JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MERSENNE Archives


MERSENNE Archives

MERSENNE Archives


MERSENNE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MERSENNE Home

MERSENNE Home

MERSENNE  July 2011

MERSENNE July 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Workshop "The brain, the person, and the social" - Report

From:

Matusall Svenja <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Matusall Svenja <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:41:42 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)

Dear list members,

please find below a short report on a workshop that recently took place in Zurich. It might be of some interest for some of you, Apologies for x-posting.

Best regards,
Svenja

ETH Zürich
Svenja Matusall, M.A.
Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin
Professur für Wissenschaftsforschung
Rämistrasse 36
CH-8092 Zürich
+41446322344
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.wiss.ethz.ch


---------
Workshop Report “The brain, the person, and the social. Probing neuroscientific ideas and practices from STS & history of science perspectives”, Zurich, 23.-25.06.2011
Svenja Matusall & Johannes Bruder

Looking in any daily newspaper of the (Western) world, we will see shiny images of active brains, showing “red spots of greed”, the differences between Democrat and Republican brains or the centres for love and lust. Neurochemical substrates for attachment as well as for prejudices are presented to a broader public. We learn that reason is eliminated during shopping and that helping others might activate the brain’s reward system. Gender differences, deception, voting and shopping behaviour, sexual preferences, peer pressure, video games, meditation – the list of topics on which neuroscience claims to have a say is endless. Research formerly dominated by social sciences or humanities (marketing, pedagogy, psychology, philosophy, art history etc.) is increasingly studied by neuroscience and thus disciplinary boundaries are getting blurred. Particularly important for explaining human behaviour are the imaging devices used in neuroscientific research such as fMRI and EEG. Up-to-date imaging techniques produce compelling pictures, which are readily published in popular media on account of their efficacy. Not least, media coverage and the spillover of neuroscientifically-produced accountability into court proceedings are changing the social relationships. The workshop “The brain, the person, and the social” aimed to bring together young researchers on doctoral and postdoctoral level investigating the complex interrelations between the brain (as an object of research and centre of the self), the person (as centred on the brain and the social environment), and the social (as the environment in which brain and person flourish and which may shape the brain).
In his keynote address on “The Brain – Nature meets culture through agency”, Andreas ROEPSTORFF opened the discussions by observing that the brain has left the realm of nature and that its location is now renegotiated between the spheres of nature and culture. Moreover, he argued that it takes a lot of culture to represent the brain as if it was nature, taking into account that the brain as visualised in a relay of a cooperating subject and the scanner is a highly artificial construct. On a conceptual level, he pointed out that a novel perspective on the self is arising and turning into research practice: of “you are your brain”. Entailing questions of agency and who or what is in fact acting were taken up in many discussions during the workshop.
Several presentations dealt with the question of brain modulation and enhancement. Greta WAGNER presented field work on how fairness was perceived among US college students when discussing cognitive enhancers. She pointed out that the unfair organisation of society was considered to exceed possible inequalities in the access of enhancing drugs: Life’s not fair, so why we should we be fair? Jonna BRENNINKMEIJER argued in her historical perspective on neurofeedback that the brain has become both an agent and something to take care of and that thus the notion of self changes when these technologies are used. The self is separated from an (autonomous) brain. Pantea BASHI und Melike SAHINOL discussed how neuro-knowledge is converted into both technology (e.g. deep brain stimulation) and into marketing approaches. Also in these cases, they argue, an ambivalent perspective on the brain is required, seeing it at the same time as an epistemic object and as an organ of the organism. Other papers, too discussed the problem of applying neuro-knowledge to other areas of research and social practice. Brian CASEY asked what brain imaging can provide for psychiatric practice but equally how brain imaging has furthered one certain branch of psychiatry, namely biological psychiatry and how this may lead to brain centered perspectives on mental illnesses. Christina PLAFKY presented empirical work on the question if and how practitioners of juvenile justice in Scotland implement neuro-knowledge into their practice and comes to the conclusion that it depends on personal preferences. A general impact on juvenile justice practice has to be neglected to date. Georgia-Martha GKOTSI discussed the use of neuroscientific expertise as evidence in US court cases and argued that the languages of neuroscience and law are so fundamentally different that translation of knowledge from one sphere to the other is essentially difficult. Moreover, the notion of responsibility is due to change in this process. Emma ZIMMERMAN presented a study investigating the impact of neuroscientific experiments on applied ethics, focusing on the problem of compatibility of different kinds of knowledge and the question whether neuroscience has something new to contribute.
Not only the impact of neuro-knowledge on society was discussed during the workshop, also the impact of society on neuroscientific concepts was explored. Nicholas STÜCKLIN presented the case history of how the prairie vole became a model for human monogamy and sociability and showed how the interpretation of the rodent's behaviour changed with changing perspectives on 'normal' human behaviour. Svenja MATUSALL argued in her paper that while discourses about sex and gender as well as political practice and life realities of men and women changed, gender/sex brain research is still busy inscribing historically grown orders into biology. Lutz FRICKE situated growing research on the adolescent brain in discourses about economic and social cost of ill-health, discourses rendering teenagers as a risk group, and notions about neuroplasticity. Johannes BRUDER discussed concepts of the mind in cybernetics and contemporary brain imaging and argued that to fundamentally different concepts of computing are employed as analogies for the mind and the brain. While cyberneticists refer to physical circuits, imaging neuroscience focusses in emergent functional networks.
In her concluding remarks, Beatrix RUBIN asked why it is the brain that gets so much attention and why the (neuro-)lab coat is so attractive for some social scientists while genetics were met with more overt hostility. Why might we trust more in neuro-technologies than in teachers or rituals? Beatrix Rubin also stressed that neuro-knowledge is not only invading other areas of knowledge but also calls upon. Moreover she observed that social sciences are mostly talking about neuroimaging when discussing neuroscience. In contrast to this focus on imaging it has to be acknowledged that neurosciences are as diverse as the social sciences and that imaging is only a small, even peripheral part of it. Yet, we have to ask why it has so much impact on public discourse.

The overarching theme of workshop discussions was the notion of travelling knowledge: How does neuroscientific research change practice and vice versa? What happens once neuroscientific findings leave the lab? When does neuroscientific knowledge become interesting for other disciplines? Is it a way of dealing with intra-disciplinary epistemic crises? What role do funding policies play in the diffusion of neuro-knowledge into other areas of research and practice?
In a historical perspective, each society defines the brain it requires. Some examples were discussed during the workshop: The isolated computer and the interest in understanding and developing hardware of the era of cybernetics is transforming into the focus on interacting computers and networks. The same is true for the brain: the interest shifts from structure to function and the brain in interaction with other brains is in the focus of attention. Changing notions on family life and diversity of lifestyles influence the way in which the social is defined that is then located in the brain. Lastly, the chemicals used for modulating the brain changed with changing social demands. While in the 1950s, valium (sedating) was the drug of choice and psychedelicdrugs (altering modes of consciousness) in the 1970s, now stimulating drugs (enhancing cognitive skills) are fashionable both by users and in academic discourses.
The discussion was rather critical in the question what neuroscience can contribute to understanding the person and the social or more generally, whether the prefix “neuro” can in fact tell anything new. While (cognitive) neuroscience might generate interesting insights about how the brain works, so far neuroscience did not provide new insights about how more complex phenomena of the social, political and cultural arenas work. This again is a problem of translation and of different approaches towards the world. For neuroscientific experimentation, complex phenomena have to be broken down into smaller parts, which can be studied by quantitative experiments. Yet, this approach assumes implicitly that complex processes can be entirely explained by studying its smaller components, a notion compatible with positivist approaches dominant in the natural sciences but not with more hermeneutic approaches of qualitative social sciences and humanities. However, merely criticising that neuroscientists make too broad assumptions about implications and applications of their research in other fields of knowledge and practice is not enough. Rather, a critical dialogue with neuroscientists as well as undergraduate training in critical reflections of scientific practice appear to be more suited for trying to bring hermeneutic approaches into positivist sciences.

Workshop overview:
Thursday, 23.06.2011
Keynote address
Andreas ROEPSTORFF (Aarhus): The Brain – Nature meets culture through agency.

Friday, 24.6.2011
The brain and outlines of the social
Greta WAGNER (Frankfurt/New York): 'Life's not fair'. Conceptions of fairness and level playing fields in the cognitive enhancement debate.
Svenja MATUSALL (Zürich): Sex in the brain. Essential differences or politics in the brain?
Nicholas STÜCKLIN (Lausanne): How to assemble a monogamous rodent. The sociality of the Microtus ochrogaster in zoology and the brain sciences.

Making the brain speak: devices and selves in neuroscience and psychiatry
Johannes BRUDER (Basel): In silicio veritas. Two ways of conceptualising the mind.
Jonna BRENNINKMEIJER (Groningen): Brains, devices and selves: Early meetings.
Brian CASEY (Bethesda): The promise of brain imaging for psychiatry.

Saturday, 25.06.2011
Away from home: Critical perspectives on neuroscience knowledge in foreign fields
Pantea BASHI and Melike SAHINOL (Aachen): “Dual Use” in neuroscience? The use of neuro-technologies in the neuro-medical research and in non-medical practice field of neuromarketing.
Georgia-Martha GKOTSI (Lausanne): Neuroscience in court. The criminal responsibility of the mentally ill.
Emma ZIMMERMAN (Montréal): Translating social neuroscience to applied ethics: an epistemological and critical examination of the field.

Policies of the brain
Christina PLAFKY (Edinburgh): From neuroscience to juvenile justice practice in Scotland.
Lutz FRICKE (Belfast/Berlin): Neuro-policies and the malleable brain: a case study of the adolescent brain.

Closing discussion, input: Beatrix RUBIN (Basel)

The workshop was generously supported by the Swiss Association for the Studies of Science, Technology and Society - STS-CH and Zentrum Geschichte des Wissens at ETH and University of Zurich.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager