Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:07:43.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroscience Fiction as Eidolá: Social Reflection and Neuroethical Obligations in Depictions of Neuroscience in Film

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

RACHEL WURZMAN ,
DAVID YADEN  and
JAMES GIORDANO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Neuroscience and neurotechnology are increasingly being employed to assess and alter cognition, emotions, and behaviors, and the knowledge and implications of neuroscience have the potential to radically affect, if not redefine, notions of what constitutes humanity, the human condition, and the “self.” Such capability renders neuroscience a compelling theme that is becoming ubiquitous in literary and cinematic fiction. Such neuro-SciFi (or “NeuroS/F”) may be seen as eidolá: a created likeness that can either accurately—or superficially, in a limited way—represent that which it depicts. Such eidolá assume discursive properties implicitly, as emotionally salient references for responding to cultural events and technological objects reminiscent of fictional portrayal; and explicitly, through characters and plots that consider the influence of neurotechnological advances from various perspectives. We argue that in this way, neuroS/F eidolá serve as allegorical discourse on sociopolitical or cultural phenomena, have power to restructure technological constructs, and thereby alter the trajectory of technological development. This fosters neuroethical responsibility for monitoring neuroS/F eidolá and the sociocultural context from which—and into which—the ideas of eidolá are projected. We propose three approaches to this: evaluating reciprocal effects of imaginary depictions on real-world neurotechnological development; tracking changing sociocultural expectations of neuroscience and its uses; and analyzing the actual process of social interpretation of neuroscience to reveal shifts in heuristics, ideas, and attitudes. Neuroethicists are further obliged to engage with other discourse actors about neuroS/F interpretations to ensure that meanings assigned to neuroscientific advances are well communicated and more fully appreciated.

Keywords

neurosciencescience fictionfilmtelevisionneuroethicseidolá
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 292 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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. Picasso, Pablo. In: Webster’s 21st Century Book of Quotations. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.; 1992, at 20.Google Scholar

2. Greene, J, Cohen, J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 2004;359(1451):1775–85.Google Scholar

3. O’Connor, C, Rees, G, Joffe, H. Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 2012;74:220–6.Google Scholar

4. Rose N. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century.Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007.

5. Racine, E, Bar-Ilan, O, Illes, J. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2005;6(2):159–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Racine, E, Bar-Ilan, O, Illes, J. Brain imaging: A decade of coverage in the print media. Science Communication 2006;28(1):122–43.Google Scholar

7. Racine, E, Waldman, S, Rosenberg, J, Illes, J. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine 2010;71(4):725–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. See note 3, O’Connor, Rees, Joffe 2012.

9. See note 4, Rose 2007.

10. Giordano, J. The human prospect(s) of neuroscience and neurotechnology: Domains of influence and the necessity—and questions—of neuroethics. Human Prospect 2014;4(1):1–18.Google Scholar

11. See note 3, O’Connor, Rees, Joffe 2012.

12. Benesch K. Technology, art, and the cybernetic body: The cyborg as cultural other in Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” and Philip K Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Amerikastudien/American Studies 1999;44(3):379–92, at 382.

13. Channell, DF. The Vital Machine: A Study of Technology and Organic Life. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar

14. See note 12, Benesch 1999, at 384.

15. See note 13, Channell 1991, at 9.

16. See note 12, Benesch 1999, at 385.

17. See note 2, Green, Cohen 2004.

18. See note 12, Benesch 1999, at 388.

19. Giordano, J. Respice finem: The historicity, heuristics and guidance of scientific and technological advancement and use. Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 2013:4:E1–E4.Google Scholar

20. Aristotle (Ross D, trans.). The Nicomachean Ethics. London: Oxford University Press; 1996.

21. Parry R. Episteme and techne. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.); available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/episteme-techne/ (last accessed 15 May 2016).

22. See note 19, Giordano 2013.

23. Lanzilao, E., Shook, J., Benedikter, R., Giordano, J. Advancing neuroscience on the 21st century world stage: The need for – and proposed structure of – an internationally relevant neuroethics. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine. 2013: 4(3):211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Hantke, S. Bush’s America and the return of Cold War science fiction: Alien invasion in invasion, threshold, and surface. Journal of Popular Film and Television. 2010;38(3):143–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Wells HG. The Island of Dr. Moreau. London: Heinemann, Stone and Kimball; 1896.

26. Shelley M. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor and Jones; 1818.

27. See note 12, Benesch 1999, at 382.

28. See note 12, Benesch 1999, at 383.

29. Kaplan F. 1959: The Year Everything Changed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2009, at 4.

30. See note 29, Kaplan 2009 at 4.

31. Lipset, SL, Schneider, W. The decline of confidence in American institutions. Political Science Quarterly 1983;98(3):379–402.Google Scholar

32. Schlesinger, M. Milbank Q. 2002;80(2):185–235.Google Scholar

33. Racine, E, Waldman, S, Rosenberg, J, Illes, J. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science and Medicine 2010;71(4):725–33.Google Scholar

34. Merskey, H. Ethical aspects of the physical manipulation of the brain. In: Bloch, S, Chodoff, P, eds. Psychiatric Ethics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991:185–221.Google Scholar

35. Troy G, Cannato VJ. Living in the eighties: Viewpoints on American culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

36. Gibson, W. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books; 1994.Google Scholar

37. Greenwald T. Does artificial intelligence pose a threat? The Wall Street Journal May 10, 2015; available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/does-artificial-intelligence-pose-a-threat-1431109025 (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

38. Zakrzewski C. Musk, Hawking warn of artifical intelligence weapons. The Wall Street Journal Blogs July 27, 2015; available at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/27/musk-hawking-warn-of-artificial-intelligence-weapons/ (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

39. Mizroch A. Google on artificial-intelligence panic: Get a grip. The Wall Street Journal Blogs. June 8, 2015; available at; http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/08/google-on-artificial-intelligence-panic-get-a-grip/ (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

40. Giordano, J. Neuroethics: Interacting “traditions” as a viable meta-ethics. AJOB Neuroscience. 2011;2(2):17–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Levy, N. Neuroethics: A new way of doing ethics. AJOB Neuroscience 2011; 2(2):3–9.Google Scholar

42. Roskies, A. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 2002;35:21–3.Google Scholar

43. See note 40, Giordano 2011.

44. Illes, J, Racine, E. Neuroethics: Dialogue on a continuum from tradition to innovation. The American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5(2):W3–W4.Google Scholar

45. Miranda, RA, Casebeer, WD, Hein, AM, Judy, JW, Krotkov, EP, Laabs, TL, et al. DARPA-funded efforts in the development of novel brain–computer interface technologies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2015;244:52–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

46. Kolawole E. What if this ATLAS shrugged? – DARPA unveils new humanoid robot. The Washington Post May 12, 2013; available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/%202013/07/12/what-if-this-atlas-shrugged-darpa-unveils-new-humanoid-robot (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

47. Lang, C. ATLAS: The robot with the world on its shoulders. Enterprise Tech July 19, 2013; available at http://www.enterprisetech.com/2013/07/19/atlas_the_robot_with_the_world_on_its_shoulders/ (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

48. See note 37, Greenwald 2015.

49. See note 38, Zakrzewski 2015.

50. See note 39, Mizroch 2015.

51. See note 46, Kolawole 2013.

52. See note 47, Lang 2015.

53. Motion, J, Leitch, S. A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault. Public Relations Review 2007;3(3):263–8.Google Scholar

54. Wurzman, R, Giordano, J. Neuroscience fiction as eidola: On the neuroethical role and responsibilities in representation of neuroscience. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(3):36–53.Google Scholar

55. Center for Science and the Imagination. Arizona State University; available at http://csi.asu.edu (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

56. The Science and Entertainment Exchange. National Academy of Science; available at http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

57. Iron Man – The Reality of Extremis (Nanotechnology) [Video]. Youtube 3 May 2013; available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yJrWIc_42o (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

58. I am Alex Garland, the writer and director of Ex Machina, joined by scientist Adam Rutherford and AI expert Murray Shanahan, AUA, Reddit; available at https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/35brre/i_am_director_ex_machina_writer_director_alex/ (last accessed 5 Dec 2015).

59. Shanahan, M. Embodiment and the Inner Life: Cognition and Consciousness in the Space of Possible Minds. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar

60. Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting 2016; available at https://www.sfn.org/Annual-Meeting/Neuroscience-2016 (last accessed 9 June 2016).

61. International Neuroethics Society Annual Meeting 2016; available at http://www.neuroethicssociety.org/annual-meeting (last accessed 9 June 2016).

62. Neuroethics Network Annual Meeting Program 2016; available at http://www.icmbioethics.com/neuroethics-program2015.html (last accessed 9 June 2016).

63. Wiertelak, EP. And the winner is: Inviting Hollywood into the neuroscience classroom. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 2002;1(1): A4–17.Google ScholarPubMed

64. See note 53, Motion, Leitch 2007.

65. Miller, CA, Bennett, I. Thinking longer term about technology: Is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures? Science and Public Policy 2008;35(8):597–606.Google Scholar

66. Kirby D. The future is now: Diegetic prototypes and the role of popular films in generating real-world technological development. Social Studies of Science Sept 30, 2009.

67. Wharton, E. Vesalius in Zante. North American Review 1902;175:625–31.Google Scholar