Ethics of the electrified mind: defining issues and perspectives on the principled use of brain stimulation in medical research and clinical care. Brain Topogr. 2014;27:33-45. [PMID: 23733209 DOI: 10.1007/s10548-013-0296-8]

Stakeholder perspectives on non-invasive brain stimulation

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have made great progress in recent years and offer boundless potential for the neuroscientific research and treatment of disorders. However, the possible use of NIBS devices for neuro-doping and neuroenhancement in healthy individuals and the military are poorly regulated. The great potentials and diverse applications can have an impact on the future development of the technology and society. This participatory study therefore aims to summarize the perspectives of different stakeholder groups with the help of qualitative workshops. Nine qualitative on-site and virtual workshops were conducted in the study with 91 individuals from seven stakeholder groups: patients, students, do-it-yourself home users of tDCS, clinical practitioners, industry representatives, philosophers, and policy experts. The co-creative and design-based workshops were tailored to each group to document the wishes, fears, and general comments of the participants. The outlooks from each group were collected in written form and summarized into different categories. The result is a comprehensive overview of the different aspects that need to be considered in the field of NIBS. For example, several groups expressed the wish for home-based tDCS under medical supervision as a potential therapeutic intervention and discussed the associated technical specifications. Other topics that were addressed were performance enhancement for certain professional groups, training requirements for practitioners, and questions of agency, among others. This qualitative participatory research highlights the potential of tDCS and repetitive TMS as alternative therapies to medication, with fewer adverse effects and home-based use for tDCS. The ethical and societal impact of the abuse of NIBS for non-clinical use must be considered for policy-making and regulation implementations. This study adds to the neuroethical debate on the responsible use and application of NIBS technologies, taking into consideration the different perspectives of important stakeholders in the field.

"In the spectrum of people who are healthy": Views of individuals at risk of dementia on using neurotechnology for cognitive enhancement

Neurotechnological cognitive enhancement has become an area of intense scientific, policy, and ethical interest. However, while work has increasingly focused on ethical views of the general public, less studied are those with personal connections to cognitive impairment. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed attitudes regarding implantable neurotechnological cognitive enhancement in individuals who self-identified as having increased likelihood of developing dementia (n=25; 'Our Study'), compared to a nationally representative sample of Americans (n=4726; 'Pew Study'). Participants in Our Study were additionally shown four videos showcasing hypothetical neurotechnological devices designed to enhance different cognitive abilities and were interviewed for more in-depth responses. Both groups expressed comparable degrees of worry and acknowledgement of potential ethical ramifications (all ps>0.05). Compared to the Pew Study, participants in Our Study expressed slightly higher desire (p<0.01), as well as higher acknowledgment for potential impacts on productivity (p<0.05). Ultimately, participants in Our Study were more likely to deem the device morally acceptable (56%; compared to Pew Study, 25.2%; p=0.0001). Interviews conducted in Our Study allowed participants to supply additional nuance and reasoning to survey responses, such as giving examples for increased productivity, perceived downsides of memory enhancement, or concerns regarding potentially resulting inequality. This study builds upon and adds to the growing focus on potential ethical issues surrounding neurotechnological cognitive enhancement by centering stakeholder perspectives, highlighting the need for inclusive research and consideration of diverse perspectives and lived experiences to ensure inclusive dialogue that best informs ethical and policy discussions in this rapidly advancing field.

What makes a medical intervention invasive?

The classification of medical interventions as either invasive or non-invasive is commonly regarded to be morally important. On the most commonly endorsed account of invasiveness, a medical intervention is invasive if and only if it involves either breaking the skin ('incision') or inserting an object into the body ('insertion'). Building on recent discussions of the concept of invasiveness, we show that this standard account fails to capture three aspects of existing usage of the concept of invasiveness in relation to medical interventions-namely, (1) usage implying that invasiveness comes in degrees, (2) that the invasiveness of an intervention can depend on the characteristics of the salient alternative interventions, and (3) that medical interventions can be invasive in non-physical ways. We then offer the beginnings of a revised account that, we argue, is able to capture a wider range of existing usage. Central to our account is a distinction between two properties: basic invasiveness and threshold invasiveness We end by assessing what the standard account gets right, and what more needs to be done to complete our schematic account.

Neuroethical implications of focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness

BACKGROUND

MR-guided focused ultrasound is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant mental illness, and merits contextualized ethical exploration in relation to more extensive ethical literature regarding other psychosurgical and neuromodulation treatment options for this patient population. To our knowledge, this topic has not yet been explored in the published literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss in detail the neuroethical implications of MR-guided focused ultrasound for neuropsychiatric illness as an emerging treatment modality.

METHODS

Due to the lack of published literature on the topic, the approach involved a detailed survey and review of technical and medical literature relevant to focused ultrasound and established ethical issues related to alternative treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant, severe and persistent mental illness. The manuscript is structured according to thematic and topical findings.

RESULTS

This technology has potential benefits for patients suffering with severe mental illness, compared with established alternatives. The balance of technical, neuroscientific and clinical considerations should inform ethical deliberations. The nascent literature base, nuances in legal classification and permissibility depending upon jurisdiction, influences of past ethical issues associated with alternative treatments, tone and framing in media articles, and complexity of clinical trials all influence ethical assessment and evaluations of multiple stakeholders. Recommendations for future research are provided based on these factors.

CONCLUSION

Salient ethical inquiry should be further explored by researchers, clinicians, and ethicists in a nuanced manner methodologically, one which is informed by past and present ethical issues related to alternative treatment options, broader psychiatric treatment frameworks, pragmatic implementation challenges, intercultural considerations, and patients' ethical concerns.

"They were already inside my head to begin with": Trust, Translational Misconception, and Intraoperative Brain Research

Background: Patients undergoing invasive neurosurgical procedures offer researchers unique opportunities to study the brain. Deep brain stimulation patients, for example, may participate in research during the surgical implantation of the stimulator device. Although this research raises many ethical concerns, little attention has been paid to basic studies, which offer no therapeutic benefits, and the value of patient-participant perspectives.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen individuals across two studies who participated in basic intraoperative research during their deep brain stimulator surgery. Interviews explored interpretations of risks and benefits, enrollment motivations, and experiences of participating in awake brain research. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.Results: Seven themes were identified from participant narratives, including robust attitudes of trust, high valuations of basic science research, impacts of the surgical context, and mixed experiences of participation.Conclusion: We argue that these narratives raise the potential for a translational misconception and motivate intraoperative re-consent procedures.

Bioelectronic medicine: Preclinical insights and clinical advances

The nervous system maintains homeostasis and health. Homeostatic disruptions underlying the pathobiology of many diseases can be controlled by bioelectronic devices targeting CNS and peripheral neural circuits. New insights into the regulatory functions of the nervous system and technological developments in bioelectronics drive progress in the emerging field of bioelectronic medicine. Here, we provide an overview of key aspects of preclinical research, translation, and clinical advances in bioelectronic medicine.

Brain augmentation and neuroscience technologies: current applications, challenges, ethics and future prospects

Ever since the dawn of antiquity, people have strived to improve their cognitive abilities. From the advent of the wheel to the development of artificial intelligence, technology has had a profound leverage on civilization. Cognitive enhancement or augmentation of brain functions has become a trending topic both in academic and public debates in improving physical and mental abilities. The last years have seen a plethora of suggestions for boosting cognitive functions and biochemical, physical, and behavioral strategies are being explored in the field of cognitive enhancement. Despite expansion of behavioral and biochemical approaches, various physical strategies are known to boost mental abilities in diseased and healthy individuals. Clinical applications of neuroscience technologies offer alternatives to pharmaceutical approaches and devices for diseases that have been fatal, so far. Importantly, the distinctive aspect of these technologies, which shapes their existing and anticipated participation in brain augmentations, is used to compare and contrast them. As a preview of the next two decades of progress in brain augmentation, this article presents a plausible estimation of the many neuroscience technologies, their virtues, demerits, and applications. The review also focuses on the ethical implications and challenges linked to modern neuroscientific technology. There are times when it looks as if ethics discussions are more concerned with the hypothetical than with the factual. We conclude by providing recommendations for potential future studies and development areas, taking into account future advancements in neuroscience innovation for brain enhancement, analyzing historical patterns, considering neuroethics and looking at other related forecasts.

Jumping through the hoops: Barriers and other ethical concerns regarding the use of psychiatric electroceutical interventions

Stakeholders' perceptions of barriers to and other ethical concerns about using psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs), interventions that use electrical or magnetic stimuli to treat psychiatric conditions like treatment-resistant depression (TRD), may influence the uptake of these interventions. This study examined such perceptions among psychiatrists, patients with depression, and members of the public. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 members of each group to examine their views on practical barriers and ethical concerns. We used qualitative content analysis to identify relevant themes, and compared findings across stakeholder groups. Access limitations to the interventions, including cost and availability of the interventions, cut across all PEIs-including those that are still experimental, and were raised by all groups. Most participants across all groups raised concerns about informed consent, in terms of receiving adequate, appropriate, and understandable information. Our results suggest that these three stakeholder groups perceive similar structural and attitudinal barriers to, and have similar ethical concerns about, using PEIs for TRD. These results identify key issues that must be addressed for the full potential of PEIs to be realized. Future research with larger samples will help to better understand how to address these barriers to treatment for individuals with TRD.

Faster, Higher, More Moral: Human Enhancement and Christianity

The three authors of this article explore the intersection of moral enhancement, ethics, and Christianity. Trothen reviews the meaning and potential of moral enhancements, considering some of the risks and limitations. Trothen identifies three broad ethical questions, which all three authors agree upon, that arise from a Christian theological perspective: what it means to be human, choice, and social justice. Trothen concludes that respect for human dignity and social justice requires rejecting a reductive view of moral improvement as purely biochemical. Buttrey then argues that biomedical moral enhancement (BME) is simply one in a series of attempts to morally improve human beings and can be compared to other efforts such as neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. He argues that BME cannot be simultaneously more reliable than moral education in virtue and no more restrictive of human freedom. He concludes by suggesting that tensions between BME and Thomistic virtue are even stronger due to Christian conceptions of martyrdom and radical self-denial. Finally, McQueen argues that Christianity emphasizes the common good and social justice as essential for human flourishing. Building on the foundation established by Trothen and Buttrey, McQueen insists that accurate cognitive knowledge is needed to make good conscience decisions, but emphasizes that right human action also requires the exercise of the will, which can be undermined by AI, automation, and perhaps also BME. She concludes by encouraging further attention to the true nature of human agency, human freedom, and wisdom in debates over AI and biomedical enhancement. The authors conclude that BMEs, if they become medically safe, may be theologically justifiable and helpful as a supplement to moral improvement.

'My dad was like "it's your brain, what are you doing?"': Participant experiences of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in severe enduring anorexia nervosa

Objective

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising emerging treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN). However, to date, patients' views and experiences of this treatment have not been fully explored. To assess these, we integrated a qualitative study into a feasibility randomised controlled trial of rTMS in individuals with severe enduring AN.

Method

Twenty‐nine (of 34) trial participants contributed to this study. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted 3‐months following the completion of rTMS treatment (4‐months post‐randomisation), prior to unblinding. Transcripts were analysed using content analysis.

Results

rTMS was deemed an acceptable but time‐consuming treatment. Many emphasised how their lives had changed to some extent during, but mainly after treatment by making them more positive, open‐minded, flexible and willing to try new things in relation to their AN and other aspects of their lives.

Conclusions

These qualitative data will be valuable in shaping participant information, recruitment and planning of future large‐scale trials of rTMS in AN.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN14329415, registered 23rd July 2015, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14329415

This study is the first to systematically explore participants' experiences of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for severe enduring anorexia nervosa (AN), as part of a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Participants expressed that rTMS was an acceptable but time‐consuming treatment. Many participants who received real rTMS described positive changes in relation to AN and quality of life.

Findings from this qualitative study will help to shape future research of rTMS treatment for AN.

They Affect the Person, but for Better or Worse? Perceptions of Electroceutical Interventions for Depression Among Psychiatrists, Patients, and the Public

Responding to reports of cases of personality change following deep brain stimulation, neuroethicists have debated the nature and ethical implications of these changes. Recently, this literature has been challenged as being overblown and therefore potentially an impediment to patients accessing needed treatment. We interviewed 16 psychiatrists, 16 patients with depression, and 16 members of the public without depression, all from the Midwestern United States, about their views on how three electroceutical interventions (deep brain stimulation, electroconvulsive therapy, and transcranial magnetic stimulation) used to treat depression might affect the self. Participants were also asked to compare the electroceuticals' effects on the self with the effects of commonly used depression treatments (psychotherapy and pharmaceuticals). Using qualitative content analysis, we found that participants' views on electroceuticals' potential effects on the self mainly focused on treatment effectiveness and side effects. Our results have implications for both theoretical discussions in neuroethics and clinical practice in psychiatry.

Pressing ethical issues in considering pediatric deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder

BACKGROUND

Refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) among adults is the first psychiatric indication of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to receive an FDA Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). Given the HDE approval and encouraging evidence that has since emerged, exploration of DBS for OCD may expand to adolescents in the future. More than 100,000 adolescents in the U.S. suffer from refractory OCD, and there is already a precedent for the transition of DBS in adults to children in the case of dystonia. However, the risk-benefit analysis of pediatric DBS for OCD may be more complex and raise different ethical questions compared to pediatric DBS for dystonia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to gain insight into pressing ethical issues related to using DBS in adolescents with OCD.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 25) caring for pediatric patients with refractory OCD. Interview transcripts were coded with MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS

Five central themes were identified in clinician responses, three of which were exacerbated in the pediatric DBS setting. Clinicians expressed concerns related to conditions of decision-making including adolescents' capacity to assent (80%), the lack of evidence about the outcomes and potential unknown effects of using DBS in adolescents with OCD (68%), and the importance of exhausting other treatment options before considering DBS (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to address clinician concerns include implementation of validated decision support tools and further research into the outcomes of pediatric DBS for OCD to establish clear guidelines for patient selection.

Participants' experience of approach bias modification training with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation as a combination treatment for binge eating disorder

OBJECTIVE

This study explored participants' experience of approach bias modification training (ABM) with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for binge eating disorder (BED) within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). A subset of participants who completed the RCT were interviewed to attain feedback on treatment experience and outcomes.

METHOD

15 participants with BED who completed the RCT were recruited, using purposive sampling. Participants received six sessions of concurrent ABM training with either real or sham tDCS. Semi-structured interviews relating to study experience and treatment outcomes were conducted and data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The combined ABM and tDCS intervention was deemed acceptable and worthwhile by participants interviewed across both intervention groups. Negative preconceptions of tDCS were an initial deterrent to study participation for some, yet the brain stimulation experience was found to be tolerable. Minor and transient sensations and side effects attributed to tDCS were reported by most participants during and after stimulation, in addition to less pleasant aspects of ABM training, with no significant adverse effects reported by interviewees. Positive outcomes were described by participants across both intervention groups, relating to changes in BED symptoms and to broader beneficial effects on associated cognitive and emotional factors. Two participants experienced a shift in autonomy, attributed to tDCS and the combined intervention respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with symptoms of BED found concurrent ABM and tDCS sessions to be acceptable, despite initial apprehension about the safety of tDCS. Findings are relevant to the neuroethics literature and may inform science communication strategies on neuromodulation treatments.

Neurochips: Considerations from a neurosurgeon's standpoint

A neurochip comprises a small device based on the brain-machine interfaces that emulate the functioning synapses. Its implant in the human body allows the interaction of the brain with a computer. Although the data-processing speed is still slower than that of the human brain, they are being developed. There is no ethical conflict as long as it is used for neural rehabilitation or to supply impaired or missing neurological functions. However, other applications emerge as controversial.

To the best of our knowledge, there have no been publications about the neurosurgical role in the application of this neurotechnological advance. Deliberation on neurochips is primarily limited to a small circle of scholars such as neurotechnological engineers, artists, philosophers, and bioethicists. Why do we address neurosurgeons? They will be directly involved as they could be required to perform invasive procedures.

Future neurosurgeons will have to be a different type of neurosurgeon. They will be part of interdisciplinary teams interacting with computer engineers, neurobiologist, and ethicists. Although a neurosurgeon is not expected to be an expert in all areas, they have to be familiar with them; they have to be prepared to determine indications, contraindications and risks of the procedures, participating in the decision-making processes, and even collaborating in the design of devices to preserve anatomic structures. Social, economic, and legal aspects are also inherent to the neurosurgical activity; therefore, these aspects should also be considered.

Immunity and the carotid body: implications for metabolic diseases

Neuro-immune communication has gained enormous interest in recent years due to increasing knowledge of the way in which the brain coordinates functional alterations in inflammatory and autoimmune responses, and the mechanisms of neuron-immune cell interactions in the context of metabolic diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. In this review, we will explain how this relationship between the nervous and immune system impacts the pro- and anti-inflammatory pathways with specific reference to the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal gland axis and the vagal reflex and will explore the possible involvement of the carotid body (CB) in the neural control of inflammation. We will also highlight the mechanisms of vagal anti-inflammatory reflex control of immunity and metabolism, and the consequences of functional disarrangement of this reflex in settlement and development of metabolic diseases, with special attention to obesity and type 2 diabetes. Additionally, the role of CB in the interplay between metabolism and immune responses will be discussed, with specific reference to the different stimuli that promote CB activation and the balance between sympathetic and parasympathetic in this context. In doing so, we clarify the multivarious neuronal reflexes that coordinate tissue-specific responses (gut, pancreas, adipose tissue and liver) critical to metabolic control, and metabolic disease settlement and development. In the final section, we will summarize how electrical modulation of the carotid sinus nerve may be utilized to adjust these reflex responses and thus control inflammation and metabolic diseases, envisioning new therapeutics horizons.

Researcher Perspectives on Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation Trials

Interest and investment in closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) systems have quickly expanded due to this neurotechnology's potential to more safely and effectively treat refractory movement and psychiatric disorders compared to conventional DBS. A large neuroethics literature outlines potential ethical concerns about conventional DBS and aDBS systems. Few studies, however, have examined stakeholder perspectives about ethical issues in aDBS research and other next-generation DBS devices. To help fill this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers involved in aDBS trials (n = 23) to gain insight into the most pressing ethical questions in aDBS research and any concerns about specific features of aDBS devices, including devices' ability to measure brain activity, automatically adjust stimulation, and store neural data. Using thematic content analysis, we identified 8 central themes in researcher responses. The need to measure and store neural data for aDBS raised concerns among researchers about data privacy and security issues (noted by 91% of researchers), including the avoidance of unintended or unwanted third-party access to data. Researchers reflected on the risks and safety (83%) of aDBS due to the experimental nature of automatically modulating then observing stimulation effects outside a controlled clinical setting and in relation to need for surgical battery changes. Researchers also stressed the importance of ensuring informed consent and adequate patient understanding (74%). Concerns related to automaticity and device programming (65%) were discussed, including current uncertainties about biomarker validity. Additionally, researchers discussed the potential impacts of automatic stimulation on patients' autonomy and control over stimulation (57%). Lastly, researchers discussed concerns related to patient selection (defining criteria for candidacy) (39%), challenges of ensuring post-trial access to care and device maintenance (39%), and potential effects on personality and identity (30%). To help address researcher concerns, we discuss the need to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities, advance biomarker validity, promote the balance of device control between patients and clinicians, and enhance ongoing informed consent. The findings from this study will help inform policies that will maximize the benefits and minimize potential harms of aDBS and other next-generation DBS devices.

DBS: a compelling example for ethical and legal reflection-a French perspective on ethical and legal concerns about DBS

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an approved treatment for neurological diseases and a promising one for psychiatric conditions, which may produce spectacular results very quickly. It is also a powerful tool for brain research and exploration. Beyond an overview of the ethical and legal literature on this topic, this paper aims at showing that DBS is a compelling example for ethical-legal reflection, as it combines a highly technical surgical procedure, a complex active medical device and neuromodulation of the human brain to restore lost abilities caused by a chronic and evolving disease. Some of the ethical and legal issues raised by DBS are not specific, but shed new light on medical ethics and law. Others are more DBS-specific, as they are linked to the intricacies of research and treatment, to the need to tune the device, to the patients' control over the device and its effects and to the involvement of family caregivers.

Bioelectronic Medicine: From Preclinical Studies on the Inflammatory Reflex to New Approaches in Disease Diagnosis and Treatment

Bioelectronic medicine is an evolving field in which new insights into the regulatory role of the nervous system and new developments in bioelectronic technology result in novel approaches in disease diagnosis and treatment. Studies on the immunoregulatory function of the vagus nerve and the inflammatory reflex have a specific place in bioelectronic medicine. These studies recently led to clinical trials with bioelectronic vagus nerve stimulation in inflammatory diseases and other conditions. Here, we outline key findings from this preclinical and clinical research. We also point to other aspects and pillars of interdisciplinary research and technological developments in bioelectronic medicine.

Bioelectronic Medicine-Ethical Concerns

Bioelectronic medicine (BEM) offers exciting opportunities to treat diseases such as movement disorders and refractory inflammatory disease. The many variations of BEM allow for noninvasive aspects of treatment that might eliminate or reduce the need for pharmaceuticals; therefore, the term "electroceuticals" may be suitable. BEM has been effective for movement disorders and improvement of prosthetic devices. Based on this implication, there is an allowance to impact many focus areas that include but are not limited to autoimmune disease, sensory motor conditions, and neurological conditions. There are a wide array of ethical issues that relate to BEM, which include informed consent, research ethics, innovation, academic-industry relationships, intellectual property, and the conundrum that needs to be addressed when altering the brain such as the issues of autonomy and free beneficence and social justice. The major goal is to heighten awareness of ethical issues and facilitate a proactive ethical approach regarding BEM research.

Patient's lived experience with DBS between medical research and care: some legal implications

In the past 50 years, an ethical-legal boundary has been drawn between treatment and research. It is based on the reasoning that the two activities pursue different purposes. Treatment is aimed at achieving optimal therapeutic benefits for the individual patient, whereas the goal of scientific research is to increase knowledge, in the public interest. From this viewpoint, the patient's experience should be clearly distinguished from that of a participant in a clinical trial. On this premise, two parallel and mutually exclusive regimes have been established. Yet in the case of deep brain stimulation (DBS), this presentation is a poor fit, for both the patient's lived experience and medical practice and research. The frictions may be explained by the specificities of the treatment (including surgery and medical devices) and of the pathologies concerned (chronic and evolutive), and by the characteristics of the medical team implementing the treatment. These particularities challenge the dominant frame of reference in medical bioethics and cause difficulties for the current legal framework in fulfilling its dual role: to protect patients while supporting the development of innovative treatments. The dominant model is still the clinical trial for medication safety and legal requirements of drug market regulation. However, DBS forces us to reflect on a medical device that is permanently implanted in the brain by highly specialized multi-disciplinary neurosurgical teams, for the treatment of chronic evolutive diseases. These devices demand fine-tuning on a case-by-case basis and there is still a lot to discover about why DBS is effective (or not). As a result, the wall between treatment and research is osmotic: many discoveries are made incidentally, in the course of treatment. The following study begins with these observations, and suggests that we review legal provisions (especially in French and United States law) so that they are better adapted to the first-person needs and experience of the patient undergoing brain stimulation.

Forebrain Cholinergic Signaling Regulates Innate Immune Responses and Inflammation

The brain regulates physiological functions integral to survival. However, the insight into brain neuronal regulation of peripheral immune function and the neuromediator systems and pathways involved remains limited. Here, utilizing selective genetic and pharmacological approaches, we studied the role of forebrain cholinergic signaling in the regulation of peripheral immune function and inflammation. Forebrain-selective genetic ablation of acetylcholine release and vagotomy abolished the suppression of serum TNF by the centrally-acting cholinergic drug galantamine in murine endotoxemia. Selective stimulation of acetylcholine action on the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M1 mAChR) by central administration of the positive allosteric modulator benzyl quinolone carboxylic acid (BQCA) suppressed serum TNF (TNFα) levels in murine endotoxemia. This effect was recapitulated by peripheral administration of the compound. BQCA also improved survival in murine endotoxemia and these effects were abolished in M1 mAChR knockout (KO) mice. Selective optogenetic stimulation of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons innervating brain regions with abundant M1 mAChR localization reduced serum TNF in endotoxemic mice. These findings reveal that forebrain cholinergic neurons regulate innate immune responses and inflammation, suggesting the possibility that in diseases associated with cholinergic dysfunction, including Alzheimer's disease this anti-inflammatory regulation can be impaired. These results also suggest novel anti-inflammatory approaches based on targeting forebrain cholinergic signaling in sepsis and other disorders characterized by immune dysregulation.

Why cognitive event-related potentials (ERPs) should have a role in the management of alcohol disorders

Alcohol dependence is currently one of the most serious public health problems. Indeed, 3-8% of all deaths worldwide are attributable to effects of alcohol consumption. Although the first step in alcohol dependence treatment is straightforward, the main problem for clinicians lies with the prevention of relapse, as 40-70% of patients who only undergo psychosocial therapy resume alcohol use within a year following treatment. This review of the literature regarding event-related potentials (ERPs) is focused on two major neurocognitive factors that partially account for the inability of many alcoholics to remain abstinent: attentional biases towards alcohol-related stimuli that increase the urge to drink, and impaired response inhibition towards these cues that makes it more difficult for alcoholics to resist the temptation to drink. On this basis, we propose new research avenues to better implement ERPs in the management of alcohol disorders, according to four main directions that relate to (1) the development of ERP serial recordings; (2) the promotion of a multi-component ERP approach; (3) the definition of multi-site guidelines; and (4) the use of more representative laboratory situations through the use of more compelling environments.

Molecular and Functional Neuroscience in Immunity

The nervous system regulates immunity and inflammation. The molecular detection of pathogen fragments, cytokines, and other immune molecules by sensory neurons generates immunoregulatory responses through efferent autonomic neuron signaling. The functional organization of this neural control is based on principles of reflex regulation. Reflexes involving the vagus nerve and other nerves have been therapeutically explored in models of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions, and recently in clinical settings. The brain integrates neuro-immune communication, and brain function is altered in diseases characterized by peripheral immune dysregulation and inflammation. Here we review the anatomical and molecular basis of the neural interface with immunity, focusing on peripheral neural control of immune functions and the role of the brain in the model of the immunological homunculus. Clinical advances stemming from this knowledge within the framework of bioelectronic medicine are also briefly outlined.

Studying and modifying brain function with non-invasive brain stimulation

In the past three decades, our understanding of brain-behavior relationships has been significantly shaped by research using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques. These methods allow non-invasive and safe modulation of neural processes in the healthy brain, enabling researchers to directly study how experimentally altered neural activity causally affects behavior. This unique property of NIBS methods has, on the one hand, led to groundbreaking findings on the brain basis of various aspects of behavior and has raised interest in possible clinical and practical applications of these methods. On the other hand, it has also triggered increasingly critical debates about the properties and possible limitations of these methods. In this review, we discuss these issues, clarify the challenges associated with the use of currently available NIBS techniques for basic research and practical applications, and provide recommendations for studies using NIBS techniques to establish brain-behavior relationships.

Deep brain stimulation for obsessive-compulsive disorder: Knowledge and concerns among psychiatrists, psychotherapists and patients

Background:

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is under investigation for severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) resistant to other therapies. The number of implants worldwide is slowly increasing. Therefore, it is of importance to explore knowledge and concerns of this novel treatment among patients and their psychiatric healthcare contacts. This information is relevant for scientific professionals working with clinical studies for DBS for this indication. Especially, for future study designs and the creation of information targeting healthcare professionals and patients. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and concerns toward DBS among patients with OCD, psychiatrists, and cognitive behavioral therapists.

Methods:

The study was conducted through web-based surveys for the aimed target groups –psychiatrist, patients, and cognitive behavioral therapists. The surveys contained questions regarding previous knowledge of DBS, source of knowledge, attitudes, and concerns towards the therapy.

Results:

The main source of information was from scientific sources among psychiatrists and psychotherapists. The patient's main source of information was the media. Common concerns among the groups included complications from surgery, anesthesia, stimulation side effects, and the novelty of the treatment. Specific concerns for the groups included; personality changes mentioned by patients and psychotherapists, and ethical concerns among psychiatrists.

Conclusion:

There are challenges for DBS in OCD as identified by the participants of this study; source and quality of information, efficacy, potential adverse effects, and eligibility. In all of which the current evidence base still is limited. A broad research agenda is needed for studies going forward.

The Social Context of "Do-It-Yourself" Brain Stimulation: Neurohackers, Biohackers, and Lifehackers

The "do-it-yourself" (DIY) brain stimulation movement began in earnest in late 2011, when lay individuals began building stimulation devices and applying low levels of electricity to their heads for self-improvement purposes. To date, scholarship on the home use of brain stimulation has focused on characterizing the practices of users via quantitative and qualitative studies, and on analyzing related ethical and regulatory issues. In this perspective piece, however, I take the opposite approach: rather than viewing the home use of brain stimulation on its own, I argue that it must be understood within the context of other DIY and citizen science movements. Seen in this light, the home use of brain stimulation is only a small part of the "neurohacking" movement, which is comprised of individuals attempting to optimize their brains to achieve enhanced performance. Neurohacking itself is an offshoot of the "life hacking" (or "quantified self") movement, in which individuals self-track minute aspects of their daily lives in order to enhance productivity or performance. Additionally, the home or DIY use of brain stimulation is in many ways parallel to the DIY Biology (or "biohacking") movement, which seeks to democratize tools of scientific experimentation. Here, I describe the place of the home use of brain stimulation with regard to neurohackers, lifehackers, and biohackers, and suggest that a policy approach for the home use of brain stimulation should have an appreciation both of individual motivations as well as the broader social context of the movement itself.

Can Neuromodulation also Enhance Social Inequality? Some Possible Indirect Interventions of the State

There is evidence that noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS), and especially transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can improve some cognitive functions, at least temporarily. However, as the improvement only applies to some “lucky” people, it may raise ethical, social and legal issues related to fairness in selective contexts (exams, competitions, job interviews). In this regard, an important element tends to be overlooked: the variability in individual response to tDCS in particular. If intensive study or practice and massive doses of chemical enhancers can have slightly different effects over different people, tDCS can sometimes be completely ineffective. The variability in individual response, if tDCS were widely used, could add to the already present natural inequalities between people, or even create new ones, leaving some in a disadvantaged condition. The discussion of the various ethical, social and legal consequences of different individual responses to tDCS might also address a potential indirect intervention by the State. In fact, if NIBS were to be widespread in competitive contexts, those who do not benefit from tDCS would be disadvantaged compared to those able to enhance their skills thanks to neuromodulation technologies. The most disadvantaged people for their lower response to tDCS could then acquire the right to receive and use free and safe cognitive enhancing drugs or other forms of bettering cognitive skills and functions, so as to reduce the gap between them and those who respond well to tDCS, in the light of the principle of equal opportunity.

Neuroethics beyond Normal

An integrated and principled neuroethics offers ethical guidelines able to transcend conventional and medical reliance on normality standards. Elsewhere we have proposed four principles for wise guidance on human transformations. Principles like these are already urgently needed, as bio- and cyberenhancements are rapidly emerging. Context matters. Neither "treatments" nor "enhancements" are objectively identifiable apart from performance expectations, social contexts, and civic orders. Lessons learned from disability studies about enablement and inclusion suggest a fresh way to categorize modifications to the body and its performance. The term "enhancement" should be broken apart to permit recognition of enablements and augmentations, and kinds of radical augmentation for specialized performance. Augmentations affecting the self, self-worth, and self-identity of persons require heightened ethical scrutiny. Reversibility becomes the core problem, not the easy answer, as augmented persons may not cooperate with either decommissioning or displacement into unaccommodating societies. We conclude by indicating how our four principles of self-creativity, nonobsolescence, empowerment, and citizenship establish a neuroethics beyond normal that is better prepared for a future in which humans and their societies are going so far beyond normal.

Neural regulation of immunity: molecular mechanisms and clinical translation

Studies bridging neuroscience and immunology have identified neural pathways that regulate immunity and inflammation. Recent research using methodological advances in molecular genetics has improved our understanding of the neural control of immunity. Here we outline mechanistic insights, focusing on translational relevance and conceptual developments. We also summarize findings from recent clinical studies of bioelectronic neuromodulation in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.

tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising technology to enhance cognitive and physical performance. One of the major areas of interest is the enhancement of memory function in healthy individuals. The early arrival of tDCS on the market for lifestyle uses and cognitive enhancement purposes lead to the voicing of some important ethical concerns, especially because, to date, there are no official guidelines or evaluation procedures to tackle these issues. The aim of this article is to review ethical issues related to uses of tDCS for memory enhancement found in the ethics and neuroscience literature and to evaluate how realistic and scientifically well-founded these concerns are? In order to evaluate how plausible or speculative each issue is, we applied the methodological framework described by Racine et al. (2014) for “informed and reflective” speculation in bioethics. This framework could be succinctly presented as requiring: (1) the explicit acknowledgment of factual assumptions and identification of the value attributed to them; (2) the validation of these assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) the adoption of a broad perspective to support more comprehensive reflection on normative issues. We identified four major considerations associated with the development of tDCS for memory enhancement: safety, autonomy, justice and authenticity. In order to assess the seriousness and likelihood of harm related to each of these concerns, we analyzed the assumptions underlying the ethical issues, and the level of evidence for each of them. We identified seven distinct assumptions: prevalence, social acceptance, efficacy, ideological stance (bioconservative vs. libertarian), potential for misuse, long term side effects, and the delivery of complete and clear information. We conclude that ethical discussion about memory enhancement via tDCS sometimes involves undue speculation, and closer attention to scientific and social facts would bring a more nuanced analysis. At this time, the most realistic concerns are related to safety and violation of users’ autonomy by a breach of informed consent, as potential immediate and long-term health risks to private users remain unknown or not well defined. Clear and complete information about these risks must be provided to research participants and consumers of tDCS products or related services. Broader public education initiatives and warnings would also be worthwhile to reach those who are constructing their own tDCS devices.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

Neural circuitry and immunity

Research during the last decade has significantly advanced our understanding of the molecular mechanisms at the interface between the nervous system and the immune system. Insight into bidirectional neuro-immune communication has characterized the nervous system as an important partner of the immune system in the regulation of inflammation. Neuronal pathways, including the vagus nerve-based inflammatory reflex, are physiological regulators of immune function and inflammation. In parallel, neuronal function is altered in conditions characterized by immune dysregulation and inflammation. Here, we review these regulatory mechanisms and describe the neural circuitry modulating immunity. Understanding these mechanisms reveals possibilities to use targeted neuromodulation as a therapeutic approach for inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. These findings and current clinical exploration of neuromodulation in the treatment of inflammatory diseases define the emerging field of Bioelectronic Medicine.

Neuroethics scope at a glance

The term neuroethics defines the bioethics field that deals with the dilemmas arising from the development of the neurosciences. Why are we so sensitive to ponder on neuroethics? Because it involves the brain, the organ responsible for our perceptions, our thoughts, and our conscience; and its knowledge and/or manipulation entail the most genuine and nontransferable aspects of the human being. Since 2002, neuroethics has been recognized as a new discipline that offers an area of consideration for neuroscientific knowledge and the actions regarding human beings as individuals, and the society as an organization. Within its framework, we can distinguish two branches: fundamental neuroethics and applied neuroethics. Neuroethics demands that we are on alert, and we offer the possibility of interdisciplinary exchange programs, encouraging society to participate, promoting the ethical opinions, and even working with anticipation on the dilemmas that are already emerging. Science does not stop, and its development has acquired such an accelerated pace that there has not been enough time to discuss its processes. We are convinced that neuroethics will be for the 21(st) century, what genetics was for the 20(th) century.

The Ethics of Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa

There is preliminary evidence, from case reports and investigational studies, to suggest that Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) could be used to treat some patients with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). Although this research is at an early stage, the invasive nature of the intervention and the vulnerability of the potential patients are such that anticipatory ethical analysis is warranted. In this paper, we first show how different treatment mechanisms raise different philosophical and ethical questions. We distinguish three potential mechanisms alluded to in the neuroscientific literature, relating to desire, control, and emotion, respectively. We explain why the precise nature of the mechanism has important implications for the patient's autonomy and personal identity. In the second part of the paper, we consider practical dimensions of offering DBS to patients with AN in certain cases. We first discuss some limited circumstances where the mere offering of the intervention might be perceived as exerting a degree of coercive pressure that could serve to undermine the validity of the patient's consent. Finally, we consider the implications of potential effects of DBS for the authenticity of the patient's choice to continue using stimulation to ameliorate their condition.

Neural Stimulation Has a Long-Term Effect on Foreign Vocabulary Acquisition

Acquisition of a foreign language is a challenging task that is becoming increasingly more important in the world nowadays. There is evidence suggesting that the frontal and temporal cortices are involved in language processing and comprehension, but it is still unknown whether foreign language acquisition recruits additional cortical areas in a causal manner. For the first time, we used transcranial random noise stimulation on the frontal and parietal brain areas, in order to compare its effect on the acquisition of unknown foreign words and a sham, or placebo, condition was also included. This type of noninvasive neural stimulation enhances cortical activity by boosting the spontaneous activity of neurons. Foreign vocabulary acquisition was tested both immediately and seven days after the stimulation. We found that stimulation on the posterior parietal, but not the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or sham stimulation, significantly improved the memory performance in the long term. These results suggest that the posterior parietal cortex is directly involved in acquisition of foreign vocabulary, thus extending the "linguistic network" to this area.

Stimulus statistics shape oscillations in nonlinear recurrent neural networks

Rhythmic activity plays a central role in neural computations and brain functions ranging from homeostasis to attention, as well as in neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. Despite this pervasiveness, little is known about the mechanisms whereby the frequency and power of oscillatory activity are modulated, and how they reflect the inputs received by neurons. Numerous studies have reported input-dependent fluctuations in peak frequency and power (as well as couplings across these features). However, it remains unresolved what mediates these spectral shifts among neural populations. Extending previous findings regarding stochastic nonlinear systems and experimental observations, we provide analytical insights regarding oscillatory responses of neural populations to stimulation from either endogenous or exogenous origins. Using a deceptively simple yet sparse and randomly connected network of neurons, we show how spiking inputs can reliably modulate the peak frequency and power expressed by synchronous neural populations without any changes in circuitry. Our results reveal that a generic, non-nonlinear and input-induced mechanism can robustly mediate these spectral fluctuations, and thus provide a framework in which inputs to the neurons bidirectionally regulate both the frequency and power expressed by synchronous populations. Theoretical and computational analysis of the ensuing spectral fluctuations was found to reflect the underlying dynamics of the input stimuli driving the neurons. Our results provide insights regarding a generic mechanism supporting spectral transitions observed across cortical networks and spanning multiple frequency bands.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in psychiatric disorders

The interest in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques is increasing in recent years. Among these techniques, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been the subject of great interest among researchers because of its easiness to use, low cost, benign profile of side effects and encouraging results of research in the field. This interest has generated several studies and randomized clinical trials, particularly in psychiatry. In this review, we provide a summary of the development of the technique and its mechanism of action as well as a review of the methodological aspects of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry, including studies in affective disorders, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, child psychiatry and substance use disorder. Finally, we provide an overview of tDCS use in cognitive enhancement as well as a discussion regarding its clinical use and regulatory and ethical issues. Although many promising results regarding tDCS efficacy were described, the total number of studies is still low, highlighting the need of further studies aiming to replicate these findings in larger samples as to provide a definite picture regarding tDCS efficacy in psychiatry.

Deep brain stimulation in persistent vegetative States: ethical issues governing decision making

The aim of the present paper was to investigate the fundamental ethical issues of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) on patients remaining in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). First, the purpose of this analysis was to discuss the nature of this intervention in order to classify it such as an ordinary clinical practice, or otherwise as an extraordinary clinical practice or as experimental research. Second, ethical issues, criticisms, and methodological issues of this intervention, also in the future perspectives, are discussed, attempting to identify who could give informed consent for a patient in PVS.