2015 Conference

Full Presentation Panel

Epigenetics, Environmental Exposures, and the Common Good

Dr Steven A Kolmes and Dr. Russell A. Butkus, University of Portland

Epigenetic changes due to environmental exposures are a new frontier of environmental toxicology. A wide array of environmental toxins, including carbon compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals such as arsenic, now have well documented epigenetic impacts some of which have been documented to be heritable. This contemporary research presents a new challenge to the traditional boundaries of the common good, a major principle in the modern Catholic human rights tradition. The human genome project and groundbreaking research in epigenetics suggest that the traditional interpretation of the common good as a human-centered ethical norm is no longer adequate in light of emerging research regarding the intergenerational impact of epigenetic disregulation. We will summarize epigenetic disregulation focusing on DNA methylation and its impact on gene expression. Using the current research on exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and arsenic, we will describe how these toxins produce intergenerational health impacts beyond those associated with the changes in gene sequences we have known for decades as mutations. We will then explore how this scientific research impacts the usual understanding of the common good, which typically emphasizes human associations and rights. We will suggest that the meaning of the common good requires biological expansion to include epigenetic impacts that cross generational lines. Ultimately this expands the boundaries of human rights to include a violation of epigenetic integrity, which is directly linked to human health.

Integrating the Neurosciences into Social and Environmental Landscapes

Ann Lam, PhD

Neuroscience is often seen and promoted as a model transdisciplinary field with long-term outcomes that will unquestionably benefit the public good. However, in the race to understand the brain, the environmental context and negative impact of the practices are often overlooked. Adding to a confusion of priorities, through a number of internal and external pressures, neuroscience is increasingly intertwined with military, commercial and industrial funding and aims. Ironically, neuroscience largely avoids the scrutiny directed at these domains.

In this paper we show how the current regulatory framework tends to separate the concept of environmental responsibility from the primary scientific goals of neuroscience research and biotechnological development. This system can result in critical gaps in compliance and inadequate regulatory design. The approach and biases restrict the extent to which the field can recognize -- let alone alter -- toxic practices.

In this overview, we introduce some of the tools (e.g., chemical reagents and other pathogens) as well as harmful approaches toward other animals that are commonly used in neuroscience research. We identify some ways these impact the environment, other organisms and social landscape. Beyond the environmental damage, we argue that these approaches fundamentally limit how we understand the brain, and how they maintain a status quo steeped in expedience, disposability, hierarchy and fatalism.

Having considered these limits, we search for alternatives to this research paradigm. In order to avoid destructive approaches, we examine trans-border lessons from other domains, including feminist theory, environmental and social justice movements. Specifically, we describe a nascent green, open and transdisciplinary neuroscience practice that integrates key environmental and justice concepts within its core. We illustrate how a principled approach coupled with novel methodologies is essential not only for restoring the environment but also integral for understanding the key role embodied brain function plays in healthy cognition.

The Ecology of Green Neuroscience: On the Judicious Breakdown and Construction of Boundaries, Borders and Firewalls

Elan Liss Ohayon, PhD

As domain boundaries are removed, knowledge flows but it may also be diluted, as diversity can drop and hegemony is liable to set in. In the biological realm, the existence of isolated settings and niche environs is often essential for the punctuated leaps in evolution so critical for the formation of novel kinds.  Just as distinctions and separations play important roles in nature, whether temporally (e.g., day/night cycle, seasons, epochs), spatially (e.g., islands, biomes, continents, sea/land, etc.) or within and across organisms (e.g., organelles, cells, organs, individuals, sex, communities, species, phyla, etc.) so it is with ideas. Although it is increasingly taken for granted that the breakdown of borders in academia is a progressive enterprise even a casual glance recommends pause for thought.  Could certain separations and distinctions also be critical in the development and maintenance of concepts and other kinds of understanding? Immediate examples include the separation of church and state or that of academia and industry. In such cases it is easy to see how boundary breakdowns can critically reduce the options of possibility. If so, could celebrated convergences also entail hazards? Although convergence and collaboration between the humanities, arts, and sciences may be extremely important for addressing the most pressing questions, a weakening of distinction and resolve (especially in the social sciences) may have unintended  and adverse consequences. Fittingly, these dangers have analogies that cross biology, neuroscience and ideas: the importance of diversity, the perils of monocultures and the significance of individuation, outliers and sanctuaries. To give a concrete example we describe a case study of developing new approaches aimed at the greening of neuroscience. We argue that in the removal, construction and crossing of boundaries we must carefully consider issues of power and perspective as central factors that come with the separation of domains.