Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 775–788 | Cite as

More Education, Less Administration: Reflections of Neuroimagers’ Attitudes to Ethics Through the Qualitative Looking Glass

  • A. A. Kehagia
  • K. Tairyan
  • C. Federico
  • G. H. Glover
  • J. Illes
Original Paper

Abstract

In follow-up to a large-scale ethics survey of neuroscientists whose research involves neuroimaging, brain stimulation and imaging genetics, we conducted focus groups and interviews to explore their sense of responsibility about integrating ethics into neuroimaging and readiness to adopt new ethics strategies as part of their research. Safety, trust and virtue were key motivators for incorporating ethics into neuroimaging research. Managing incidental findings emerged as a predominant daily challenge for faculty, while student reports focused on the malleability of neuroimaging data and scientific integrity. The most frequently cited barrier was time and administrative burden associated with the ethics review process. Lack of scholarly training in ethics also emerged as a major barrier. Participants constructively offered remedies to these challenges: development and dissemination of best practices and standardized ethics review for minimally invasive neuroimaging protocols. Students in particular, urged changes to curricula to include early, focused training in ethics.

Keywords

Neuroimaging Neuroethics Ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Generously supported by National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Mental Health (NIH/NIMH) R01 #9R01MH84282, Canadian Health Institutes of Health Research (CIHR/INMHA) #CNE 85117, Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund (BCKDF) (JI, Principal Investigator). Judy Illes holds the Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beaulieu, A. (2002). Images are not the (only) truth: Brain mapping, visual knowledge, and iconoclasm. Science Technology Human Values, 27, 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley, E., Curry, L., & Devers, K. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conti, F., & Corbellini, G. (2008). Italian neuroscientists are ready to start the debate. Nature, 451, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deslauriers, C., Bell, E., Palmour, N., Pike, B., Doyon, J., & Racine, E. (2010). Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 49–66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Illes, J., Kirschen, M. P., Edwards, E., Stanford, L. R., Bandettini, P., Cho, M. K., et al. (2006). Ethics. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science, 311(5762), 783–784. doi: 10.1126/science.1124665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Illes, J., Kirschen, M. P., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2003). From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 205. doi: 10.1038/nn0303-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, J. B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., et al. (2010a). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69. doi: 10.1038/nrn2773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Illes, J., Tairyan, K., Federico, C. A., Tabet, A., & Glover, G. H. (2010b). Reducing barriers to ethics in neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00167.
  9. Lavazza, A., & De Caro, M. (2010). Not so fast. On some bold neuroscientific claims concerning human agency. Neuroethics, 3(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindquist, M. A., Meng Loh, J., Atlas, L. Y., & Wager, T. D. (2009). Modeling the hemodynamic response function in fMRI: Efficiency, bias and mis-modeling. Neuroimage, 45(1 Suppl), S187–S198. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lombera, S., Fine, A., Grunau, R. E., & Illes, J. (2010). Ethics in neuroscience graduate training programs: Views and models from Canada. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mack, N., et al. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International.Google Scholar
  14. Sahakian, B. J., & Morein-Zamir, S. (2009). Neuroscientists need neuroethics teaching. Science, 325, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Kehagia
    • 1
  • K. Tairyan
    • 1
  • C. Federico
    • 1
  • G. H. Glover
    • 2
  • J. Illes
    • 1
  1. 1.National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of MedicineThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Radiological Sciences Laboratory, Department of RadiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations