Today, nearly two years after Wexler and Sullivan’s (2023) article was first published, the crucial questions discussed therein are all the more pertinent and troubling. The advent of novel interve...

Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) technology is a promising research area in many domains. Brain activity can be interpreted through both invasive and non-invasive monitoring devices, allowing for novel, therapeutic solutions for individuals with disabilities and for other non-medical applications. However, a number of ethical issues have been identified from the use of BCI technology. In this paper, we review the academic discussion of the ethical implications of BCI technology in the last five years. We conclude that some emerging applications of BCI (...) technology—including commercial ventures that seek to meld human intelligence with AI—present new and unique ethical concerns. Further, we seek to understand how academic literature on the topic of BCIs addresses these novel concerns. Similar to prior work, we use a limited sample to identify trends and areas of concern or debate among researchers and ethicists. From our analysis, we identify two key areas of BCI ethics that warrant further research: the physical and psychological effects of BCI technology. Additionally, questions of BCI policy have not yet become a frequent point of discussion in the relevant literature on BCI ethics, and we argue this should be addressed in future work. We provide guiding questions that will help ethicists and policy makers grapple with the most important issues associated with BCI technology. (shrink)

Alongside the rapid global advances in neuroscientific research, neuroethics has been one of the fastest growing sub-fields within bioethics. With this rapid expansion, bioethicists struggle to kee...

As the new Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of the AJOB Neuroscience, I am aware that I have some very large shoes to fill. Paul Root Wolpe, who established the quality of the journal and served in that posit...

Dubljević et al. (2022) argue that neuroethics has a socio-political role that can “(1) serve to clarify and resolve conflicts, (2) orient the public with regards to the moral status of neurotechno...

The brain requires sustained interaction with a rich physical and social environment to stay healthy. Individuals without access to such enabling environments and who instead live and grow in disabling environments tend to have greater risk of developing dementia. But research and policymaking as regards dementia risk reduction have so far focused almost exclusively on the role of how individuals’ health behaviors change their risk profile. This exclusive focus on “lifestyle” is both ethically problematic and therapeutically inadequate. I highlight a (...) growing literature on three different kinds of deprivation, an independent and overlooked risk factor for dementia that invites upstream action against inequalities. Future prevention guidelines should include explicit mention of deprivation as a risk factor and be developed around the need to make society fairer. Meanwhile, interventions and discourse based on lifestyle modification should respect the principle of “no ought without support.”. (shrink)

Dubljević and company’s proposed approach for incorporating a socio-political perspective into neuroethics has clear potential to help mitigate the effects of research ‘hype’ relating to neuroethics. Their approach serves as a social regulation meant to improve the realizability of neuroethics research. Drawing on Dubljević et al. s suggestion, we consider how incorporating a socio-political perspective in other scientific disciplines could help the scientific community as a whole move beyond the infamous ‘reproducibility crisis’ in science. The reproducibility crisis is a concern (...) in science stemming from the revelation that most scientific results are difficult, or impossible, to replicate (Frias-Navarro et al., 2020). By applying the four principles proposed by Dubljević et al., the scientific community can avoid many of the pitfalls that have led to the reproducibility crisis, such as the file drawer effect, a publication bias preventing negative results from being published, or the publish-or-perish culture - the pressure for scientists to publish highly influential papers in high impact journals in order to keep their funding (Rosenthal, 1979; Begley & Ioannidis, 2015). As such, we argue that, in its final form, this socio-political framework begs for true open science, wherein systematically sharing data would enable enlightened policymaking by showing a picture closer to the ground-level realities of scientific research. (shrink)

Buchbinder and colleagues (2024) propose a conceptual distinction between moral stress, moral distress, and moral injury that is warranted given theoretical gaps regarding overstressed systems. The...

In the article “The Socio-Political Roles of Neuroethics and the Case of Klotho,” we proposed a socio-political approach to neuroethics, inspired by John Rawls’s roles for political philosophy. In...

Navigating the demands of translational research requires not only addressing scientific issues, but also managing conflicting sociopolitical, cultural, psychosocial, epistemic, and ethical relationships across diverse communities and academic disciplines. Data and analysis of intensive interviews on these phenomena with researchers are presented here, which led to the co-design of a larger, ongoing study in a neuropsychiatric research community. The results generated a set of hypotheses—particularly regarding conflicts and challenges at the neuroscience-neuroethics interface as experienced by neuroscientists—which have not been fully (...) articulated or examined in the neuroethics literature. Results suggest that knowledge system-level dynamics which limit reflexive engagement with the emotional-intellectual challenges of interdisciplinary work pose barriers to neuroethics-neuroscience integration. This article describes the data and methods which provide the foundation for a qualitative metascience model designed in response to these psychosocial and sociocultural challenges. The goal of qualitative metascience is to cultivate healthier and more translationally impactful neuroscience-neuroethics research ecosystems. (shrink)

The continental tradition in ethics and philosophy of technology provides a useful differentiation between “system” and “lifeworld” imperatives (Ihde 1990). Behaviors toward system components admit...