Paul Zak claims to have found the
reason that we trust others: a complex molecule called oxytocin. Zak, a
professor at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California and a
self-described “neuroeconomist,” investigates the factors that make people more
generous and trusting towards others.
In a recent study, he found that
people who had been exposed to the chemical oxytocin, a neuropeptide that has
been shown to be related to social attachment in other mammals, chose to give
about one and a half times as much money to charity as a control group who had
been exposed to a placebo.
In another study, Zak found that subjects
who had been exposed to oxytocin were twice as likely to donate all of their
money to an anonymous trustee, trusting that that other participant would give
them some back.
While it may not be a trust serum
quite yet, Zak’s research serves as a reminder that the black box surrounding
the functioning of our brains is ever-shrinking. As we become more capable of
manipulating feelings and even thoughts by using chemicals, we must ask
ourselves what the appropriate uses of these chemicals might be.
For example, one could easily
imagine the dangers that a trust-inducing substance might produce in the hands
of a con man or corrupt politician. But one could also see applications that
are less morally clear-cut. Would a doctor be justified in prescribing oxytocin
to an autistic person to allow him or her to more easily empathize with others?
Would caretakers of a mentally deranged person be justified in giving that
person oxytocin in order to reduce the risk of violent outbursts?
It seems a fundamental tenet of
morality that we should never change another person’s thoughts without that
person’s consent. After all, what privacy do we have if not that of our own
mind? But what if the patient is incapable of giving consent? Our idea of
personhood is so intimately tied up with our thoughts that I believe that
traditional methods of proxy consent (parents for children or caretakers for
the mentally disabled) may not be strong enough to justify the application of a
drug capable of creating significant and lasting mental change.
The idea of consent itself also
becomes clouded when mind-altering drugs come into play. If a patient were
initially skeptical of taking an oxytocin pill, but became so trusting of his
or her doctor when on the pill that he or she would not choose to go off the
pill while its effects were active, can we consider that patient to still be
consenting to continued treatment?
Such questions seem to border on
science fiction, but it is more and more likely that they will become concrete
issues within our lifetimes. I believe that we should continue to research the
chemical composition of the brain for the sake of greater scientific discovery
and for the potential medical applications, but that we should not allow any
such chemicals to be released as publicly available drugs. They have too great
a potential to compromise our humanity and we are better off without them.
Trust me.
Sources:
Barraza,
JA, et al. “Oxytocin infusion increases charitable donations regardless of
monetary resources.” Hormones and
Behavior, 8 May 2011
Kosfeld, Michael, et al. “Oxytocin increases trust in humans.” Nature, 435: 673-676 (2 June 2005)
Zak, Paul. "Trust, Morality, -- and Oxytocin." TED Talk.
www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html
No comments:
Post a Comment