File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Neuroscience and Social Problems: The Case of Neuropunishment

TitleNeuroscience and Social Problems: The Case of Neuropunishment
Authors
Keywordsbiomedicine
neurointerventions for punishment
neuropunishments
neuroscience
Issue Date10-Sep-2018
PublisherCambridge University Press
Citation
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2018, v. 27, n. 4, p. 628-634 How to Cite?
Abstract

Neuroscientific interventions are increasingly proposed as solutions for social problems, beyond their application in biomedicine. For example, there is increasing interest, particularly from outside commentators, in harnessing neuroscientific advances as an alternative method of punishing criminal offenders. Such neuropunishments are seen as a potentially more effective, less costly, and more humane alternative to incarceration, with overall better results for offender, communities, and societies. This article considers whether neuroscience as a field should engage more actively with such proposals, and whether more research should be done to explore the use of neurointerventions for punishment. It concludes that neuroscientists and those working at the intersection of neuroscience and the clinic should actively shape these debates.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357159
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.5
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.462
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBuyx, Alena-
dc.contributor.authorBirks, David-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-23T08:53:42Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-23T08:53:42Z-
dc.date.issued2018-09-10-
dc.identifier.citationCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2018, v. 27, n. 4, p. 628-634-
dc.identifier.issn0963-1801-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357159-
dc.description.abstract<p>Neuroscientific interventions are increasingly proposed as solutions for social problems, beyond their application in biomedicine. For example, there is increasing interest, particularly from outside commentators, in harnessing neuroscientific advances as an alternative method of punishing criminal offenders. Such neuropunishments are seen as a potentially more effective, less costly, and more humane alternative to incarceration, with overall better results for offender, communities, and societies. This article considers whether neuroscience as a field should engage more actively with such proposals, and whether more research should be done to explore the use of neurointerventions for punishment. It concludes that neuroscientists and those working at the intersection of neuroscience and the clinic should actively shape these debates.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherCambridge University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectbiomedicine-
dc.subjectneurointerventions for punishment-
dc.subjectneuropunishments-
dc.subjectneuroscience-
dc.titleNeuroscience and Social Problems: The Case of Neuropunishment-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0963180118000269-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85060107749-
dc.identifier.volume27-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage628-
dc.identifier.epage634-
dc.identifier.eissn1469-2147-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000457483600010-
dc.identifier.issnl0963-1801-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats