In response to Nicholas and Joshua post, either agree or disagree with their answers on race and biology. Explain your rationale.
Anthropology as a discipline defines race as either the scientific concept of race or the culturally constructed concept of race. The scientific concept of race says that it is “referring to a population, or group of populations, within a species that has measurable, defining biological characteristics”. The culturally constructed concept of race defines it as “in which cultural ideologies and dynamics are linked with morphological traits”. It is difficult to use biological characteristics to categorize people into races because there are all different ways you can do it. You can categorize people based on the region of the world they live in or you can categorize them based on certain characteristics. The problem with geographic classifications though is that normally they cover a large area and to categorize people from a large area into one group is to make an oversimplification of a large diverse group. The problem with grouping by characteristics is that many times one or more traits is chosen and marks the trait as representative of the whole group. The problem with all these ways of trying to identify race is that they are wrong in the sense that humans have yet to evolve beyond the human race.
Anthropology as a discipline defines race by. Categorizing what region of people live where, their culture’s, traditions, religion’s, and pigmentation. There are many different theories on race and how to define what it is. Race is just evolution the skin genetically changes which redesigns the chemical make up of DNA. Giving individuals certain skin pigment.It is difficult to use biological characteristics to categorize people into races. To say only certain individuals act or only have or do certain things that others. Everything is some how intertwined or culture or beliefs traditions or skin pigment. Everything thing changes with evolution. The interesting story is how we rewrote it.
In your responses to Hope and Chelesea, compare and contrast different ethical views you may have. Additionally, mention potential solutions for ethical issues that they have identified.
I found the section on brain enhancement very interesting in this article. Brian enhancement will likely advance significantly as technology continues to advance, and that is where ethics will be extremely important. Brain enhancing drugs should be treated, ethically, just as any other drug. No one should be forced, coerced, or pressured into taking a medication that they are not comfortable with. This is where the importance of informed consent becomes evident. A person should be made aware of every single risk, consequence, benefit, and side effect, before consenting (or not consenting) to a treatment. Just as it should be with every drug, the patient should always have the option to either take, or not take brain enhancing drugs.
I was really intrigued when the author stated “the freedom to remain unenhanced may be difficult to maintain in a society where one’s competition is using enhancement (Farah, 2005).” It kind of reminded me of what our society looks like right now, with a new vaccine available. Someone could be uncomfortable with the idea of getting a very new vaccine, but get it anyways, because everyone else has. It is human nature to what to fit in, and it is kind of a dangerous factor to be present in a decision regarding medicine and treatment.
The research of brain enhancement will advance continuously, and the main ethical code to keep in mind, is informed consent. If someone is 100% aware of every single possible risk, and still gives their consent, let the research begin. The real issue is when someone gives their consent to a research trial or experimental medication/procedure and is not fully informed. That, to me, is manipulation and coercion which should never be present in the field of psychology, especially research.
I don’t see brain enhancement drugs as unethical, as long as they remain optional. What is unethical is creating a social system where one feels they need to conform in order to function within society, or where an individual is forced to take a medication they are uncomfortable with. That is unethical.
Responsibility, brain, and blame is a common ethical issue that neuroscientists, neuro-researchers, and neurosurgeons are faced with. This simply means that in contemporary society, it is not acceptable to blame or hold an individual responsible for problems caused by brain damage, ailments, and diseases. The example we have all heard before is the story of Phineas Gage. The article states, “we are not inclined to blame Phineas Gage for his bad behavior after an inch-wide, 3 foot-long iron bar was blown through his head, damaging his ventromedial prefrontal cortex and transforming his personality from responsible and polite to slothful and ill-tempered” (Farah, 2005). While Gage’s personality and mood patterns significantly changed after his brain injury, we do not blame him for this change. Gage could not have controlled the event that caused his injury, so it makes sense that he did not cause the shift in his personality-the injury did. Incorrectly placing blame for life-changing medical problems related to neurology can cause a host of issues such as legal problems, lawsuits, and even a risk of losing one’s medical license due to malpractice and slander! It is important that medical professionals in the neurology field consider the social consequences to society of any research endeavor (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister, 2015, p. 59). Potential social consequences of false blame include resentment, peer disapproval, and even social isolation. The primary research methods used to determine how responsibility, the brain, and blame interact with one another included a clinical observation of personality change in patients with ventromedial prefrontal damage, among other approaches. These clinical observations subsequently assisted researchers in developing, “experimental tasks in which the ability to make prudent, responsible choices could be quantified” which demonstrated that this ability is diminished after ventromedial damage (Farah, 2005). Contemporary research includes the study of other regions of the brain that affect decision making abilities such as financial, social, and romantic obligations and commitments. Neuroethical considerations regarding blame and responsibility must be addressed before the research ever begins. Researchers must be aware that providing false or biased information about patients, clients, or participants can present an array of legal, moral, and ethical issues for both parties.
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
This week we investigate how quantities exist in multiple dimensions (i.e., 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional space). Naturally, we think about the world in three dimensions because that is what we experience daily. As a result, our minds are frequently making qualitative inferences about the space around us. However, we may or may not naturally quantify those situations. Reflect on your day today. Think about all the times you considered how much space something took up to help make a choice. List as many examples from the past 24 hours as you can recall. Which of those did you quantify (measure) before acting? In which cases might you have saved yourself some resources if you would have used what you are learning this week to quantify the situation?