Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T13:16:20.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal Minds and Neuroimaging

Bridging the Gap between Science and Ethics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2014

TOM BULLER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

As Colin Allen has argued, discussions between science and ethics about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals often stall on account of the fact that the properties that ethics presents as evidence of animal mentality and moral status, namely consciousness and sentience, are not observable “scientifically respectable” properties. In order to further discussion between science and ethics, it seems, therefore, that we need to identify properties that would satisfy both domains.

In this article I examine the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals from the perspective of neuroethics. By adopting this perspective, we can see how advances in neuroimaging regarding (1) research into the neurobiology of pain, (2) “brain reading,” and (3) the minimally conscious state may enable us to identify properties that help bridge the gap between science and ethics, and hence help further the debate about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals.

Keywords

animalsneuroimagingneuroethicsmoral status
Type
Special Section: Neuroethics and Animals
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 173 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. For brevity’s sake I refer to human animals as “humans” and nonhuman animals as “animals.”

2. Allen, C. Ethics and the science of animal minds. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2006;27:375–94.Google Scholar

3. See note 2, Allen 2006, at 376.

4. See note 2, Allen 2006, at 378.

5. Farah, M. Neuroethics and the problem of other minds: Implications of neuroscience for the moral status of brain-damaged patients and nonhuman animals. Neuroethics 2008;1:14.Google Scholar

6. “Noncontingent” is generally understood to mean “necessary,” although Farah prefers the former term.

7. See note 5, Farah 2008, at 14.

8. Fenton, A. Neuroscience and the problem of other minds: Why it may not matter so much for neuroethics. The Monist 2012;95:464–85.Google Scholar

9. Bentham, J. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus; 1988.Google Scholar

10. Shriver, A. Minding animals. Philosophical Psychology 2006;19:438.Google Scholar

11. See note 10, Shriver 2006, at 440.

12. Chen, LM, Dillenburger, BC, Wang, F, Friedman, RM, Avison, MJ. High-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging mapping of noxious heat and tactile activations along the central sulcus in New World monkeys. Pain 2011;152:522–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Van de Linden, A, Van Camp, N, Ramos-Cabrer, P, Hoehn, M. Current status of functional MRI on small animals: Application to physiology, pathophysiology, and cognition. NMR in Biomedicine 2007;20:522–45.Google Scholar

14. Hess, A, Sergejeva, M, Budinsky, L, Zeilhofer, HU, Brune, K. Imaging of hyperalgesia in rats by functional MRI. European Journal of Pain 2007;11:109–19.Google Scholar

15. Borsook, D, Becerra, L. CNS animal fMRI in pain and analgesia. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews 2011;35:1125–43, at 1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. See note 15, Borsook, Becerra 2011, at 1129.

17. Murnane, KS, Howell, LL. Development of an apparatus and methodology for conducting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with pharmacological stimuli in conscious rhesus monkeys. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2010;191:11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. Mogil, JS, Davis, KD, Derbyshire, SW. The necessity of animal models in pain research. Pain 2010;151:12–17.Google Scholar

19. Wolpe, PR, Foster, KR, Langleben, DD. Emerging technologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils. American Journal of Bioethics 2010;10:39.Google Scholar

20. Laureys, S, Owen, A, Schiff, N. Brain function in coma, vegetative state, and related disorders. The Lancet Neurology 2004;3:537–46.Google Scholar