ما انسان ها همچنان طبیعی هستیم، آیا شما می دانید؟ نمایش ها و نگرش نوجوانان بر روی رفتار ضد اجتماعی، بیولوژی اعصاب و پیشگیری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|37305||2012||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 35, Issue 4, July–August 2012, Pages 289–297
Abstract This paper presents and discusses the views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents regarding the implications of genomics and neurobiology research findings for the prevention and treatment of antisocial behavior. Scientific developments in these disciplines are considered to be of increasing importance for understanding the causes and the course of antisocial behavior and related mental disorders. High expectations exist with regard to the development of more effective prevention and intervention. Whether this is a desirable development does not only depend on science, but also on the ethical and social implications of potential applications of current and future research findings. As this pilot study points out, juvenile delinquents themselves have rather mixed views on the goals and means of early identification, prevention and treatment. Some welcome the potential support and help that could arise from biologically informed preventive and therapeutic measures. Others, however, reject the very goals of prevention and treatment and express worries concerning the risk of labeling and stigmatization and the possibility of false positives. Furthermore, interventions could aim at equalizing people and taking away socially disapproved capacities they themselves value. Moreover, most juvenile delinquents are hardly convinced that their crime could have been caused by some features of their brain or that a mental disorder has played a role. Instead, they provide social explanations such as living in a deprived neighborhood or having antisocial friends. We suggest that the hopes and expectations as well as the concerns and worries of juvenile delinquents are relevant not only for genomics and neurobiology of antisocial behavior, but also for prevention and intervention measures informed by social scientific and psychological research. The range of patterns of thought of juvenile delinquents is of great heuristic value and may lead to subsequent research that could further enhance our understanding of these patterns.
. Introduction Genomics, neurobiology, and neurophysiology contribute to the understanding of the causes and course of antisocial behavior, and of related mental disorders, such as conduct disorder (CD) and oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) in children. Genetic polymorphisms, structural and functional deviations in the brain, and aberrations in psycho-physiological responding to stress have been demonstrated in individuals exhibiting antisocial behaviors (Baker et al., 2009, Bevilacqua et al., 2010, Dadds and Rhodes, 2009, Fishbein, 2000b, Hodgins et al., 2009, Popma and Raine, 2006 and Shirtcliff et al., 2009). Although scientific research on biomarkers of mental disorders is still in its infancy, there are great hopes and expectations with regard to future applications of these findings for early prevention and treatment of antisocial behavior. Early identification of children at-risk, the sub-typing of children (e.g., children with/without callous-unemotional traits) (Beauchaine, 2009, Fishbein, 2000a, Viding, 2004 and Viding et al., 2009), the differentiation between types of antisocial behavior (e.g., proactive/reactive aggression) (Dadds & Rhodes, 2009), as well as the development of targeted psychopharmacological interventions, possibly adjunctive to psychological interventions, could result from this type of scientific research (Beauchaine et al., 2008, Frick and Petitclerc, 2009 and van Goozen and Fairchild, 2008). While scientific research progresses, its social and ethical implications are still largely unaddressed. Currently, one basic assumption of scientists dominates the field: This kind of research will lead to better and more effective prevention and intervention methods and thereby bring about a win–win situation in which all concerned are better off (Beauchaine et al., 2008 and Fishbein, 2000a). Youth at-risk may await a better future and less incarceration and society will be more effectively protected against serious forms of antisocial behavior. However, it is unclear whether, and if so, under which circumstances, these assumptions are justified. This will not depend on scientific progress alone, but also on the views and opinions of the target-groups of these interventions. In order to identify and explore relevant social and ethical questions, it is important to investigate the ‘social life’ of biomarker information, that is, to explore how relevant stakeholders actually perceive and deal with it. This, in turn, requires qualitative stakeholder research. Preferably, this kind of research takes place pro-actively, that is even before scientific findings are actually translated into practical assessment and treatment methods, because applications could evolve that have no support from the stakeholders or that even cause serious harm (Singh & Rose, 2009). For example, ideas about the identity and capacities of individuals at risk may change in rigid, coercive or stigmatizing ways and thereby negatively affect these people's life-trajectories. In medical genetics, qualitative research is frequently used to investigate the social and normative aspects of genetic testing or screening among affected patients and their family members (e.g., Bredenoord et al., 2010 and Dancyger et al., 2010). In behavioral genomics in general, and in the genomics of antisocial behavior in particular, such studies are hardly conducted. Although there are a few exceptions (Campbell and Ross, 2004, Levitt and Pieri, 2009 and Pieri and Levitt, 2008), serious gaps exist in our knowledge concerning stakeholders' perceptions of the possible impact of these new scientific developments. Pieri and Levitt (2008) interviewed professionals working with individuals ‘at-risk’ of displaying violent and aggressive behaviors and Campbell and Ross (2004) interviewed health care professionals and parents about their views on new genetic technologies and genetic testing for traits predisposing to violence. Yet, neither study talked to antisocial individuals themselves and their voice remains unexplored to date. The views of antisocial juveniles, however, seem to be of particular importance. First, many of the applications currently envisaged target early identification and early prevention of the development of antisocial behaviors and therefore will mainly affect young children and juveniles. Therefore, they are important stakeholders and sound ethical decision making requires that their voice is heard (van Willigenburg & van der Burg, 1998). Second, their voice may enrich the debate, because as experiential experts they have a rather specific perspective that may throw another light on the issues discussed or that may introduce new elements hitherto overlooked or neglected. Furthermore, their perspective may be considered important because knowledge about it may facilitate the development of measures that increase “motivation, commitment, effort and compliance as well as [… reduce] opposition and rejection” (Wiethoff et al., 2003, p. 90). This knowledge could take away possible barriers and facilitate future implementations. The purpose of this pilot study is largely heuristic. It reveals the range of thoughts and considerations held by antisocial juveniles concerning the genomics and neurobiology of antisocial behavior and its possible consequences for future prevention and intervention measures. Three issues are the focus of this study: i) views on perceived explanations of the crime and attitude towards biological explanations, ii) views about forensic psychiatric and psychological treatment and possible coercive preventive treatment, including perceptions of psychopharmacological treatments, and iii) views about early detection and identification of children at risk of antisocial behavior. In this article, two key terms will be used: crime and antisocial behavior. Their meaning overlaps, yet is not identical. The term crime or criminal act is used for serious deeds forbidden by the criminal law and that lead to a conviction and placement in a juvenile justice institution. Antisocial behavior, however, is a psychiatric term that refers to a variety of behavioral disorders that hamper an individual's functioning in a broader social setting and that cause significant harm to others.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Conclusion Current insights about genomic and neurobiological features of children at risk for developing antisocial behavior trigger great expectations for the development of new forms of early detection, prevention, and treatment. In this pilot study we explored the views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents about these new approaches and their potential consequences. We were able to identity three different patterns of thinking about these matters. Participants express clearly positive and agreeing as well as negative and rejecting attitudes, in addition there is a group that adopts what may be called a ‘perhaps-attitude’ making their acceptance depending on a variety of specific conditions. For each of these three patterns, a variety of reasons is provided. Those who welcome the new developments do so, because they trust the efforts of professionals and favor whatever may increase the success of these efforts. Biologically informed measures, however, are not considered to take up a special place, enhance trust or trigger extra hopes. This is different with regard to the negative arguments. Here aspects considered specific for a biologically informed approach come to the forefront. Reluctant participants associate biological approaches, for example, with psychopharmacological treatment or attacks to their bodily integrity and therefore reject them. Further arguments concern the intended aims of prevention and treatment, the predictive value of early identification efforts and the danger of labeling and stigmatization. These latter concerns, again, seem to apply also to non-biological measurements. Therefore, we want to argue that although the views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents were elicited by means of questions concerning current developments in genomics and neurobiology, their hopes and expectations and their worries and concerns are, at least partly, also applicable to prevention and intervention measures informed by sociological and psychological research. The insights of this study are mainly of heuristic value, allowing for the development of well-informed subsequent research that could further enhance our understanding of the views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents.