Why Neuroscientists Should Take the Pledge - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 228

The pledge calls on neuroscientists to follow the basic ethical principles of
recognizing the consequences of their actions, taking responsibility for those conse-
quences, and obeying the law. The pledge fits well within the broader framework of
“Critical Neuroscience” as introduced by Choudhury et al. (2009) and as presented
more fully by several authors in a recent topic (Choudhury and Slaby 2012). “Critical
Neuroscience” calls for the examination of the historical, political, social, ethical,
and economic contexts of neuroscience and for neuroscientists to maintain aware-
ness of these larger contexts (see also Chapter 17).
The pledge proscribes work on all applications of neuroscience that violate basic
human rights and international law but it focuses on two egregious examples: torture
and aggressive war. Both torture and aggressive war are not only immoral but are
also illegal under international and U.S. national law. Torture is illegal under the
U.N. Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, and the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
of War. The U.N. Convention against Torture defines torture as “… any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a
confession … when such pain or suffering is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity”
(United Nations 1984).
Aggressive war is illegal under Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations
where it is defined under international law as a war that is neither in self-defense
nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Aggressive war was consid-
ered to be the supreme international crime at the Nuremberg trials and preventing
such wars was the fundamental reason for founding the United Nations. Torture and
aggressive war are also illegal under U.S. law because the international treaties that
the United States signs are binding within the nation as well.
At present, each neuroscientist who signs the pledge must decide for themselves
whether particular actions of their government constitute “torture” or “aggres-
sive war.” These are, however, legal terms and their application to particular cases will
ultimately depend on tribunals and courts with appropriate jurisdiction. For example,
the Nuremberg tribunals convicted officials of Nazi Germany of the crime of
“aggressive war.” Similarly, a 2010 gathering of representatives from 100 differ-
ent countries in Kampala Uganda considered adding “aggressive war” to the list of
crimes to be judged by the International Criminal Court (Simons 2010).
Someone who knowingly assists in the violation of a law is an accessory to the
crime and can be legally sanctioned. Current enforcement of the laws against torture
or aggressive war varies from minimal to nonexistent, so indictment of perpetrators
of these crimes is unlikely, and indictment of scientists as accessories is even more
remote. But the obligation to obey a law—even if that law is not enforced—remains.
It is important to note that the pledge does not proscribe working in an area of
neuroscience that has the potential for application to torture or aggressive war. Such
a broad proscription is manifestly impossible. Every single area of neuroscience,
from the most molecular to the most clinical, has such potential. What the pledge
proscribes is knowingly working on applications of neuroscientific knowledge to
torture or aggressive war. Nor does the pledge proscribe working for a country's