Reuters blog archive
Organ donations in Israel rocketed in January after the death of an Israeli soccer star prompted a religious debate on brain death into the headlines.
Former Israel and Liverpool defender Avi Cohen sustained severe head injuries in a motorcycle crash in December. He was pronounced brain dead and put on a respirator. Cohen had signed an organ donor card, but his family refused to give away his organs. Newspaper reports said rabbis had appealed to the family not to donate. Cohen's widow said the decision against donation was her own.
Some influential rabbis teach that taking organs from a person who is brain dead is tantamount to murder. "The number one reason people give for refusing to donate organs is religious. Jewish law is perceived, mistakenly, as being against it, when as you know in Judaism it depends which rabbi you ask," said Professor Jacob Lavee, head of Israel's Transplant Centre's Steering Committee.
Several comments on this and other blogs express surprise that the Reuters blog on religion, faith and ethics should be interested in neuroscience. Several posts here -- on a "God spot" in the brain, on moral instincts, on religious studies and on meditation and prayer -- showed the growing relevance of brain science to the issues we cover. One angle we haven't yet covered is the one that originally drew me towards this field, namely neuroethics. Rapid progress in neurological research has prompted a debate on the ethics of unlocking the brain's secrets. I first wrote about this debate in early 2007, interviewing several neuroscientists on how to separate good uses of their work from bad after studies showed brain scans could read some kinds of intentions before the subjects revealed them.
One of those experts, University of Pennsylvania cognitive neuroscience professor Martha Farah, is head of Penn's new Center for Neuroscience and Society. She was also the director of the neuroscience "boot camp" that I attended this month. At the end of that session, I asked her to talk about new issues currently challenging neuroethicists.
Some book titles are too good to pass up. "How God Changes Your Brain" is neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's fourth book on "neurotheology," the study of the relationship between faith and the brain. All are pitched at a popular audience, with snappy titles like "Born to Believe" or "Why God Won't Go Away." Anyone reading the latest one, though, might wonder if the title shouldn't be "How God Meditation Changes Your Brain." As he explains in an interview with Reuters here, the benefits that Buddhist monks and contemplative Catholic nuns derive from meditation and intense prayer are also available to atheists and agnostics. The key lies in the method these high performing believers use, not in the belief itself. But that would have made for a more awkward title.
That's not to say Newberg doesn't have some interesting points to make in this book. His brain scans of meditating monks and praying nuns show that the frontal lobe -- the area that directs the mind's focus -- is especially active while the amygdala -- the area linked to fear reactions -- is calmed when they go through their spiritual experiences. His studies show these brain regions can be exercised and strengthened, like building up a muscle through training. And his treatment of a mechanic with a faltering memory showed that a traditional Indian meditation method, even when stripped of its spiritual trappings, could bring about these changes in two months.
Until not too long ago, most people believed human morality was based on scripture, culture or reason. Some stressed only one of those sources, others mixed all three. None would have thought to include biology. With the progress of neuroscientific research in recent years, though, a growing number of psychologists, biologists and philosophers have begun to see the brain as the base of our moral views. Noble ideas such as compassion, altruism, empathy and trust, they say, are really evolutionary adaptations that are now fixed in our brains. Our moral rules are actually instinctive responses that we express in rational terms when we have to justify them. (Photo: Religious activist at a California protest, 10 June 2005/Gene Blevins)
Thanks to a flurry of popular articles, scientists have joined the ranks of those seen to be qualified to speak about morality, according to anthropologist Mark Robinson, a Princeton Ph.D student who discussed this trend at the University of Pennsylvania's Neuroscience Boot Camp. "In our current scientific society, where do people go to for the truth about human reality?" he asked. "It used to be you might read a philosophy paper or consult a theologian. But now there seems to be a common public sense that the authority over what morality is can be found by neuroscientists or scientists."
Knowing what not to report is just as important for journalists as knowing what to write. We're inundated with handouts about some pioneering new scientific research or insightful new book. Should we write about it? It's refreshing to hear experts who can dazzle you with their work but warn against falling for any hype about it. This "let's not overdo it" approach has been a recurrent theme in the Neuroscience Boot Camp I'm attending at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. (Photo: The "official" boot camp T-shirt, 8 Aug 2009/Tom Heneghan)
Andrew Newberg's "no God spot" message to boot campers has already been noted here on FaithWorld. Other lecturers added similar reality checks to their presentations. Cognitive science has already begun to influence religion studies (as John Teehan explained here) and we're bound to hear more in the future about what neuroscientific research has to say about faith, morals, altruism and other issues of interest to readers of this blog. Much of this will be fascinating. But before the next "gee-whiz" report comes out, here's the advice the neuroscientists are giving us about speculative claims based on brain research.
The academic study of religion has come a long way from the days when knowledge of scripture, history and a few ancient languages were the main qualifications a scholar needed. Psychology, sociology and other social sciences have been applied to the field for over a century. Over the past 20 years, cognitive science has been edging into the field, especially with the explosion of neuroscience research. Some of the hottest research into religion is now being done with brain scanners searching for data on what happens inside believers' heads when they pray or feel a special connection to God. (Photo: John Teehan at the Neuroscience Boot Camp, 6 Aug 2009/Tom Heneghan)
Among the participants at the University of Pennsylvania's Neuroscience Boot Camp I'm attending this week and next is John Teehan, an associate professor in the religion department at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. He's seen how cognitive science has brought new tools and insights to the study of religion and may eventually challenge the ways religions justify their beliefs. He is writing a book about how many moral teachings in the Bible fit with the moral psychology that cognitive science says evolved naturally. I asked Teehan for an overview of what's happening in the religion studies field in the United States.
Neurotheology - the study of the link between belief and the brain - is a topic I've hesitated to write about for several years. There are all kinds of theories out there about how progress in neuroscience is changing our understanding of religion, spirituality and mystical experience. Some say the research proves religion is a natural product of the way the brain works, others that God made the brain that way to help us believe. I knew so little about the science behind these ideas that I felt I had to learn more about the brain first before I could comment.
If that was an excuse for procrastination, I don't have it anymore. For all this week and half the next, I'm attending a "Neuroscience Boot Camp" at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. This innovative program, run by Penn's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Director Martha Farah (photo below), aims to explain the latest research in neuroscience to 34 non-experts from fields such as law, business, philosophy and religious studies (as well as to a few journalists). The focus is not only on religion, but faith and issues related to it are certainly part of the discussion.
from UK News:British neuroscientists have taken the first step toward reading your mind. In an intriguing experiment, they were able to read people's thoughts simply by looking at brain activity using a scanner. They didn't find out anything very exciting; just where volunteers were located in a virtual reality computer game, and even that required plenty of practice runs. But the power of functional magnetic resonance imaging, which highlights brain regions as they become active, is startling. The scientists believe their work sheds important light on how the hippocampus region of the brain records memories, which should help with research into diseases like Alzheimer's. The current technique won't work as a lie detector because it requires the cooperation of participants. Still, it does pose the question: is the idea of a fully functioning mind-reading machine science or science fiction?
People are increasingly turning to brain-enhancing drugs like Ritalin to boost their performance in school or at work, researchers said. And while some expressed alarm over the trend, others embraced the idea, provided the drugs are proven safe.
What do you think? Athletes have been vilified for using performance-enhancing drugs. Is there a difference, or should it be seen as the same thing? Have you taken the drugs, and what would you do if you found your children were taking them at university?
Italy's "Terry Schiavo case" has ended with the country's top appeals court allowing a father to disconnect the feeding tube that has kept his comatose daughter alive for 16 years. Eluana Englaro, now 37, has been in a vegetative state at a hospital in northern Italy since a 1992 car crash. The Englaro case has been compared to that of American Terri Schiavo, who spent 15 years in a vegetative state before a long and very public dispute ended in 2005 with a court decision allowing her husband to have her feeding tube disconnected.
As in the Schiavo case, the Milan court that ruled on the case said it was convinced Englaro would prefer to die rather than be kept alive artificially. State prosecutors appealed that decision to the Cassation Court, the highest appeals court in Italy, and it was the Cassation Court's decision on Nov. 13 that definitively settled the case.