, indeed, the religious implications. We have had lessons in this before. In Canada, for ex- ample, our abilities to perform what were once considered miracles in reproductive health quickly outstripped any so- cial or national consensus about whether those new skills were positive or even acceptable. In 1989, the University of British Columbia (UBC) medical geneticist Patricia Baird led a Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies that was charged with coming to grips with those issues. Today, Dr. Baird makes a couple of points that should, perhaps, seem obvious. First, it is dangerous for science to get ahead of society. It is incredibly difficult to create ap- propriate policies or to ensure scientific accountability if the public is not aware of the issues. People need to be en- gaged in a thoughtful and broadly based discussion about the advantages-and potential downsides-of scientific ad- vances. The process of engaging the public can be complex and painfully slow-and the complexity increases, and the pace slows further-if government is asked to take the lead. For example, it takes an average of 7 years to implement the recommendations of a Royal Commission, and it is quite common for Commission reports to sit on the shelf for 15 to 20 years before government finds a way to render collected wisdom into workable policy. In the case of the Baird Commission, it was 2004,15 years later, before the first resulting legislation passed through Parliament, and 2 more years before the government fi- nally created the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada. If governments feel that science has run ahead of society-if politicians or public groups get a sense that scien- tists are pursuing vested interest more enthusiastically than the public good-the result is often government interven- tion that is restrictive, regulatory, and potentially punitive. In both Canada and the United States, for example, we cur- rently have a situation in which stem cell researchers can face fines or imprisonment in some jurisdictions. If governments are imperfect vehicles for advancing complex social conversation-and they are-I would have to argue that universities are the best alternative. University researchers are not immune to the temptations of power, privilege, or personal financial gain, but contrary to some of the alternative venues, those are not our main objectives. Our institutions are open and accountable, transparent, and closely monitored-from within and without. As the opti- mal locus for a robust dialogue, we are best positioned to bring together scientists, ethicists, representatives from gov- ernment and business and, most importantly, the public at large. In a best case-in this case-we can do that proactively. The National Core for Neuroethics is embedded-(another loaded word; perhaps I should say, fully integrated)-in the UBC Brain Research Centre. We have the ability to keep pace with the issues, to ensure the highest level of professional self-regulation. And at the same time, we of- fer the promise of leading a global conversation about neuroethics-one that I hope could ultimately result in a set of ethical findings that would be as broadly applicable as possible. As a specialist in international law, I have a penchant for trying to create global norms. I think these are particularly desirable in the area of human rights: It is becoming increas- ingly important that states work together to establish the moral and legal foundation for a body of international law capable of protecting people against threats to their rights by corrupt, weak, or indifferent regimes. ajob-Neuroscience 1 Acknowledgment: Excerpted from the inauguration address for the National Core for Neuroethics, The University of British Columbia, September 11, 2008. Address correspondence to Stephen J. Toope, President and Vice-Chancellor, The University of British Columbia, 6328 Memorial Road, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail: gerald.calderon@ubc.ca

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most