Biological debate

• • Consciousness: ethical - expanation:

  It can prevent the need for a court case to discuss whether life support should be turned off
• • Conscience: ethical - evidence:

  54 yr old woman was electrically stimulated & didn't respond to commands. when stimulation stopped she regained consciousness immediately
• • Conscience: unethical - argument:

  Study on 54 yr old woman is not generalisable - one study & one person of specific age & gender
• • Treating criminal behaviour: ethical:

  45% reduction in crime when criminals received anti-psychotics
• • Treating criminal behaviour: unethical:

  Farah (2004)- If neuroscience is used in courts it signals the denial of individual freedom - to have your own thoughts
• • Enhancing neurological functions: ethical:

  Kadesn et al found that tDCS leads to improvements in problem solving, memory, ect
• • Enhancing neurological functions: unethical:

  there are no trained practitioners to administer tDCS - can lead to poorly qualified clinicians to administer treatments
• • Improving marketing techniques: ethical:

  Pandora - offering new products as older ones reduced in sentimental value. Reinstates initial enjoyment & leads to longer lasting customers
• • Improving marketing techniques: unethical:

  Lewis (2003) - men had more emotion for cars but women had more emotion towards the babies.

  - THIS ISNT PROVEN DATA. Shows neuromarketing isn’t accurate with reliable data.
• • Understanding consciousness: economic implication:

  Can save hospitals money and resources
• • Treating criminal behaviour: social implication:

  Crime rate reduced & safer streets
• • Enhancing neurological functions: social implication:

  Could lead to further inequalities - the less affluent can’t afford tDCS treatment
• • Improving marketing techniques: economic implication:

  more sales & profit for companies + help economy grow