Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics

Mental integrity, autonomy, and fundamental interests

Many technology ethicists hold that the time has come to articulate neurorights: our normative claims vis-à-vis our brains and minds. One such claim is the right to mental integrity ('MI'). I begin by considering some paradigmatic threats to MI (§1) and how the dominant autonomy-based conception ('ABC') of MI attempts to make sense of them (§2). I next consider the objection that the ABC is overbroad in its understanding of what threatens MI and suggest a friendly revision to the ABC that addresses the objection (§3). I then consider a second objection: that the ABC cannot make sense of the MI of the non-autonomous This objection appears fatal even to the revised ABC (§4). On that basis, I develop an alternative conception on which MI is grounded in a plurality of simpler capacities, namely, those for affect, cognition, and volition Each of these more basic capacities grounds a set of fundamental interests, and they are for that reason worthy of protection even when they do not rise to the level of complexity necessary for autonomy (§5). This yields a fully general theory of MI that accounts for its manifestations in both the autonomous and the non-autonomous.

The Role of Exceptionalism in the Evolution of Bioethical Regulation

The paper aims to present a critical analysis of the phenomenon and notion of exceptionalism in bioethics. The authors demonstrate that exceptionalism pertains to phenomena that are not (yet) entirely familiar to us and could potentially bear risks regarding their regulation. After an overview of the state of the art, we briefly describe the origins and evolution of the concept, compared to exception and exclusion. In the second step, they look at the overall development debates on genetic exceptionalism, compared to other bioethical debates on exceptionalism, before presenting a detailed analysis of a specific case of early regulation of genetic screening. In the last part, the authors explain the historical background behind the connection between exceptionalism and exclusion in these debates. Their main conclusion is that while the initial stage of the discussion is shaped by the concept of exceptionalism and awareness of risks of exclusion, the later development centers around exceptions that are needed in detailed regulatory procedures.

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research.

RESULTS

A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data.

DISCUSSION

We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

AI ethics in computational psychiatry: From the neuroscience of consciousness to the ethics of consciousness

Methods used in artificial intelligence (AI) overlap with methods used in computational psychiatry (CP). Hence, considerations from AI ethics are also relevant to ethical discussions of CP. Ethical issues include, among others, fairness and data ownership and protection. Apart from this, morally relevant issues also include potential transformative effects of applications of AI-for instance, with respect to how we conceive of autonomy and privacy. Similarly, successful applications of CP may have transformative effects on how we categorise and classify mental disorders and mental health. Since many mental disorders go along with disturbed conscious experiences, it is desirable that successful applications of CP improve our understanding of disorders involving disruptions in conscious experience. Here, we discuss prospects and pitfalls of transformative effects that CP may have on our understanding of mental disorders. In particular, we examine the concern that even successful applications of CP may fail to take all aspects of disordered conscious experiences into account.

A marathon, not a sprint - neuroimaging, Open Science and ethics

Open Science is calling for a radical re-thinking of existing scientific practices. Within the neuroimaging community, Open Science practices are taking the form of open data repositories and open lab notebooks. The broad sharing of data that accompanies Open Science, however, raises some difficult ethical and legal issues. With neuroethics as a focusing lens, we explore eight central concerns posed by open data with regard to human brain imaging studies: respect for individuals and communities, concern for marginalized communities, consent, privacy protections, participatory research designs, contextual integrity, fusions of clinical and research goals, and incidental findings. Each consideration assists in bringing nuance to the potential benefits for open data sharing against associated challenges. We combine current understandings with forward-looking solutions to key issues. We conclude by underscoring the need for new policy tools to enhance the potential for responsible open data.

Neuroethics Inside and Out: A Comparative Survey of Neural Device Industry Representatives and the General Public on Ethical Issues and Principles in Neurotechnology

Neurotechnologies are rapidly being developed with the aim of alleviating suffering caused by disease and assisting individuals with various disabilities. As the capabilities and applications of neural devices advance, potential ethical challenges related to agency, identity, privacy, equality, normality and justice have been noted. We sought to explore attitudes toward these ethical challenges in two important, but understudied groups of stakeholders-members of the neural device industry and members of the general public. Survey responses from 66 industry professionals and 1088 members of the general public who do not work with neural devices were collected. After controlling for demographic differences between the groups (industry vs. general public; age, gender, racial/ethnic background), we found a large degree of consistency between the groups in their attitudes toward the ethical topic areas and the need for guiding ethical principles, but also some differences related to privacy, consent, and confidence in the neural device industry to incorporate ethical concerns into the design process. These data have implications for industry professionals tasked with designing and disseminating new neural devices, end-users of their products, and stakeholders at each step in between who must navigate the rapidly-growing landscape of advances in neurotechnology.

[From the Ethics of AI to the Ethics of Consciousness: Ethical Aspects of Computational Psychiatry]

OBJECTIVE

Identifying ethical problems arising from AI research and Computational Psychiatry for psychiatric research and practice.

METHODS

Conceptual analysis and discussion of ethically relevant projects within Computational Psychiatry.

RESULTS

Computational Psychiatry promises a contribution to improving diagnostics and therapy (prediction). Ethical problems include dealing with data protection, consequences for our self-image, as well as the risk of biologization and the neglect of conscious experience.

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to consider possible applications of AI and Computational Psychiatry now in order to create the conditions for responsible use in the future. This requires a basic understanding of how AI applications work and of the associated ethical problems.

Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing in Deep Brain Stimulation

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research.

Ethical issues in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations

Neuroimaging genetics is a rapidly developing field that combines neuropsychiatric genetics studies with imaging modalities to investigate how genetic variation influences brain structure and function. As both genetic and imaging technologies improve further, their combined power may hold translational potential in terms of improving psychiatric nosology, diagnosis, and treatment. While neuroimaging genetics studies offer a number of scientific advantages, they also face challenges. In response to some of these challenges, global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have been created to pool and compare brain data and replicate study findings. Attention has been paid to ethical issues in genetics, neuroimaging, and multi-site collaborative research, respectively, but there have been few substantive discussions of the ethical issues generated by the confluence of these areas in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations. Our discussion focuses on two areas: benefits and risks of global neuroimaging genetics collaborations and the potential impact of neuroimaging genetics research findings in low- and middle-income countries. Global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have the potential to enhance relations between countries and address global mental health challenges, however there are risks regarding inequity, exploitation and data sharing. Moreover, neuroimaging genetics research in low- and middle-income countries must address the issue of feedback of findings and the risk of essentializing and stigmatizing interpretations of mental disorders. We conclude by examining how the notion of solidarity, informed by an African Ethics framework, may justify some of the suggestions made in our discussion.

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions

Common understandings of neuroethics, that is, of its distinctive nature, are premised on two distinct sets of claims: (1) neuroscience can change views about the nature of ethics itself and neuroethics is dedicated to reaping such an understanding of ethics, and (2) neuroscience poses challenges distinct from other areas of medicine and science and neuroethics tackles those issues. Critiques have rightfully challenged both claims, stressing how the first may lead to problematic forms of reductionism whereas the second relies on debatable assumptions about the nature of bioethics specialization and development. Informed by philosophical pragmatism and our experience in neuroethics, we argue that these claims are ill founded and should give way to pragmatist reconstructions; namely, that neuroscience, much like other areas of empirical research on morality, can provide useful information about the nature of morally problematic situations, but does not need to promise radical and sweeping changes to ethics based on neuroscientism. Furthermore, the rationale for the development of neuroethics as a specialized field need not to be premised on the distinctive nature of the issues it tackles or of neurotechnologies. Rather, it can espouse an understanding of neuroethics as both a scholarly and a practical endeavor dedicated to resolving a series of problematic situations raised by neurological and psychiatric conditions.

Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy

Contemporary brain reading technologies promise to provide the possibility to decode and interpret mental states and processes. Brain reading could have numerous societally relevant implications. In particular, the private character of mind might be affected, generating ethical and legal concerns. This paper aims at equipping ethicists and policy makers with conceptual tools to support an evaluation of the potential applicability and the implications of current and near future brain reading technology. We start with clarifying the concepts of mind reading and brain reading, and the different kinds of mental states that could in principle be read. Subsequently, we devise an evaluative framework that is composed of five criteria-accuracy, reliability, informativity, concealability and enforceability-aimed at enabling a clearer estimation of the degree to which brain reading might be realistically deployed in contexts where mental privacy could be at stake. While accuracy and reliability capture how well a certain method can access mental content, informativity indicates the relevance the obtainable data have for practical purposes. Concealability and enforceability are particularly important for the evaluation of concerns about potential violations of mental privacy and civil rights. The former concerns the degree with which a brain reading method can be concealed from an individual's perception or awareness. The latter regards the extent to which a method can be used against somebody's will. With the help of these criteria, stakeholders can orient themselves in the rapidly developing field of brain reading.

Exploring Responsible Neuroimaging Innovation: Visions From a Societal Actor Perspective

Apart from the scientific unknowns and technological barriers that complicate the development of medical neuroimaging applications, various relevant actors might have different ideas on what is considered advancement or progress in this field. We address the challenge of identifying societal actors and their different points of view concerning neuroimaging technologies in an early phase of neuroimaging development. To this end, we conducted 16 semistructured interviews with societal actors, including governmental policy makers, health professionals, and patient representatives, in the Netherlands. We show how the contextual aspects of applications and underlying features of the ideal health system determine the desirability. Neuroimaging developments are perceived as innovations that will optimize the current health system or as opportunities to change existing structures and practices of the current health system more radically. Insights into and understanding of these visions show incongruence between visions regarding desirable medical neuroimaging use and potential conflicting visions regarding the embedding of neuroimaging applications. We conclude that it is possible to prospectively identify incongruent visions and analyze when these visions will most likely come into conflict with each other. Such an analysis might provide a reflective space, beyond personal and political interest, suitable as a starting point for joint reflection and mutual learning in order to manage medical neuroimaging innovations towards more responsible applications.

Neuroimaging: beginning to appreciate its complexities

For over a century, scientists have sought to see through the protective shield of the human skull and into the living brain. Today, an array of technologies allows researchers and clinicians to create astonishingly detailed images of our brain's structure as well as colorful depictions of the electrical and physiological changes that occur within it when we see, hear, think and feel. These technologies-and the images they generate-are an increasingly important tool in medicine and science. Given the role that neuroimaging technologies now play in biomedical research, both neuroscientists and nonexperts should aim to be as clear as possible about how neuroimages are made and what they can-and cannot-tell us. Add to this that neuroimages have begun to be used in courtrooms at both the determination of guilt and sentencing stages, that they are being employed by marketers to refine advertisements and develop new products, that they are being sold to consumers for the diagnosis of mental disorders and for the detection of lies, and that they are being employed in arguments about the nature (or absence) of powerful concepts like free will and personhood, and the need for citizens to have a basic understanding of how this technology works and what it can and cannot tell us becomes even more pressing.

The neuroethics and neurolaw of brain injury

Neuroethics and neurolaw are fields of study that involve the interface of neuroscience with clinical and legal decision-making. The past two decades have seen increasing attention being paid to both fields, in large part because of the advances in neuroimaging techniques and improved ability to visualize and measure brain structure and function. Traumatic brain injury (TBI), along with its acute and chronic sequelae, has emerged as a focus of neuroethical issues, such as informed consent for treatment and research, diagnostic and prognostic uncertainties, and the subjectivity of interpretation of data. The law has also more frequently considered TBI in criminal settings for exculpation, mitigation and sentencing purposes and in tort and administrative law for personal injury, disability and worker's compensation cases. This article provides an overview of these topics with an emphasis on the current challenges that the neuroscience of TBI faces in the medicolegal arena.

How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence

The prominence of neuroscience in the public sphere has escalated in recent years, provoking questions about how the public engages with neuroscientific ideas. Commentaries on neuroscience's role in society often present it as having revolutionary implications, fundamentally overturning established beliefs about personhood. The purpose of this article is to collate and review the extant empirical evidence on the influence of neuroscience on commonsense understandings of personhood. The article evaluates the scope of neuroscience's presence in public consciousness and examines the empirical evidence for three frequently encountered claims about neuroscience's societal influence: that neuroscience fosters a conception of the self that is based in biology, that neuroscience promotes conceptions of individual fate as predetermined, and that neuroscience attenuates the stigma attached to particular social categories. It concludes that many neuroscientific ideas have assimilated in ways that perpetuate rather than challenge existing modes of understanding self, others and society.

Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology

BACKGROUND

'Neuromarketing' is a term that has often been used in the media in recent years. These public discussions have generally centered around potential ethical aspects and the public fear of negative consequences for society in general, and consumers in particular. However, positive contributions to the scientific discourse from developing a biological model that tries to explain context-situated human behavior such as consumption have often been neglected. We argue for a differentiated terminology, naming commercial applications of neuroscientific methods 'neuromarketing' and scientific ones 'consumer neuroscience'. While marketing scholars have eagerly integrated neuroscientific evidence into their theoretical framework, neurology has only recently started to draw its attention to the results of consumer neuroscience.

DISCUSSION

In this paper we address key research topics of consumer neuroscience that we think are of interest for neurologists; namely the reward system, trust and ethical issues. We argue that there are overlapping research topics in neurology and consumer neuroscience where both sides can profit from collaboration. Further, neurologists joining the public discussion of ethical issues surrounding neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience could contribute standards and experience gained in clinical research.

SUMMARY

We identify the following areas where consumer neuroscience could contribute to the field of neurology:First, studies using game paradigms could help to gain further insights into the underlying pathophysiology of pathological gambling in Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal dementia, epilepsy, and Huntington's disease.Second, we identify compulsive buying as a common interest in neurology and consumer neuroscience. Paradigms commonly used in consumer neuroscience could be applied to patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and frontotemporal dementia to advance knowledge of this important behavioral symptom.Third, trust research in the medical context lacks empirical behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Neurologists entering this field of research could profit from the extensive knowledge of the biological foundation of trust that scientists in economically-orientated neurosciences have gained.Fourth, neurologists could contribute significantly to the ethical debate about invasive methods in neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. Further, neurologists should investigate biological and behavioral reactions of neurological patients to marketing and advertising measures, as they could show special consumer vulnerability and be subject to target marketing.

Emerging ethical challenges in advanced neuroimaging research: review, recommendations and research agenda

The dynamic and ever-evolving nature of neuroimaging research creates important ethical challenges. New domains of neuroscience research and improving technological capabilities in neuroimaging have expanded the scope of studies that probe the biology of the social and ethical brain, the range of eligible volunteers for research, and the extent of academic-industry relationships. Accordingly, challenges in informed consent and subject protection are surfacing. In this context, we provide an overview of the current landscape for neuroimaging and discuss specific research ethics topics arising from it. We suggest preliminary approaches to tackle current issues, and identify areas for further collaboration between neuroimagers and institutional review boards (research ethics committee).

Neuroscience, neuropolitics and neuroethics: the complex case of crime, deception and FMRI

Scientific developments take place in a socio-political context but scientists often ignore the ways their innovations will be both interpreted by the media and used by policy makers. In the rush to neuroscientific discovery important questions are overlooked, such as the ways: (1) the brain, environment and behavior are related; (2) biological changes are mediated by social organization; (3) institutional bias in the application of technical procedures ignores race, class and gender dimensions of society; (4) knowledge is used to the advantage of the powerful; and (5) its applications may reinforce existing structures of power that pose ethical questions about distributive justice. The case of crime, deception and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) shows the complexity, and the political and ethical challenges that confront those who seek to use neuroscience to explain the etiology of crime, and who base policy on its findings. An ethically grounded neuroscience needs to take account of existing structures of power and difference, and to develop a public neuropolitical consciousness that ensures that those subject to risk by the application of science and technology are participants in the decision-making processes involving the implementation of policies that affect them.

Untapped ethical resources for neurodegeneration research

BACKGROUND

The research community has a mandate to discover effective treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. The ethics landscape surrounding this mandate is in a constant state of flux, and ongoing challenges place ever greater demands on investigators to be accountable to the public and to answer questions about the implications of their work for health care, society, and policy.

METHODS

We surveyed US-based investigators involved in neurodegenerative diseases research about how they value ethics-related issues, what motivates them to give consideration to those issues, and the barriers to doing so. Using the NIH CRISP database we identified 1,034 researchers with relevant, active grants and invited them to complete an online questionnaire. We received 193 responses. We used exploratory factor analysis to transform individual survey questions into a smaller set of factors, and linear regression to understand the effect of key variables of interest on the factor scores.

RESULTS

Ethics-related issues clustered into two groups: research ethics and external influences. Heads of research groups viewed issues of research ethics to be more important than the other respondents. Concern about external influences was related to overall interest in ethics. Motivators clustered into five groups: ensuring public understanding, external forces, requirements, values, and press and public. Heads of research groups were more motivated to ensure public understanding of research than the other respondents. Barriers clustered into four groups: lack of resources, administrative burden, relevance to the research, and lack of interest. Perceived lack of ethics resources was a particular barrier for investigators working in drug discovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that senior level neuroscientists working in the field of neurodegeneration (ND), and drug discovery specifically, are motivated to consider ethics issues related to their work, but the perceived lack of ethics resources thwarts their efforts. With bioethics centres at more than 50% of the institutions at which these respondents reside, the neuroscience and bioethics communities appear to be disconnected. Dedicated ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) programs, such as those fully integrated into genetics and regenerative medicine, provide models for achieving meaningful partnerships not yet adequately realized for scholars and trainees interested in drug discovery for ND.

What are applied ethics?

This paper explores the relationships that various applied ethics bear to each other, both in particular disciplines and more generally. The introductory section lays out the challenge of coming up with such an account and, drawing a parallel with the philosophy of science, offers that applied ethics may either be unified or disunified. The second section develops one simple account through which applied ethics are unified, vis-à-vis ethical theory. However, this is not taken to be a satisfying answer, for reasons explained. In the third section, specific applied ethics are explored: biomedical ethics; business ethics; environmental ethics; and neuroethics. These are chosen not to be comprehensive, but rather for their traditions or other illustrative purposes. The final section draws together the results of the preceding analysis and defends a disunity conception of applied ethics.

Reducing barriers to ethics in neuroscience

Ethics is a growing interest for neuroscientists, but rather than signifying a commitment to the protection of human subjects, care of animals, and public understanding to which the professional community is engaged in a fundamental way, interest has been consumed by administrative overhead and the mission creep of institutional ethics reviews. Faculty, trainees, and staff (n = 605) in North America whose work involves brain imaging and brain stimulation completed an online survey about ethics in their research. Using factor analysis and linear regression, we found significant effects for invasiveness of imaging technique, professional position, gender, and local presence of bioethics centers. We propose strategies for improving communication between the neuroscience community and ethics review boards, collaborations between neuroscientists and biomedical ethicists, and ethics training in graduate neuroscience programs to revitalize mutual goals and interests.

Incidental neuroimaging findings in nonacute headache

We studied the frequency and consequences of incidental neuroimaging findings in 400 otherwise healthy, nonacute pediatric headache patients through a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. We excluded patients with currently recommended clinical criteria to consider diagnostic neuroimaging. We categorized neuroimaging results as normal, remarkable without clinical action, remarkable with clinical follow-up action, and abnormal. One hundred eighty-five of 400 patients (46%) had neuroimaging. Of these, 78.4% of neuroimaging studies were normal, and none was considered abnormal. Also, 21.5% had remarkable findings in the neuroradiology report. The frequency and types of all incidental findings were generally comparable to previous studies. One third of these patients received further consultation or neuroimaging because of incidental findings. In the evaluation of nonacute pediatric headache, overuse of neuroimaging leads to frequent discovery of incidental findings and increased testing. Individualized health care calls for physician-consumer discussions about current indications for neuroimaging, the general frequency of incidental findings, and potential difficulties in their interpretation.

[Neuroethics in clinical practice]

In recent years the ability of neuroscience to identify and intervene in mental functions has progressed immensely, which raises several anthropologic and ethical questions. Meanwhile neuroethics arose as a new interdisciplinary field for critical analysis of neuroscientific actions and ethical reflection on the increasing knowledge of the human brain, with regard to society and politics. This article provides a survey of neuroethical implications for clinical practice.

Perspectives on engaging the public in the ethics of emerging biotechnologies: from salmon to biobanks to neuroethics

In anticipation of increasing interest in public engagement, this article seeks to expand the current discussion in the neuroethics literature concerning what public engagement on issues related to neuroscience might entail and how they could be envisioned. It notes that the small amount of available neuroethics literature related to public engagement has principally discussed only communication/education or made calls for dialogue without exploring what this might entail on a practical level. The article links across three seemingly disparate examples-salmon, biobanks, and neuroethics-to consider and clarify the need for public engagement in neuroscience.

Brain imaging and brain privacy: a realistic concern?

Functional neuroimaging has been used to study a wide array of psychological traits, including aspects of personality and intelligence. Progress in identifying the neural correlates of individual differences in such traits, for the sake of basic science, has moved us closer to the applied science goal of measuring them and thereby raised ethical concerns about privacy. How realistic are such concerns given the current state of the art? In this article, we describe the statistical basis of the measurement of psychological traits using functional neuroimaging and examine the degree to which current functional neuroimaging protocols could be used for this purpose. By analyzing the published data from 16 studies, we demonstrate that the use of imaging to gather information about an individual's psychological traits is already possible, but to an extremely limited extent.

Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity

If personhood is the quality or condition of being an individual person, "brainhood" could name the quality or condition of being a brain. This ontological quality would define the "cerebral subject" that has, at least in industrialized and highly medicalized societies, gained numerous social inscriptions since the mid-20th century. This article explores the historical development of brainhood. It suggests that the brain is necessarily the location of the "modern self," and that, consequently, the cerebral subject is the anthropological figure inherent to modernity (at least insofar as modernity gives supreme value to the individual as autonomous agent of choice and initiative). It further argues that the ideology of brainhood impelled neuroscientific investigation much more than it resulted from it, and sketches how an expanding constellation of neurocultural discourses and practices embodies and sustains that ideology.

In the mind's eye: provider and patient attitudes on functional brain imaging

Success in functional neuroimaging has brought the promise of quantitative data in the form of brain images to the diagnosis of disorders of the central nervous system for which only qualitative clinical criteria have previously existed. Even though the translation of research to clinical neuroimaging for conditions such as major depression may not be available yet, rapid innovation along this trajectory of discovery to implementation compels exploration of how such information will eventually affect providers and patients. Clinical neuroethics is devoted to elucidating ethical challenges prior to and during the transfer of new research capabilities to the bedside. Through a model of proactive ethics, clinical neuroethics promotes the development of responsible social and public policies in response to new diagnostic and prognostic capabilities for the benefit of patients and their families, and for providers within the health care systems in which they practice. To examine views about the potential interaction of clinical neuroimaging and depression, we surveyed both mental health providers and outpatients and inpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. From responses of 52 providers and 72 patients, we found high receptivity to brain scans for treatment tailoring and choice, for improving understanding of and coping with disease, and for mitigating the effects of stigma and self-blame. Our results suggest that, once ready, roll out of the fully validated technology has significant potential to reduce social burden associated with highly stigmatized illnesses like depression.

Neuroimaging-use trends in nonacute pediatric headache before and after clinical practice parameters

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine trends in diagnostic neuroimaging-use rates in nonacute pediatric headache before and after publication of clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted of neuroimaging rates for 725 children and adolescents who were aged 3 to 18 years with nonacute headache and normal neurologic examination and were evaluated in a single pediatric neurology clinic during study years 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. Following recommendations of current practice parameters, patients with conditions that justify consideration for neuroimaging (eg, progressive headache, abnormal neurologic examination) were excluded from this analysis. We recorded the origin of any neuroimaging request at the time of the clinic visit and any abnormal neuroimaging findings that led to major clinical consequences.

RESULTS

Overall, the mean rate of neuroimaging for patients with nonacute headache was 45%. Use rates remained steady during the 13-year study period (range: 41%-47%). The majority of neuroimaging studies were ordered originally by primary care providers. The proportion of neuroimaging studies that were ordered by primary care providers increased significantly from 1992 to 2004.

CONCLUSIONS

In the evaluation of patients who had nonacute pediatric headache and were referred to a child neurology clinic, neuroimaging-use rates remained stable during the past decade. An increasing proportion of neuroimaging studies are ordered by primary care providers. The influence of evidence-based medicine on medical decision-making may be partly responsible for curbing increases in neuroimaging overuse. The perceived value of neuroimaging by physicians and consumers deserves ongoing study.

Imaging and imagining: current positions on the epistemic priority of theoretical concepts and data in psychiatric neuroimaging

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give an overview of recent developments in neuroimaging in psychiatry and on the current discussion about the relationship between theoretical concepts and data from neuroimaging studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

In psychiatric neuroimaging, broad concepts such as the self, well being, insight, empathy and volition form an integral part of the questions to be answered and cannot be avoided. Although, currently, the intradisciplinary discussion in neuroscience is mainly focused at the methodological and neurobiological level, psychological and philosophical theories are also needed for the interpretation of results. This raises questions regarding the epistemic priority of neuroimaging data and theories.

SUMMARY

In the current paper, we present the hypothesis that there is an interdependence of neuroimaging data and theoretical concepts. An approach to 'correlational neuroscience' with an awareness of this issue may help in avoiding misunderstandings and oversimplifications as well as building an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that is able to integrate findings from life sciences, mind sciences and humanities.

Neuroethics and neuroimaging: moving toward transparency

Without exaggeration, it could be said that we are entering a golden age of neuroscience. Informed by recent developments in neuroimaging that allow us to peer into the working brain at both a structural and functional level, neuroscientists are beginning to untangle mechanisms of recovery after brain injury and grapple with age-old questions about brain and mind and their correlates neural mechanisms and consciousness. Neuroimaging, coupled with new diagnostic categories and assessment scales are helping us develop a new diagnostic nosology about disorders of consciousness which will likely improve prognostication and suggest therapeutic advances. Historically such diagnostic refinement has yield therapeutic advances in medicine and there is no reason to doubt that this will be the case for disorders of consciousness, perhaps bringing relief to a marginalized population now on the periphery of the therapeutic agenda. In spite of this promise, the translation of research findings into the clinical context will be difficult. As we move from descriptive categories about disorders of consciousness, like the vegetative or minimally conscious states, to ones further specified by integrating behavioral and neuroimaging findings, humility not hubris should be the virtue that guides the ethical conduct of research and practice.

Detecting concealed information using brain-imaging technology

Many conventional techniques for revealing concealed information have focused on detecting whether a person is responding truthfully to specific questions, typically using some form of lie detector. However, lie detection has faced a number of criticisms and it is still unclear to what degree conventional lie detectors can be used to reveal concealed knowledge in applied real-world settings. Here, we review the key problems with conventional lie-detection technology and critically discuss the potential of novel techniques that aim to directly read concealed mental states out of patterns of brain activity.