The BRAIN Initiative and Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society

Genetic enhancement from the perspective of transhumanism: exploring a new paradigm of transhuman evolution

Transhumanism is a movement that advocates for the enhancement of human capabilities through the use of advanced technologies such as genetic enhancement. This article explores the definition, history, and development of transhumanism. Then, it compares the stance on genetic enhancement from the perspectives of bio-conservatism, bio-liberalism, and transhumanism. This article posits that transhuman evolution has twofold implications, allowing for the integration of transhumanist research and evolutionary biology. First, it offers a compelling scientific framework for understanding genetic enhancement, avoiding technological progressivism, and incorporating concepts of evolutionary biology. Second, it represents a new evolutionary paradigm distinct from traditional Lamarckism and Darwinism. It marks the third synthesis of evolutionary biology, offering fresh perspectives on established concepts such as artificial selection and gene-culture co-evolution. In recent decades, human enhancement has captivated not only evolutionary biologists, neurobiologists, psychologists, and philosophers, but also those in fields such as cybernetics and artificial intelligence. In addition to genetic enhancement, other human enhancement technologies, including brain-computer interfaces and brain uploading, are currently under development, which the paradigm of transhuman evolution can better integrate into its framework.

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.

The Brain Research Hotspot Database (BRHD): A Panoramic Database of the Latest Hotspots in Brain Research

Brain science, an emerging, dynamic, multidisciplinary basic research field, is generating numerous valuable data. However, there are still several obstacles for the utilization of these data, such as data fragmentation, heterogeneity, availability, and annotation divergence. Thus, to overcome these obstacles and construct an online community, we developed a panoramic database named Brain Research Hotspot Database (BRHD). As of 30 January 2022, the database had been integrated with standardized vocabularies from various resources, including 423,681 papers, 46,344 patents, 9585 transcriptomic datasets, 261 cell markers, as well as with information regarding brain initiatives that were officially launched and well-known scholars in brain research. Based on the keywords entered by users and the search options they set, data can be accessed and retrieved through exact and fuzzy search scenarios. In addition, for brain diseases, we developed three featured functions based on deep data mining: (1) a brain disease–genome network, which collects the associations between common brain diseases, genes, and mutations reported in the literature; (2) brain and gut microbiome associations, based on the literature related to this topic, with added annotations for reference; (3) 3D brain structure, containing a high-precision brain anatomy model with visual links to quickly connect to an organ-on-a-chip database. In short, the BRHD integrates data from a variety of brain science resources to provide a friendly user interface and freely accessible viewing and downloading environment. Furthermore, the original functions developed based on these data provide references and insights for brain research.

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.