Neurogenethics: An emerging discipline at the intersection of ethics, neuroscience, and genomics

DREADDs in Epilepsy Research: Network-Based Review

Epilepsy can be interpreted as altered brain rhythms from overexcitation or insufficient inhibition. Chemogenetic tools have revolutionized neuroscience research because they allow "on demand" excitation or inhibition of neurons with high cellular specificity. Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) are the most frequently used chemogenetic techniques in epilepsy research. These engineered muscarinic receptors allow researchers to excite or inhibit targeted neurons with exogenous ligands. As a result, DREADDs have been applied to investigate the underlying cellular and network mechanisms of epilepsy. Here, we review the existing literature that has applied DREADDs to understand the pathophysiology of epilepsy. The aim of this review is to provide a general introduction to DREADDs with a focus on summarizing the current main findings in experimental epilepsy research using these techniques. Furthermore, we explore how DREADDs may be applied therapeutically as highly innovative treatments for epilepsy.

Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?

Background: A growing literature has raised-skeptically-the question of whether cutting-edge scientific research can identify and address broader ethical and policy considerations in real time. In genomics, the question is: Can ELSI contribute to genomics in real time, or will it be relegated to its historical role of after-the-fact outsider critique? We address this question against the background of a genomic screening project where we participated as embedded, real-time ELSI researchers and observers, from its initial design through its conclusion.Methods: As part of the ELSI study design, the project included an ongoing reflexive ethnography in which the authors studied the process of its design and implementation. The authors were true participant observers, serving as members of various task-oriented groups while recording meetings and other events for ongoing qualitative analysis. We also conducted and analyzed interviews of multiple participants at the conclusion of the project.Results: Our real-time ELSI initiative had a mixed record of successes and challenges. If we define success as ELSI researchers having had an opportunity to participate fully in the project and to make the ELSI perspective heard, then our assessment is largely positive. If, however, we define successes as instances where real-time ELSI contributions changed the direction of the genomic or public health aspects of the GeneScreen project or, after careful deliberation, confirmed the appropriateness of the status quo, then we can identify only a few examples. While we had a seat at the table, we were, for the most part, tolerated guests.Conclusions: We conclude that there are significant barriers to real-time ELSI influence. The difficulty does not reside in any intended exclusion of an ELSI perspective, but in factors endemic to genomic research, including knowledge disparities, epistemological biases, and the pressures of time and money.

Ethical and Scientific Pitfalls Concerning Laboratory Research with Non-Human Primates, and Possible Solutions

Basic and applied laboratory research, whenever intrusive or invasive, presents substantial ethical challenges for ethical committees, be it with human beings or with non-human animals. In this paper we discuss the use of non-human primates (NHPs), mostly as animal models, in laboratory based research. We examine the two ethical frameworks that support current legislation and guidelines: deontology and utilitarianism. While human based research is regulated under deontological principles, guidelines for laboratory animal research rely on utilitarianism. We argue that the utilitarian framework is inadequate for this purpose: on the one hand, it is almost impossible to accurately predict the benefits of a study for all potential stakeholders; and on the other hand, harm inflicted on NHPs (and other animals) used in laboratory research is extensive despite the increasing efforts of ethics committees and the research community to address this. Although deontology and utilitarianism are both valid ethical frameworks, we advocate that a deontological approach is more suitable, since we arguably have moral duties to NHPs. We provide suggestions on how to ensure that research currently conducted in laboratory settings shifts towards approaches that abide by deontological principles. We assert that this would not impede reasonable scientific research.