Racial Injustice and Neuroethics: Time for Action

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.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Substance Use Disorders? An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Perspectives of People Currently in Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Although previous studies have discussed the promise of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a possible treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) and collected researcher perspectives on possible ethical issues surrounding it, none have consulted people with SUDs themselves. We addressed this gap by interviewing people with SUDs.

METHODS

Participants viewed a short video introducing DBS, followed by a 1.5-hour semistructured interview on their experiences with SUDs and their perspective on DBS as a possible treatment option. Interviews were analyzed by multiple coders who iteratively identified salient themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 people in 12-step-based, inpatient treatment programs (10 [50%] White/Caucasian, 7 Black/African American [35%], 2 Asian [10%], 1 Hispanic/Latino [5%], and 1 [5%] Alaska Native/American Indian; 9 women [45%], 11 men [55%]). Interviewees described a variety of barriers they currently faced through the course of their disease that mirrored barriers often associated with DBS (stigma, invasiveness, maintenance burdens, privacy risks) and thus made them more open to the possibility of DBS as a future treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with SUDs gave relatively less weight to surgical risks and clinical burdens associated with DBS than previous surveys of provider attitudes anticipated. These differences derived largely from their experiences living with an often-fatal disease and encountering limitations of current treatment options. These findings support the study of DBS as a treatment option for SUDs, with extensive input from people with SUDs and advocates.

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.

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.