The success of the Human Genome Project has prompted interest in advancing the nascent field of exposomics. The exposome, which is dynamic and variable and changes over time, consists of all the internal and external exposures an individual has over a lifetime beginning with the prenatal period and early childhood. Efforts are underway to decipher the human epigenome by identifying the effects of all deleterious environmental exposures according to duration of exposure and time period. In this article, we argue that (...) the deciphering of the human exposome should be accompanied by sustained efforts to address the ethical, social and legal implications (ELSI) of exposomics. This will require financial investments from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the European Union and other public and private funding agencies, analogous to support provided by NIH to address ELSI issues in genomics. (shrink)

Much neuroethics literature concludes with a set of normative recommendations. While these recommendations can be a helpful way of summarizing a proposal for a future direction, some have recently argued that ethics scholarship has devoted insufficient attention to considerations of audience and real-world applications. To date, however, while scholars have conducted topic analyses of neuroethics literature, to our knowledge no study has evaluated who neuroethics scholarship addresses and what it recommends. The objective of the present study therefore was to provide (...) a preliminary characterization of recommendations offered in neuroethics scholarship and an assessment of their target audiences. Rather than attempting to demarcate what constitutes “neuroethics scholarship,” we analyzed text that authors’ had self-identified as being neuroethics-related: abstracts presented at the International Neuroethics Society (INS) annual meetings and published as top abstracts in AJOB Neuroscience in the last decade (2011–2020). We found that a majority of abstracts utilized conceptual methods (62.2%) and provided conceptual recommendations (68%). Roughly 77% of all abstracts did not explicitly address a target audience, yet nearly all of these were implicitly directed at other scholars. The remainder specified a target audience of scholars (12.2%), regulators (6.7%), healthcare providers (6.7%) and industry (2.6%). Only a subset of abstracts provided practical or policy recommendations (19.7%). Of those, the majority (61.5%) did not specify a target audience. Among the subset with actionable recommendations, a clarification of target audience may help increase the impact. (shrink)