Table Of Content

Serial Editor Judy Illes, CM, PHD Distinguished University Scholar and UBC Distinguished Scholar in Neuroethics Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine Neuroethics Canada The University of British Columbia 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Koerner S124 Vancouver BC V6T 2B5 Canada Katherine Bassil,Editorial Assistant to Judy Illes AcademicPressisanimprintofElsevier 50HampshireStreet,5thFloor,Cambridge,MA02139,UnitedStates 525BStreet,Suite1650,SanDiego,CA92101,UnitedStates TheBoulevard,LangfordLane,Kidlington,OxfordOX51GB,UnitedKingdom 125LondonWall,London,EC2Y5AS,UnitedKingdom Firstedition2022 Copyright©2022ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic ormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem, withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseekpermission,further informationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandourarrangementswithorganizationssuch astheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbefoundatourwebsite: www.elsevier.com/permissions. Thisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythe Publisher(otherthanasmaybenotedherein). Notices Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging.Asnewresearchandexperience broadenourunderstanding,changesinresearchmethods,professionalpractices,ormedical treatmentmaybecomenecessary. Practitionersandresearchersmustalwaysrelyontheirownexperienceandknowledgeinevaluating andusinganyinformation,methods,compounds,orexperimentsdescribedherein.Inusingsuch informationormethodstheyshouldbemindfuloftheirownsafetyandthesafetyofothers,including partiesforwhomtheyhaveaprofessionalresponsibility. Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors,oreditors,assume anyliabilityforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterofproductsliability, negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperationofanymethods,products,instructions,orideas containedinthematerialherein. ISBN:978-0-12-824562-0 ISSN:2589-2959 ForinformationonallAcademicPresspublications visitourwebsiteathttps://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals Publisher:ZoeKruze AcquisitionsEditor:SamMahfoudh DevelopmentalEditor:CindyAngelitaGardose ProductionProjectManager:SudharshiniRenganathan CoverDesigner:VictoriaPearson TypesetbySTRAIVE,India Contributors ClareBond SarahWigglesworthArchitects,London,UnitedKingdom SoniaBoue ArtistandConsultantforNeurodiversityintheArts,Oxford,UnitedKingdom JosBoys LearningEnvironmentsEqualityDiversityandInclusionCentre(LEEDIC),TheBartlett FacultyoftheBuiltEnvironment,UniversityCollegeLondon;TheDisOrdinary ArchitectureProject,London,UnitedKingdom AnthonyClarke BLOXAS,Melbourne,VIC,Australia J.T.EisenhauerRichardson DepartmentofArtsAdministration,Education,andPolicy,TheOhioStateUniversity, Columbus,OH,UnitedStates JohnGardner SchoolofSocialSciences,MonashUniversity,Clayton,VIC,Australia MarieK.Harder Values&SustainabilityResearchGroup,UniversityofBrighton,Brighton,UnitedKingdom CamilleY.Huang NeuroethicsCanada,DivisionofNeurology,DepartmentofMedicine,UniversityofBritish Columbia,Vancouver,BC,Canada JudyIlles NeuroethicsCanada,DivisionofNeurology,DepartmentofMedicine,UniversityofBritish Columbia,Vancouver,BC,Canada AllenKong AllenKongArchitectPtyLTD,NorthMelbourne,VIC,Australia YeoryiaManolopoulou TheBartlettUniversityCollege,London,UnitedKingdom MollyMattaini InterdisciplinaryTheaterStudies,UniversityofWisconsin–Madison,Madison,WI, UnitedStates RaquelMeseguerZafe Founder,UncharteredCollectiveandPMStudioResident,ArnolfiniGalleryBristol2021– 2022,NarrowQuay,Bristol,England TanyaPetrovich DementiaAustralia,Parkville,VIC,Australia xi xii Contributors WilliamRenel TourettesheroCIC,London,UnitedKingdom JimSinclair AutismNetworkInternational(ANI),Syracuse,NY,UnitedStates JessicaThom TourettesheroCIC,London,UnitedKingdom NatashaM.Trotman TheWellcomeCollectionHub,TheWellcomeTrust;TheHelenHamlynCentrefor Design,RoyalCollegeofArt;KensingtonGore,SouthKensington,London, UnitedKingdom SarahWigglesworth SarahWigglesworthArchitects,London,UnitedKingdom Foreword TheIndusRiverValley,whichliesneartheborderofthemodernstatesof IndiaandPakistan,wasthesiteofoneoftheearliesthumancivilizationson theplanet.Coursedbysnow-andmonsoon-fedrivers,thisrichalluvialplain was originally home to an agrarian society, which grew to become a large and technically advanced bronze-age urban culture—a culture that helped define the subsequent growth of the Indian subcontinent. At its ancient peak,theIndusValleycivilizationdevelopedmodernformsofgovernance, manufacturing, and trade and excelled in both fine and practical arts. Building design and construction, and urban planning, were among the strengthsofthissociety,andthepracticalandphilosophicalaspectsofthese disciplines were captured in early Hindu Vedas as “Vaastu Shastra,” the science of architecture. Vaastuisacomplexsetofrulesandformalismsforbuildingdesign,much ofwhichhasoriginsinreligiousandmysticalbeliefs,butoneofitsguiding principles is that “forms, space, proportion, energy points and aesthetic features,canbeputtogetherinsuchawaythattheentireexperiencecreated by the building would bring about an extraordinary response in the occupants” (Ananth, 1999). “Response” here refers to mental states— perceptual or cognitive—that influence decisions, beliefs, emotions, and actions.Perhaps,mostimportantly,thisearlyHinduapproachwasearnestly egalitarian,foundedontheprinciplethateachindividualhasuniquespiritual andmaterialconnectionstotheuniverse.Itnaturallyfollowedthatabuild- ingcanonlyfunction,canonlyachievean“enhancementandenrichmentof theusers’consciousness,”iftheuniqueelementsoftheuserareunderstood and incorporated in design (Ananth, 1999). The simple but fundamental principle here is that the building must be designed for the person who occupiesit,withrecognitionthateveryindividualhasspecific—andequally valid—requirements for fulfillment through the spaces they inhabit. InmodernculturesoftheindustrializedWest,thisperson-centricdesign ethic is all but lost. Architects who attend to the individual and their rela- tionshiptothesite,tothecommunity,andtothenaturalenvironmentmust charge hefty feesfor doingso.This hasbecomean elitist practicesuchthat fewerthan 2%ofresidentialhousinginAmerica isnowdesigned byarchi- tects(Dickinson,2016).Outsideoftheupscaleresidencesofthewealthyand sometimes architecturally sophisticated, home design, today, is largely xiii xiv Foreword drivenbyprofitandexpediencemotivesofrealestatedevelopers.Withina few miles of my own home in Southern California lies a blight of tract houses, bounded by the freeway and extending as far east as the eye can see. Over a few short decades, large swaths of some of the most beautiful land on the planet was sold to developers, who leveled the natural warp and woof of the earth and built houses of mind-numbing sameness. All of thispracticedeniesanyneedforrealdesignorcreativityandgreatlyreduces thecostofconstruction.Contrarytothearchitecturalprinciplesthatguided thebuiltenvironmentofmillenniapast,theresultisthatourbuildingstoday dictate who the occupant must be, rather than the person as the source of inspiration for the building. Theeditorsandcontributorstothisnewvolumehave,quiterightlyand usefully,castarchitectureasanethicalchallenge.Whenasystemofpractice discounts the manifold diversity of the human population, forcing all individuals to conform to the same ideal, due process fails and disparities of opportunities,access,andtreatmentareinevitable.Architectsandobservers ofsocialhistoryalikepointtothepatentandprofoundinfluenceofthebuilt environmentonhumanbehaviorandcognitivefunction.Butweshyaway from frankscientific discussions of thepsychological deprivation caused by the sameness of planned residential communities, the banality of our public-schoolclassrooms,thesensoryandmotorinequitiesthatresultwhen profitdrivesthebuiltenvironment,andthefactthatdesignforpeoplewith geneticoracquireddisordersofthebrainisatriskofhavingthesamestatusas an orphan drug. Theauthorsofthechaptersinthiscollectionbringtheseissuesoutinto theopenand,indoingso,contributetoanongoingdiscussionofindividual differences and fairness in the light of fast-growing knowledge of how the humanbraindevelopsandfunctionsandhowitgivesrisetotheuniqueness of individual human character and ability. The chapters in this collection define neuroethics and frame its relationship to the built environment (and indeed space more generally) and to modern neuroscience research. Perhaps,themosteffectivewaytocommunicatetheseconceptsandstrate- gies is in the context of specific cases, including how the design needs of individuals who think differently from one another or who suffer from neurological and cognitive impairments are slowly but steadily being addressed.Severalchaptersinthiscollectionadoptthisapproachwithfocus, for example, on dementia and autism. Advocacy and intervention are naturally critical elements of a path forward and are appropriately highlightedinthiscollection.Finally,andverycompellingly,thecollection Foreword xv includescontributionsbyindividualswho,byvirtueof theirinabilityto fit insidethestandardbox,havesufferedatthehandsofasocietyinuredofits diversity. Manywillcontinuetoaskwhypeoplearenotallcontentwiththesame three baths, elevated entryway, and shiny open-plan kitchen, with the convenience and pastel peace that it affords. The answer, well understood by the ancient Hindus and re-articulated herein, is that people are not all the same. Modern neuroscience and cognitive science have probed the depths of difference and revealed that structural and functional attributes ofthebrainareuniqueproductsofpersonallifeandexperiencesoftheenvi- ronmentalandsocialcontextsinwhicheachindividuallearns,decides,and acts. The cultural diversity of these experiences, expressed by humans through assorted personalities with distinctive tastes, colorfully eccentric design preferences, and varied strengths and weaknesses, are what defines the Manushyalaya—the “human temple” in Vaastu, the living space for “discovering and honing the individual spirit” (Ananth, 1999). This person-centric and egalitarian approach to the built environment does not scale easily in a free market, particularly in the context of large disparities of wealth and power. Buttressed by a continuously growing knowledge of brain function, however, it is an approach that might lead backtoanerainwhichthescienceofthehumanconditionactuallymatters to architecture. Cultivating that approach, as this volume does, advances a vision and a promise of a new architecture for the human good. THOMAS D. ALBRIGHT The Salk Institute for Biological Studies La Jolla, CA, United States August 2022 References Ananth, S. (1999). The Penguin guide to Vaastu: The classical Indian science of architecture and design.India:PenguinBooks. Dickinson, D. (2016). Architects design just 2% of all houses—Why?. Common Edge 7, 2016.https://commonedge.org/architects-design-just-2-of-all-houses-why/. Introduction John Gardnera, Jos Boysb, and Anthony Clarkec aSchoolofSocialSciences,MonashUniversity,Clayton,VIC,Australia bLearningEnvironmentsEqualityDiversityandInclusionCentre(LEEDIC),TheBartlettFacultyoftheBuilt Environment,UniversityCollegeLondon;TheDisOrdinaryArchitectureProject,London,UnitedKingdom cBLOXAS,Melbourne,VIC,Australia Architecture, as Amos Rapoport famously illustrated (1969), is a clear expressionofsocialandculturalnorms.Thephysicalspacesofoureveryday lives—our homes and workplaces, towns, cities, and transport infrastruc- tures—reflectdeeply-heldassumptionsabouthumanbehaviorandinterac- tion. Domestic spaces are obvious examples (Duncan & Lambert, 2004; Gorman-Murray,2007;Percival&Hanson,2009).Mostnewlybuilthomes inwesterncountriescontaintwoorthreebedrooms,reflectingthecultural intransigence of the nuclear family structure. The dominance of steps and staircases(insteadoflevelaccessesandramps)assumesthatindividualsmove bipedally.Sotoodoestheconventionalwidthofdoorframesorthesizeof powderroomsandtoiletingspaces,bothofwhichtypicallyinhibittheuseof walkingaidsandwheelchairs.Thetrendtowardopen-plankitchenanddin- ing areas in many countries reflects the increasing centrality of the kitchen andfoodpreparationinsocialentertainmentand,nodoubt,theassumption that meal preparation and child-minding responsibilities are undertaken by thesameindividualsimultaneously(Dowling&Power,2012).Somebehav- ioral norms have of course become encoded in domestic building regula- tions and guidelines (e.g., the need to separate toileting areas from food preparation), some are reinforced by economic dynamics (who can afford a house with three bedrooms, let alone four?), and many are the conse- quence of the habitual professional practices of developers, architects, designers, and builders (e.g., the near-universal preference for smooth and hard and largely featureless internal walls). Architecture,however,isnotsimplytheexpressionofsocialandcultural norms. It is a very powerful means by which such norms are imposed and perpetuated. Indeed, the ideal that very much underpins architecture as a profession is that better architecture will make genuine improvements to peoples’ lives, and is, then, a public good (Lautner, 2011). There is also now a well-known and substantial body of evidence that the arrangement xvii xviii Introduction of our physical spaces—such as the simple proximity of windows with views—can make measurable improvements in peoples’ health and well- being (Rice, 2019). The assumption that “we shape our buildings and thereafter they shape us” (Churchill, 1943) needs to be treated with care. Who exactly is this “we?” Who is being valued in the design of our built surroundings and who is being ignored, marginalized or mis-represented? Who has power over what gets financed and constructed and maintained? Whoisleftoutoftheseprocesses?Andhowexactlydoesarchitecturework in relation to how we occupy it? As the feminist architecture collective Matrix wrote in 1984: Buildingsdonotcontrolourlives.Theyreflectthedominantvaluesinoursociety, politicalandarchitecturalviews,people’sdemandsandtheconstraintsoffinance, butwecanliveinthemindifferentwaysfromthoseoriginallyintended.Buildings onlyaffectusinsomuchastheycontainideasabout[…]our‘properplace’,about whatisprivateandwhatispublicactivity,aboutwhichthingsshouldbekeptsep- arateandwhichputtogether(pp.9–10) Whilematrixwasthinkingmainlyaboutgender,manyothershavecritiqued assumptionsaboutarchitectureanditsoccupation.Disabilityadvocatesand academicsfromvariousdisciplineshavelongdemonstratedthatthematerial fabricofourbuiltenvironmentisenablingforsomepeopleanddisablingand alienatingforothers,reifyingsocialdivisionsandstigma(Blunt&Dowling, 2006; Delitz, 2017; Duncan, 1996; Gleeson, 1964; Heylighen, Van Doren, & Vermeersch, 2013; Imrie, 1996; Jackson, 2018). More recently, disability studies scholars and activists have extended these debates, for example, by critically exploring histories of building access and inclusive design (Hamraie, 2017; Hendren, 2020; Titchkosky, 2003; Williamson, 2019) and building directly on disabled and neurodivergent people’s own diverse perspectives and experiences of built space as included in academic scholarship, autobiography, memoir and other forms of narrative (Gadsby, 2022;Limburg,2021;MainspringArts,2021;Wong,2020;Yergeau,2017). Architectureandthebuiltenvironment,therefore,areethicallyrelevant. They are ethically relevant because they enact a generalized set of norms abouthowhumansshouldconductthemselves,andindoingso,theycon- strain, enable, and transmute the actions of individuals and collectives in ways that significantly impact their well-being. Architecture and the built environment are also, as many scholars have argued, important targets for ethically relevant interventions (Fox, 2012). These might be permanent adjustmentsandreconfigurationsofthebuiltenvironment,aimedatdirectly mitigatinginequalitiesand,ideally,ultimatelyenablingadiversityofpeoples toflourish(Watchorn,Larkin,Hitch,&Ang,2014).Or,theymightinclude