When: September 24 – 26, 2009
Where: Lord Nelson Hotel, Halifax ♦ Nova Scotia ♦ Canada
Abstract Deadline: March 1, 2009
See the full call for papers here; summary of plenary speakers and topics beneath the fold. Note the following:
“Trainee Award Abstract Competition – Up to 15 monetary awards will be given to trainees whose abstracts for an Oral Presentation or Poster Presentation have been accepted by the Abstracts Committee. Awards will be made on the basis of merit.”
James L. Bernat Professor of Neurology and Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centre
Lebanon, NH, USA
Are brain dead patients really dead?
I discuss the biophilosophical basis for considering brain death as human death. I discuss and rebut recent criticisms of the concept and practice of brain death. I conclude that the practice of “whole-brain” death provides the most accurate map for our understanding of the concept of human death.
Walter Glannon Canada Research Chair in Medical Bioethics & Ethical Theory, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Four Myths about Neuroscience
Many neuroscientists claim that free will is an illusion, that the mind is located in the brain, that brain imaging can read minds, and that neuroscience will significantly alter our normative practices of praising, blaming and holding people responsible for their actions. I take issue with all of these claims and argue that, although neuroscience may result in some changes to our convictions and practices, it does not and will not threaten them.
David Healy, Director of the North Wales sub-department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK
Jonathan H. Marks, Associate Professor of Bioethics, Humanities and Law, Penn State University, US
A Neuroskeptic’s Guide to Neuroethics and National Security
The neuroethics literature is replete with claims about the potential for recent developments in neuroscience to transform various fields of human endeavor, not least national security. I argue that a healthy dose of neuroskepticism informed by science studies critiques is necessary if we are to understand the real ethical challenges neuroscience presents, particularly in national security contexts where there may be great pressure to achieve results and judicial oversight is minimal or absent.
Barbara Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology , Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
Caroline Tait, Assistant Professor, Graduate Chair, Department of Native Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre, First Nations University of Canada