interesting, albeit conventional, examination of possible biological underpinnings of morality. Does not expore at all the cultural determination of morality which have varied widely over time and locale, from the Aztecs to the Quakers to the Celts to the Cathars to Inuit pre-contact to the Japanese court of the 11th century . . .

Provides fascinating insight into the physiological basis for tendencies toward moral or immoral actions.

As most news reports on scientific studies, this is a pretty superficial treatment of a complex issue. While I expect reporters to dumb stuff down, I was surprised to read one of the researchers say aspects of morality could be "automatic." Because of our cultural conditioning, our interpretation of what is moral seems to vary pretty widely. So I'm surprised anybody studying this could not take that into account.

All in all a sloppy piece of writing but there are some nuggets you can extract with careful reading. The author mixes up mechanism with expression in the clinical sense. The mechanism of morality in the brain is described by the research. The way any specific moral problem is solved is complex interplay of emotion & intellectual processes in the brain. However this research does not speak any particular moral framework cultural or ordained it only addresses the mechanism. The author on the other hand freely & inaccurately mixes the mechanism described with specific moral outcomes. He then tosses in some supposed concerns of "philosophers and theologians" but does not attribute theses concerns to anyone.