Neuroscience v. privacy? : a democratic perspective

In Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees & Sarah J. L. Edwards (eds.), I Know What You're Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy. Oxford University Press. pp. 205 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recent developments in neuroscience create new opportunities for understanding the human brain. The power to do good, however, is also the power to harm, so scientific advances inevitably foster as many dystopian fears as utopian hopes. For instance, neuroscience lends itself to the fear that people will be forced to reveal thoughts and feelings which they would not have chosen to reveal, and of which they may be unaware. It also lends itself to the worry that people will be encouraged to submit to medication or surgery which, even if otherwise beneficial, alters their brain in ways that undermine their identity and agency. As Kenneth Foster notes, neural implants can have surprising and unintended adverse effects, even when they help to mitigate the loss of bodily control associated with Parkinson’s disease, or help to provide hearing for children who would otherwise be profoundly deaf. While the risk of adverse outcomes are scarcely specific to neuroscience, he thinks that ‘These issues are perhaps more acute’ with the latter than with other medical interventions, ‘because they are intimately and fundamentally related to a person’s communication with the outside world’. [ 2006 196] Neuroscience, like genomic science, then, is likely to create new ways of harming people. Many of these will involve violations of privacy. However, these are unlikely fundamentally to challenge the reasons to value privacy, or our ability to protect it in the foreseeable future. Rather, I would suggest, the major threat to privacy comes from the difficulty of determining its nature and value and when, if ever, efforts to protect it are justified. So I will start by examining some threats to privacy, and their implications for neuroscience, before turning to philosophical problems in understanding the nature and value of privacy, and the practical consequences of those philosophical difficulties.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Problems in the Theory of Democratic Authority.Christopher S. King - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):431 - 448.
Employee testing: An ethical perspective. [REVIEW]Dan Davidson - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (3):211 - 217.
Privacy. An intercultural perspective.Rafael Capurro - 2005 - Ethics and Information Technology 7 (1):37-47.
Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation.Julie C. Inness - 1992 - New York, US: OUP Usa.
Is there a right to privacy?Steven Davis - 2009 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (4):450-475.
The privacy of the psychical.Amihud Gilead - 2011 - Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Biobank research and the right to privacy.Lars Øystein Ursin - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (4):267-285.
Four challenges for a theory of informational privacy.Luciano Floridi - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (3):109–119.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-01-25

Downloads
449 (#40,816)

6 months
53 (#76,663)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Annabelle Lever
SciencesPo, Paris

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references