A "salad bowl" approach to neuroethics collaboration.
A "salad bowl" approach to neuroethics collaboration.
复制标题
神经伦理学合作的“沙拉碗”方法。
DOI：
10.1080/21507740.2020.1778134
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
MacDuffie KE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MacDuffie KE
本期的目标文章认为，神经伦理学家最适合从内部影响神经科学研究的方向和范围——通过与神经科学家的合作——而不是从外部进行批评（Chiong 2020; Eberwine and Kahn 2020; Farahany and Ramos 2020; Goering and Klein 2020; Salles and Farisco 2020）。然而，文章中使用了不同的语言来描述这种伙伴关系的理想性质。神经伦理学研究应该嵌入神经科学，还是整合到其中？是否应该按照临床或研究伦理咨询服务的模式，向神经伦理学家提供咨询？在这里，我主张将伙伴关系概念化得更简单：作为一种合作。一个（诚然不完美的）比喻可以用食物来形容美国。传统的“大熔炉”隐喻——来自许多不同国家和文化背景的人被放在一个锅里搅拌，直到“味道”混合在一起——被严厉批评为不切实际和有问题，因为它暗示：(a)为了成为美国人，个人必须放弃他们原有的文化身份；(b)美国文化是一个单一的同质群体（拉姆齐等人，1989）。作为替代，“沙拉碗”的比喻被认为更现实地传达了个人保留其文化身份的程度，但以这样一种方式混合在一起，即一个“叉子”可以捕捉到各种各样的成分。把同样的比喻应用到神经伦理学和神经科学之间的关系上，很明显，一个神经伦理学家被扔进一个大熔炉里，很快就会失去她独特的视角，与周围的环境无法区分。然而，作为沙拉碗中众多成分中的一种，她可以与电生理学、细胞生物学等领域的同事共存，丰富最终产品，同时又不会失去她的学科身份。我发现“沙拉碗”式合作的概念更符合我与神经科学家同事合作的经验，而不是嵌入、整合或协商的概念。我的神经伦理学生涯仍处于早期阶段，我谦卑地承认，我在跨学科合作方面的经验可能并不普遍。考虑到这一点，我提出三点支持神经伦理学家和神经科学家之间的简单合作，这些都是基于我的经验，并得到了本期目标文章中论点的支持。
The target articles in this issue argue that neuroethicists will be best positioned to influence the direction and scope of neuroscience research from the inside—through partnerships with neuroscientists—rather than critiquing from the outside (Chiong 2020; Eberwine and Kahn 2020; Farahany and Ramos 2020; Goering and Klein 2020; Salles and Farisco 2020). Different language is used across the articles to describe the ideal nature of such partnerships, however. Should neuroethics scholarship be embedded in neuroscience, or integrated within it? Should neuroethicists be available for consultation, following the model of clinical or research ethics consult services? Here I advocate for conceptualizing the partnership more simply: as a collaboration. An (admittedly imperfect) analogy can be made to food metaphors that have been used to describe the United States. The traditional “melting pot” metaphor—in which people from many different national and cultural backgrounds are placed together into a pot and stirred until the “flavors” blend together—has been roundly criticized as unrealistic and problematic as it implies that (a) in order to become American, individuals must surrender their original cultural identities and (b) American culture is a single homogenous mass (Ramsey et al. 1989). As a replacement, the metaphor of a “salad bowl” is thought to more realistically convey the extent to which individuals retain their cultural identities but are intermixed in such a way that a single “forkful” can capture a diverse array of ingredients. Applying the same metaphor to the relationship between neuroethics and neuroscience, it is clear that a neuroethicist thrown into a melting pot would quickly lose her distinct perspective and become indistinguishable from her surroundings. As one of many ingredients in a salad bowl, however, she can coexist alongside colleagues in electrophysiology, cell biology, etc., enriching the final product without losing her disciplinary identity. I find the notion of a “salad bowl”—style collaboration speaks more closely to my experience collaborating with neuroscientist colleagues than notions of being embedded, integrated, or in consultation. I am still early in my neuroethics career and humbly acknowledge that the experiences I’ve had collaborating across disciplines may not be universal. With that caveat in mind, I offer three points in support of simple collaboration between neuroethicists and neuroscientists, which are based on my experience and bolstered by arguments made in the target articles in this issue.