---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFRAME:
https://archive.org/includes/donate.php?as_page=1&platform=wb&referer=h
ttps%3A//web.archive.org/web/20230315014305/https%3A//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327529/
Wayback Machine
https://www.ncbi.nlm Go
4 captures
20 Nov 2020 - 15 Mar 2023
Apr MAR Apr
Previous capture 15 Next capture
2021 2023 2024
success
fail
About this capture
COLLECTED BY
Organization: Archive Team
[Archiveteam.jpg] Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused
with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective
dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the
sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of
volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount
of related projects for saving online and digital history.
History is littered with hundreds of conflicts over the future of a
community, group, location or business that were "resolved" when one of
the parties stepped ahead and destroyed what was there. With the
original point of contention destroyed, the debates would fall to the
wayside. Archive Team believes that by duplicated condemned data, the
conversation and debate can continue, as well as the richness and
insight gained by keeping the materials. Our projects have ranged in
size from a single volunteer downloading the data to a
small-but-critical site, to over 100 volunteers stepping forward to
acquire terabytes of user-created data to save for future generations.
The main site for Archive Team is at archiveteam.org and contains up to
the date information on various projects, manifestos, plans and
walkthroughs.
This collection contains the output of many Archive Team projects, both
ongoing and completed. Thanks to the generous providing of disk space
by the Internet Archive, multi-terabyte datasets can be made available,
as well as in use by the Wayback Machine, providing a path back to lost
websites and work.
Our collection has grown to the point of having sub-collections for the
type of data we acquire. If you are seeking to browse the contents of
these collections, the Wayback Machine is the best first stop.
Otherwise, you are free to dig into the stacks to see what you may
find.
The Archive Team Panic Downloads are full pulldowns of currently extant
websites, meant to serve as emergency backups for needed sites that are
in danger of closing, or which will be missed dearly if suddenly lost
due to hard drive crashes or server failures.
Collection: Archive Team: URLs
TIMESTAMPS
loading
The Wayback Machine -
https://web.archive.org/web/20230315014305/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC3327529/
(BUTTON) Back to Top Skip to main content
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government
(BUTTON) Here's how you know
Dot gov
The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing
sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
Https
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website
and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted
securely.
NIH NLM Logo
Log in (BUTTON) Show account info
(BUTTON) Close
Account
Logged in as:
username
* Dashboard
* Publications
* Account settings
* Log out
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
(BUTTON)
(BUTTON)
Search PMC Full-Text Archive ____________________ (BUTTON) Search in
PMC
(BUTTON) Run this search in PubMed
* Advanced Search
* User Guide
(BUTTON)
* Journal List
* EMBO Rep
* v.8(Suppl 1); 2007 Jul
* PMC3327529
Other Formats
* PubReader
* PDF (65K)
Actions
* (BUTTON) Cite
* (BUTTON) Collections
Add to Collections
+ ( ) Create a new collection
+ (*) Add to an existing collection
Name your collection: ____________________
Name must be less than characters
Choose a collection:
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again
(BUTTON) Add (BUTTON) Cancel
Share
*
*
* (BUTTON)
Permalink
https://www.ncbi.nlm (BUTTON) Copy
RESOURCES
* (BUTTON) Similar articles
* (BUTTON) Cited by other articles
* (BUTTON) Links to NCBI Databases
* Journal List
* EMBO Rep
* v.8(Suppl 1); 2007 Jul
* PMC3327529
Logo of emborep
EMBO Rep. 2007 Jul; 8(Suppl 1): S1-S2.
doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401012
PMCID: PMC3327529
PMID: 17726434
The biology of behaviour: scientific and ethical implications
Halldor Stefansson^1
Halldor Stefansson
^1European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.E-mail:
ed.lbme@ssnafets
Find articles by Halldor Stefansson
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
^1European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.E-mail:
ed.lbme@ssnafets
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name
is 7401012-i1.jpg Halldor Stefansson is the Science & Society Programme
Manager at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg,
Germany, and Guest Editor of this special issue of EMBO reports.E-mail:
ed.lbme@ssnafets
Copyright (c) 2007, European Molecular Biology Organization
The human brain is the most complex of all biological organs; it not
only gives rise to consciousness--that most fascinating but elusive
phenomenon--but also mediates our behavioural responses. The structure
of the brain and its higher cognitive functions are the product of
evolutionary history, embedded within the genome. One of the great
scientific challenges today is therefore to integrate the results from
two different lines of investigation into the biology of
behaviour--using genes and the brain--with the goal of bringing both to
a deeper level of understanding.
Modern biology has taught us how genes and genomes serve as blueprints
for all living organisms. Not only physiology, but also some forms of
behaviour seem to be innate or predisposed by genes. Today, most
scientists agree that genes alone do not cause behaviour, but merely
influence how an individual will react to a particular set of
environmental and biographical circumstances. Genes are seen as
determinants of behaviour insofar as they code for the assembly of the
neural circuits that are necessary for the development and survival of
the organism. But how does the brain, which owes its functional
structure partly to the concerted action of genes, give rise to or
cause behaviour? These were some of the questions that were addressed
at the seventh European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)/European
Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) joint science and society
conference on `Genes, Brain/Mind and Behaviour', held on 3-4 November
2006 at the EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany, which are discussed further in
this special issue of EMBO reports.
Basic research on behavioural genetics is thriving. Researchers have
developed powerful tools to disentangle the underlying complexity
between genes and behaviour, and are amassing a body of knowledge about
how phenotypic variation relates to and influences distinct patterns of
behaviour. Although researchers recognize the importance of
environmental factors in the development of living organisms, they have
also produced solid evidence showing how genes are relevant to basic
forms of behaviour. Giovanni Frazzetto and Cornelius Gross emphasize
the complex relationship between genotypes and phenotypes in their
article (pS3). Similarly, Pierre Roubertoux critically reviews some of
the overly simplistic assumptions that geneticists have made (pS7). In
particular, Roubertoux stresses how pleiotropy, epistasis, interactions
between genes and the environment, alternative splicing and neuronal
integration give rise to, and contribute to, many aspects of behaviour.
The manifold steps that lead from genes to brains to behaviour are
highly complex, but scientists are gradually elucidating the molecular
and cellular mechanisms behind brain structure and function. The
biggest challenge now is to understand how neurons interconnect to form
larger networks, and how these intricate neural structures give rise to
consciousness and a sense of self. Neuroscientists are confident that
they now have the tools to enable them to solve this mystery. As a
background, the essay by Anne Harrington provides an illuminating
historical overview of how people in the Western world have perceived
the mind-body relationship (pS12).
Even today, there are differing opinions on whether the human mind can
be fully elucidated. Whereas many scientists remain wary that we will
ever understand human consciousness, optimists claim that the brain
sciences will eventually explain how we are constituted from the
molecular level up to the cerebral level. Hence, the second main topic
at the 2006 conference was neuronal organization and cognitive
functioning of the brain, and how basic molecular mechanisms and neural
networks give rise to awareness. In his essay, Wolfgang Singer
succinctly deconstructs an image of a `self' that is seemingly
disconnected from the brain (pS16). By explaining how neurons encode
information through varying the amplitude and/or adjusting the precise
timing of electric discharges, Singer lays out a model of the brain as
a complex nonlinear system with emerging properties, which does not
need a higher-order controlling structure or res cogitans to create
consciousness.
The second group of essays in this special issue focuses on new
technologies that have grown out of behavioural genetics and the brain
sciences, and on the influence that their application has, or will
have, on society. These essays deal with various applications of
science to monitor and map the brain, and to influence human behaviour,
as well as the ethical questions that many such applications entail.
Stephanie Perreau-Lenz, Tarek Zghoul and Rainer Spanagel argue that a
better understanding of clock genes can pave the way for new
therapeutic approaches to treat pathological conditions such as
addiction and depression (pS20). These are examples of what has been
termed `neurotechnology': tools that are designed to analyse, cure and
enhance the functions of the human nervous system, especially the
brain. At the leading edge of neurotechnologies are various forms of
brain imaging and neuropharmacology. These techniques not only have
been used for understanding normal brain function, but also provide new
insights into the physiological basis of neuropsychiatric disorders.
Their future uses might extend to forensic and commercial purposes,
such as in marketing or research on consumer preferences.
Clinical depression is the leading cause of disability in the USA and
other countries today, and is expected to become the second leading
cause of disability worldwide--after heart disease--by the year 2020
(Murray & Lopez, 1997). Klaus-Peter Lesch describes in more detail how
variants of the serotonin system give rise to depression and other
anxiety disorders (pS24), while Turhan Canli describes how his group
has made the link from research on the molecular level of behaviour to
clinical psychology, in an approach that he has termed genomic
psychology (pS30). The pharmaceutical industry has already responded to
the apparent increase in behavioural disorders with new
anti-depressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and
stimulants to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although
their prescription--to children in particular--is rapidly increasing,
there are few clinical studies on young patients who take psychotropic
drugs. The article by Ilina Singh therefore provides a unique insight
into how children who are subjected to stimulant treatment engage in
clinical research as capable and informed actors, and she convincingly
refutes protective impulses to exclude children from clinical studies
(pS35).
Degenerative disorders of the brain, such as Alzheimer disease and
Parkinson disease, are among the largest public-health problems in
fast-ageing populations. But intense efforts by the pharmaceutical and
biotech industry have produced no cure or treatment to halt or even
reverse neurological degeneration in older individuals. Lars Sundstrom
describes a new drug-development strategy that might help to provide
these much-needed therapies: so-called `chemical genomics' (pS40).
Instead of identifying possible drug targets and then searching for
compounds that interfere with them, numerous compounds are tested on
biological material--cells, tissues or model organisms such as
Drosophila or zebrafish, for example--to see if they can trigger the
desired physiological response.
Future neurotechnologies will not be limited to medical uses alone, as
shown by the emerging field of `neuroeconomics', which analyses
neurological determinants of decision-making as well as their social
and economic implications. The essay by Michael Kosfeld provides an
interesting introduction to the general approach of neuroeconomics
through his case study of the neurobiology of trust (pS44). Kosfeld
describes a key experiment that proves the important role of the
neurohormone oxytocin in the willingness of individuals to trust
others.
The essays in the third and final section of this special issue are
concerned primarily with the ethical questions that are raised by the
new brain sciences and their applications. One of the main issues is
whether philosophical and ethical questions about genetics and genomics
acquire an accrued urgency when they are re-examined in the context of
neuroscience. Many talks and debates at the Heidelberg conference
focused on whether these developments justify the establishment of a
new branch within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. This term seems
to be used with two distinct meanings: on the one hand, neuroethics
concerns itself with the study of moral dispositions, which it assumes
are hard-wired in the human brain; on the other hand, neuroethics
commonly refers to concerns about the sociocultural repercussions of
the new knowledge and technologies of the brain. Kathinka Evers prefers
to distinguish between `applied neuroethics' and `fundamental
neuroethics', the latter being geared towards deciphering the network
of causal connections between the neurological, sociocultural and
contingent historical perspectives that allow moral `norms' to be
enunciated at a given time (pS48).
Adina Roskies (pS52) and Judy Illes (pS57) both argue for recognizing
neuroethics as an emerging field within bioethics. In their view,
neuroethicists should monitor how the brain sciences develop, and
should critically review new ways of enhancing, controlling and reading
the mind. According to these authors, the stakes might be high if new
tools become available that allow us to distinguish lies from truth,
veridical versus false memories, the risk of future violent crime,
styles of moral reasoning, the inclination to cooperate and even
specific contents of thought. Erik Parens and Josephine Johnston, by
contrast, express reservations about the neuroethical turn in bioethics
(pS61). Stressing the underlying commonalities between many different
uses of modern-day science and technologies, they argue that dividing
bioethics into several branches--each focusing on a separate set of
issues--could do more harm than good. In the closing essay, Raymond de
Vries provides the perspective of a sociologist on this new field in
bioethics (pS65). de Vries proposes that, along with its declared
objectives of weighing the ethical implications of imaging, measuring
and altering the brain, neuroethics is just as much about the mindset
and the interests of it practitioners. His sociological critique
focuses on neuroethicists as being engaged in constructing new
boundaries, carving out their territory within the academic landscape
and `colonizing' a new area of bioscience. Together, the last two
essays in this special issue of EMBO reports present a critical
rethinking of the role that the practitioners of bioethics/neuroethics
have assigned themselves.
Time will tell whether the new brain sciences explain human
consciousness, or provide the tools needed to analyse and treat
neurological and psychiatric disorders. In the meantime, scientists
will undoubtedly discover many of the fundamental determinants of
animal and human behaviour. Such new knowledge will inevitably be
applied, and it is important that this is done for the benefit of both
individuals and societies--hence the need for a broad deliberation,
well in advance and beyond disciplinary boundaries. The collection of
essays in this special issue of EMBO reports should contribute towards
those goals.
References
* Murray CJ, Lopez AD (1997) Alternative projections of mortality and
disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study.
Lancet 349: 1498-1504 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
__________________________________________________________________
Articles from EMBO Reports are provided here courtesy of The European
Molecular Biology Organization
__________________________________________________________________
Other Formats
* PubReader
* PDF (65K)
Actions
* (BUTTON) Cite
* (BUTTON) Collections
Add to Collections
+ ( ) Create a new collection
+ (*) Add to an existing collection
Name your collection: ____________________
Name must be less than characters
Choose a collection:
Unable to load your collection due to an error
Please try again
(BUTTON) Add (BUTTON) Cancel
Share
*
*
* (BUTTON)
Permalink
https://www.ncbi.nlm (BUTTON) Copy
RESOURCES
* (BUTTON) Similar articles
* (BUTTON) Cited by other articles
* (BUTTON) Links to NCBI Databases
(BUTTON) [x]
Cite
(BUTTON) Copy Download .nbib .nbib
Format: [NLM]
Follow NCBI
Connect with NLM
*
*
*
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894
Web Policies
FOIA
HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
Help
Accessibility
Careers
* NLM
* NIH
* HHS
* USA.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------