The Psychological Process Underlying Attitudes Toward Human-Animal Chimeric Brain Research: An Empirical Investigation

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Neuroethics Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1007/s12152-024-09552-7
Tetsushi Tanibe, Takumi Watanabe, Mineki Oguchi, Kazuki Iijima, Koji Ota
{"title":"The Psychological Process Underlying Attitudes Toward Human-Animal Chimeric Brain Research: An Empirical Investigation","authors":"Tetsushi Tanibe, Takumi Watanabe, Mineki Oguchi, Kazuki Iijima, Koji Ota","doi":"10.1007/s12152-024-09552-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study adopted an empirical method to investigate lay people’s attitudes toward the bioethical issues of human-animal chimeric brains. The results of online surveys showed that (1) people did not entirely reject chimeric brain research, but showed slightly more negative responses than ordinary animal testing; and that (2) their ethical concerns arose in connection with the perception that chimerism in the brain would humanize the animal. This means that people’s psychology was consistent with the ethical argument that crossing the human-animal boundary would bring moral confusion to our society. Meanwhile, it was not in line with another argument that moral status depended on having high capacities, and that chimerism would cause a problem if it enhanced animals’ capacities. Furthermore, this study analyzed additional psychological factors related to people’s moral judgment and the relationship among those factors. Several psychological factors, such as the perception that chimeric brain research is unnatural, were identified as mediating the relationship between perception of animal humanization and ethical concerns about creating and using chimeric brains. Introducing an empirical approach to the ethics of human-animal chimeric brains brought two findings: (1) this study informed us of socially shared intuition regarding this novel technology; and (2) it unveiled the psychological processes behind people’s ethical concerns in more detail than they spontaneously mentioned. These findings will help to build normative arguments and future policies that are understandable and acceptable to society.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09552-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study adopted an empirical method to investigate lay people’s attitudes toward the bioethical issues of human-animal chimeric brains. The results of online surveys showed that (1) people did not entirely reject chimeric brain research, but showed slightly more negative responses than ordinary animal testing; and that (2) their ethical concerns arose in connection with the perception that chimerism in the brain would humanize the animal. This means that people’s psychology was consistent with the ethical argument that crossing the human-animal boundary would bring moral confusion to our society. Meanwhile, it was not in line with another argument that moral status depended on having high capacities, and that chimerism would cause a problem if it enhanced animals’ capacities. Furthermore, this study analyzed additional psychological factors related to people’s moral judgment and the relationship among those factors. Several psychological factors, such as the perception that chimeric brain research is unnatural, were identified as mediating the relationship between perception of animal humanization and ethical concerns about creating and using chimeric brains. Introducing an empirical approach to the ethics of human-animal chimeric brains brought two findings: (1) this study informed us of socially shared intuition regarding this novel technology; and (2) it unveiled the psychological processes behind people’s ethical concerns in more detail than they spontaneously mentioned. These findings will help to build normative arguments and future policies that are understandable and acceptable to society.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对人兽嵌合脑研究态度的心理过程:实证调查
本研究采用实证方法调查非专业人士对人兽嵌合脑生物伦理问题的态度。在线调查结果显示:(1)人们并不完全拒绝嵌合脑研究,但与普通动物试验相比,他们的负面反应略多;(2)他们的伦理担忧与大脑嵌合会使动物人性化的看法有关。这说明,人们的心理与 "跨越人与动物的界限会给社会带来道德混乱 "这一伦理论点是一致的。同时,人们的心理与另一种观点不一致,即道德地位取决于高能力,如果嵌合体增强了动物的能力,就会造成问题。此外,本研究还分析了与人们道德判断相关的其他心理因素以及这些因素之间的关系。研究发现,一些心理因素,如认为嵌合脑研究是不自然的,是动物人性化认知与对创造和使用嵌合脑的伦理担忧之间关系的中介因素。采用实证方法研究人兽嵌合脑的伦理问题带来了两个发现:(1) 这项研究让我们了解了社会对这项新技术的共同直觉;(2) 它揭示了人们伦理担忧背后的心理过程,比他们自发提及的更为详细。这些发现将有助于建立规范性论据和未来政策,使其能够为社会所理解和接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Responding to existential distress at the end of life: Psychedelics and psychedelic experiences and/ as medicine Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations Neurorights, Mental Privacy, and Mind Reading A Transformative Trip? Experiences of Psychedelic Use The Reliability Challenge to Moral Intuitions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1