Two professors from the University of Navarra publish the book "From Neuroscience to Neuroethics".

The professors of the School Ecclesiastical Philosophy of the University of Navarra Sergio Sánchez-Migallón, director of the high school of Anthropology and Ethics, and José Manuel Giménez-Amaya, director of the group of research "Science, Reason and Faith", have published the book De la Neurociencia a la Neuroética. Scientific Narrative and Philosophical Reflection.

Sergio Sánchez-Migallón advances in this interview some of the issues core topic of the volume.

What are the objectives of the book?

It tries to make explicit the real and potential problems that Neuroscience and society itself are encountering as a testing ground for this new discipline. To this end, it combines the historical background of this branch of medicine with philosophical reflection on this evolution. The conclusion is that both Neuroscience and society - to a large extent scientifically configured - are today immersed in profound paradoxes about the meaning of their task and object: the human being and his or her life.

Isn't this point of arrival disheartening?

Rather than leading to pessimism, it is suggested to take advantage of the opportunity of the multidisciplinarity intrinsic to Neuroscience to propose a broader dialogue, that is, not only between different experimental sciences, but also with humanistic sciences. This dialogue would be the best fruit and channel of the so-called Neuroethics, as opposed to those who try to lead Neuroethics on the unsustainable budget and prejudice of biologicism.

What does the case of joint research in Neuroscience and Neuroethics contribute to discussion science-faith?

A neuroscientific research open to authentically ethical questions (i.e. a Neuroscience in dialogue with Neuroethics) presupposes a methodological openness especially in the field of experience. In this way, experience is understood not only as measured - and very much mediated - by scientific instruments, however detailed they may be, but also taking into account what the human subject lives and interprets at the same time as these data. To this extent, religious experience does not have to be prejudged as reducible to biological processes. On the other hand, the validity of arguments about the immaterial need not be disqualified from entrance because they do not fit material molds.

Undoubtedly, the challenge is to expose with clarity and rigor this lived experience and these arguments on the immaterial. But as difficult as it may indeed be, human life becomes inexplicable and incomprehensible without these elements.

What does multidisciplinarity contribute to our understanding of how the human brain and mind work?

From a strictly scientific point of view, Neuroscience understood very early on that it could only approach the explanation of brain processes by integrating the research of different biological disciplines. However, although the prospects are certainly promising thanks to neuroimaging techniques, it is generally admitted that there are some unknowns that escape experimental technology, especially when it comes to explaining the global functioning of the brain. This fact is leading many neuroscientists to listen to what the non-experimental sciences are also saying about human life experiences. In this way, the need to broaden framework and interdisciplinary content is increasingly perceived, although it is true that many scientists are still reluctant to accept such a dialogue.

What benefits does multidisciplinarity bring to the treatment of mental illness?

Precisely when we look at the dramatic and growing problem -staff and social - of mental illnesses, the need for interdisciplinary dialogue with non-experimental forms of knowledge becomes urgent. Indeed, there are mental illnesses that contain elements that escape biological explanation (particularly schizophrenia), and only a broad interdisciplinary partnership can help to treat these disorders. The tendency observed in a significant part of today's psychiatrists to progressively abandon psychotherapy in favor of psychopharmacology alone is highly questionable from the point of view of the patient as a human being.

What are the future challenges of brain research?

The main challenge consists in the capacity to integrate the results and contributions of all forms of knowledge that speak with rigor of the human being, that is, of the subject that has the brain as an organ of coordination and seat of activities. This means that we are increasingly aware that we are not doing research on the brain itself, on a set of cells and neuronal connections, but on the human subject who thinks and feels with the brain. Curious as it may seem, only in this global or holistic way is it possible to understand the functioning of that mysterious organ that is the brain.

review of the book in Aceprensa, published by Prof. José Ignacio Murillo

Interview with José Manuel Giménez-Amaya (audio)