Fostering Neuroethics Integration with Neuroscience in the BRAIN Initiative: Comments on the NIH Neuroethics Roadmap

Translational Neuroethics: A Vision for a More Integrated, Inclusive, and Impactful Field

As early-career neuroethicists, we come to the field of neuroethics at a unique moment: we are well-situated to consider nearly two decades of neuroethics scholarship and identify challenges that have persisted across time. But we are also looking squarely ahead, embarking on the next generation of exciting and productive neuroethics scholarship. In this article, we both reflect backwards and turn our gaze forward. First, we highlight criticisms of neuroethics, both from scholars within the field and outside it, that have focused on speculation and lack of skepticism; the dearth of consideration of broader social issues such as justice and equality, both with regard to who speaks for neuroethics as a field and who benefits from its recommendations and findings; and the insufficient focus on the practical impact of our ethical work. Second, we embrace the concept of "translational neuroethics" to outline a vision for neuroethics that is integrated, inclusive, and impactful. Integration can help us identify more pertinent, real-world issues, and move away from speculation; inclusivity can help ensure that the questions we attend to are not merely relevant to a single subgroup but aim toward just distribution of benefits; and impact can help us think beyond guidelines and recommendations to focus on implementation. Our goal is for this call to action to help shape neuroethics into a discipline that develops rigorous research agendas through relationships with interdisciplinary partners, that is broadly inclusive and attends to issues beyond novel neurotechnologies, and that is devoted to the translation of scholarship into practice.

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

An XYZ-axis Matrix Approach for the Integration of Neuroscience and Neuroethics

The recent, unprecedented advancement in neuroscience has led to new discoveries about the human brain and its function. Yet at the same time, it has spurred novel ethical and regulatory issues, and the field of neuroethics has emerged as an interdisciplinary endeavor to address these issues. Across the globe, extensive efforts have been underway to achieve the integration of neuroscience and Neuroethics, with active engagement not only from academia but also from the government, the public, and industry. However, in some countries, integrating neuroscience and neuroethics has proved to be a particularly challenging task. For example, in South Korea, the government has primarily driven the integration effort, and only a small group of researchers is properly trained for conducting an interdisciplinary evaluation of ethical, legal, social, and cultural implications (ELSCI) of neurotechnology. On the basis of the last few years of experience pursuing a government-funded neuroethics project in South Korea, we developed a new operational framework to provide practical guidance on ELSCI research. This framework consists of the X, Y, and Z axes; the X-axis represents a target neurotechnology, the Y-axis represents different developmental stages of the technology, and the Z-axis represents ELSCI issues that may arise from the development and use of the neurotechnology. Here we also present a step-by-step workflow to apply this matrix framework, from organizing a panel for a target neurotechnology to facilitating stakeholder discussion through public hearings. This framework will enable meaningful integration of neuroscience and neuroethics to promote responsible innovation in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

Building a culture of responsible neurotech: Neuroethics as socio-technical challenges

Scientists around the globe are joining the race to achieve engineering feats to read, write, modulate, and interface with the human brain in a broadening continuum of invasive to non-invasive ways. The expansive implications of neurotechnology for our conception of health, mind, decision-making, and behavior has raised social and ethical considerations that are inextricable from neurotechnological progress. We propose "socio-technical" challenges as a framing to integrate neuroethics into the engineering process. Intentionally aligning societal and engineering goals within this framework offers a way to maximize the positive impact of next-generation neurotechnologies on society.

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses-a systematic review

Objective. The aim of this review was to systematically identify the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses.Approach. A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Embase using a search string that combined synonyms for visual neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), cochlear implants (CIs), and ethics. We chose to include literature on BCIs and CIs, because of their ethically relavant similarities and functional parallels with visual neuroprostheses.Main results. We included 84 articles in total. Six focused specifically on visual prostheses. The other articles focused more broadly on neurotechnologies, on BCIs or CIs. We identified 169 ethical implications that have been categorized under seven main themes: (a) benefits for health and well-being; (b) harm and risk; (c) autonomy; (d) societal effects; (e) clinical research; (f) regulation and governance; and (g) involvement of experts, patients and the public.Significance. The development and clinical use of visual neuroprostheses is accompanied by ethical issues that should be considered early in the technological development process. Though there is ample literature on the ethical implications of other types of neuroprostheses, such as motor neuroprostheses and CIs, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses. Our findings can serve as a starting point for further research and normative analysis.

Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists

BACKGROUND: Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications. CONCLUSION: More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.

National Institutes of Mental Health Data Archive: Privacy, Consent, and Diversity Considerations and Options for Improvement

Data sharing is essential to further advance the field of neuropsychiatry. However, it raises significant ethical issues in the domains of privacy, consent, and diversity. We begin by considering the sensitive nature of much neuropsychiatric data. Next, we review relevant policies of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), a prominent funder in this field. Because data sharing in neuropsychiatry is in its infancy and rapidly evolving, the NIMH policies serve as a helpful starting point for examining ethical considerations related to the collection and distribution of neuropsychiatric data. However, we find gaps in their guidance in each of the three key ethical domains. Finally, we illustrate how examination of lessons and strategies from other contexts where sustained attention has already been given to these ethical issues may add value by suggesting specific opportunities for improvement. In particular, we highlight approaches including a three-tiered data access scheme, use of technology to enhance the data sharing component of the informed consent process, and evidence-based, targeted recruitment of underrepresented populations to support diverse data resources. Assessment of current policy and potentially helpful innovations in other fields is a necessary step in moving the field forward in an ethically responsible manner.

Neuroethics in the Shadow of a Pandemic

Neuroethics under the BRAIN Initiative has been focused upon both the neuroethical implications of basic advances in neuroscience, as well as the ethics attending the development of ever more powerful tools to both understand the brain and treat dysfunction. It has focused on health and disease in the context of the pre-pandemic status quo, essentially divorced from issues like infectious disease and large-scale disruption of social and economic structures. The questions animating the neuroethics of the BRAIN Initiative, on first glance, seemingly fail to intersect with the primary concerns of a post-Covid world, but careful consideration shows that they of course do. After all, the brain's job is to model and respond to the pressures of our environment, and the environment of virtually all of humanity has changed in a dramatic way, unprecedented since the rise of modern neuroscience. Here we consider ways in which neuroethics work aligned with the BRAIN Initiative can inform our response to the Covid crisis, as well as ways in which the pandemic may shape future work in neuroethics. In particular we focus on neuroethics work on agency.