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...

Wexler and Specker Sullivan (2023) note that, “unbridled speculation can imperil the credibility of neuroethics, generate unrealistic expectations amongst different stakeholders, take up time that...

Invasive neurotechnologies are a frequent subject of discussion in neuroethics. Technologies, like deep brain stimulation and implantable brain-computer interfaces, are thought to hold significant promise for human health and well-being, but they also raise important ethical questions about autonomy, safety, stigma, privacy, and agency, among others. The terms ‘invasive’ and ‘invasiveness’ are commonly applied to these and other neurotechnologies, yet the concept of invasiveness itself is rarely defined or delimited. Some have suggested that invasiveness may have multiple meanings – physical, (...) emotional, or lifestyle – and that confusion about how people use the terms may lead to harm, especially for users of invasive devices. It is uncertain if debates in neuroethics contribute to this confusion. To investigate this, we conducted a study of how the term ‘invasiveness’ is used in neuroethics. We found that neuroethicists almost always use ‘invasiveness’ to refer to the physical features of interventions, and rarely to refer to other senses of invasiveness. We also found that referencing invasiveness does not determine which ethical issues are prioritized for a given type of neurotechnology. Overall, this study affirms the importance of understanding the meaning and use of the concept of invasiveness in ethical discussion of neurotechnology while also suggesting the need for further work in the area and consideration for rethinking what forms of technology we consider to be invasive. (shrink)

Background Chronic pain is a pervasive and invisible condition which affects people in a myriad of ways including but not limited to their quality of life, autonomy, mental and physical health, social mobility, and productivity. There are many ethical implications of neuroscience research on chronic pain, given its potential to reduce suffering and improve the lived experience of people in pain. While a growing body of research studies the etiology, neurophysiology, and management of chronic pain, it is unknown to what (...) degree neuroscience research in this area engages with relevant ethics concepts. Aim To explore the presence of ethics concepts in empirical chronic pain neuroscience literature to advance knowledge regarding the ethics of chronic pain management. Methods We conducted a hybrid bibliometric analysis and scoping review of chronic pain neuroscience articles published between 1999 and 2021 to identify the presence of ethics concepts. We selected articles from the top, middle, and bottom 20 neuroscience journals ranked by Impact Factor. We conducted a database search of Web of Science and a hand-search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included articles. Findings Our database search yielded 2779 results from which 46 articles met inclusion criteria. An additional 13 articles were hand-retrieved using PubMed and Google Scholar in accordance with the inclusion criteria, totaling 59 articles. We identified four main ethics themes in our analysis: 1) Quality of Life (n = 46), 2) Autonomy (n = 5), 3) Transparency (n = 4), and 4) Beneficence and Non-Maleficence (n = 4). Conclusion Most neuroscience papers do not include a discussion of ethics related to chronic pain conditions. Those that do tend to merely state rather than define or contextualize a particular ethics concept. Given the potential ethical implications of neuroscience research for people living with chronic pain, we argue that to maximize its public health benefit, neuroscience researchers should consider the ethical relevance of their work within their scientific publications. This may generate further ethical reflection within the field, to improve pain management. (shrink)

Wexler and Specker Sullivan (2023) reflect on the field of neuroethics by highlighting criticisms from both scholars within and outside the field. Among these criticisms, are claims that neuroethic...

Advances in brain–brain interface technologies raise the possibility that two or more individuals could directly link their minds, sharing thoughts, emotions, and sensory experiences. This paper explores conceptual and ethical issues posed by such mind-merging technologies in the context of clinical neuroethics. Using hypothetical examples along a spectrum from loosely connected pairs to fully merged minds, the authors sketch out a range of factors relevant to identifying the degree of a merger. They then consider potential new harms like loss of (...) identity, psychological domination, loss of mental privacy, and challenges for notions of autonomy and patient benefit when applied to merged minds. While radical technologies may seem to necessitate new ethical paradigms, the authors suggest the individual-focus underpinning clinical ethics can largely accommodate varying degrees of mind mergers so long as individual patient interests remain identifiable. However, advanced decisionmaking and directives may have limitations in addressing the dilemmas posed. Overall, mind-merging possibilities amplify existing challenges around loss of identity, relating to others, autonomy, privacy, and the delineation of patient interests. This paper lays the groundwork for developing resources to address the novel issues raised, while suggesting the technologies reveal continuity with current healthcare ethics tensions. (shrink)

Wexler and Specker (2023) offer a review of criticisms directed against what they describe as the relatively new field of neuroethics and offer as solution the development of a more “integrated, in...

Anna Wexler and Laura Specker Sullivan (2023) draw on their positionality as Global North early career neuroethics scholars to initiate a meaningful and timely conversation on Translational Neuroet...

In their valuable call-for-action article, Wexler and Specker Sullivan (2023) propose an integration–inclusion–impact axis for “translational neuroethics,” to face the challenges and criticisms tha...

In the paper “Translational Neuroethics: A Vision for a More Integrated, Inclusive, and Impactful Field,” Wexler and Sullivan provide an insightful analysis of challenges within the field and how t...

There is a growing recognition that the ongoing use of investigational neural implants requires continued access to clinical expertise and specialized healthcare (e.g., Hendriks et al., 2019). Howe...

Wexler and Sullivan (2023) recommend integration as a guiding principle for translational neuroethics. We agree that collaboration between neuroethicists and other professionals can advance the fie...

The momentum for global neuroscience that is geopolitically-free has never been greater, and neuroethics holds a unique place in this context both in its translational and transnational forms.In th...