Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?

Abstract: The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Fanega,Manuel
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de Chile 2021
Materias:	prison research bioethics ethics prison governance transcranial stimulation
Acceso en línea:	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-569X2021000100079
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:scielo:S1726-569X2021000100079
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:scielo:S1726-569X20210001000792021-06-10Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?Fanega,Manuel prison research bioethics ethics prison governance transcranial stimulation Abstract: The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system. An alarm was raised at the time the research was published, encouraging the directorate of prisons to stop the ongoing replication of the experiment. Nevertheless, no (bio)ethics committee, in the universities or among bioethics experts, has questioned the research. In this think piece, we aim to again discuss some ethical approaches to these clinical interventions on crime. After its positivistic period, the field of criminology has been questioning the simple psychobiological approach to crime because of the reductionistic view of this phenomenon and its harmful consequences. Thus, we address academic experimentation under prison governance and the “re” roles of prisons. We argue that the minor disadvantages of such research, if performed with consent, could be positive if the research can minimize the harmfulness of prison itself; thus, penitentiary treatment and science should go together. Prison administrations, in addition to their duty to protect the individuals under their control from ethically biased research, must promote reintegration. We conclude that human rights are over criminal policy and science and that ethics are over narrower bioethics.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCentro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de ChileActa bioethica v.27 n.1 20212021-06-01text/htmlhttp://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-569X2021000100079en10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079
institution	Scielo Chile
collection	Scielo Chile
language	English
topic	prison research bioethics ethics prison governance transcranial stimulation
spellingShingle	prison research bioethics ethics prison governance transcranial stimulation Fanega,Manuel Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
description	Abstract: The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system. An alarm was raised at the time the research was published, encouraging the directorate of prisons to stop the ongoing replication of the experiment. Nevertheless, no (bio)ethics committee, in the universities or among bioethics experts, has questioned the research. In this think piece, we aim to again discuss some ethical approaches to these clinical interventions on crime. After its positivistic period, the field of criminology has been questioning the simple psychobiological approach to crime because of the reductionistic view of this phenomenon and its harmful consequences. Thus, we address academic experimentation under prison governance and the “re” roles of prisons. We argue that the minor disadvantages of such research, if performed with consent, could be positive if the research can minimize the harmfulness of prison itself; thus, penitentiary treatment and science should go together. Prison administrations, in addition to their duty to protect the individuals under their control from ethically biased research, must promote reintegration. We conclude that human rights are over criminal policy and science and that ethics are over narrower bioethics.
author	Fanega,Manuel
author_facet	Fanega,Manuel
author_sort	Fanega,Manuel
title	Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
title_short	Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
title_full	Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
title_fullStr	Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
title_full_unstemmed	Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
title_sort	prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
publisher	Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de Chile
publishDate	2021
url	http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-569X2021000100079
work_keys_str_mv	AT fanegamanuel prisonresearchabioethicsoranethicsissue
_version_	1714207404151799808

Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?

Ejemplares similares