Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 343–351 | Cite as

Ethics in Neuroscience Curricula: A Survey of Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, and the US

  • Gerald Walther
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper analyses ethical training in neuroscience curricula at universities in Australia, Canada, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. The main findings are that 52 % of all courses have ethical training available, while in 82 % of those cases, the training is mandatory. In terms of specific contents of the teaching, ethical issues about ‘animal subjects and human participation in research’, ‘scientific misconduct’, and ‘treatment of data’ were the most prominent. A special emphasis during the research was placed on the prevalence of dual-use bioethics. In total, only 3 % of all courses mention it in any of their modules. One of the major findings of the survey was the trend towards ‘mainstreaming’ ethics education particularly in the UK, which is to disperse ethics among the various modules within the education instead of relying on a single ethics module. The paper discusses the utility of this approach for science education as well as describes the overall difficulties that course coordinators face when trying to teach ethics based on the responses to the qualitative part to the survey.

Keywords

Education Ethics Survey Neuroscience Dual-use Universities 

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations. 2008. Report of the meeting of state parties [online]. BWC/MSP/2008/5, 12 December, Geneva: United Nations. http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/%28httpPages%29/008056527905C32EC125755A004B2B1B?OpenDocument. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  2. 2.
    Enserink, M. 2011. Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies. ScienceInsider, 23 November 2011. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists-brace-for-media-storm.html. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  3. 3.
    US National Research Council, Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological, and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades. 2008. Emerging cognitive neuroscience and related technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Royal Society. 2012. Brain waves module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Illes, J., and B.J. Sahakian. 2011. The oxford handbook of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morein-Zamir, S., and B.J. Sahakian. 2010. Neuroethics and public engagement training needed for neuroscientists. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(2): 49–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sahakian, B.J., and S. Morein-Zamir. 2009. Neuroscientists need neuroethics training. Science 325: 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lombera, S., A. Fine, R.E. Grunau, and J. Illes. 2010. Ethics in neuroscience graduate training programs: views and models from Canada. Mind, Brain, and Education 4(1): 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Russell, J. 2006. Breaking into the mainstream: the rise of ethics education. Ethical Corporation, European Academy of Business in Society, May: 4–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen, L.J., E. Perice, L.P. Hartman, W.M. Hoffman, and J. Carrier. 2007. Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics 73: 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, J. 2010. Teaching ethics to science students: Challenges and a strategy. In Education and ethics in the life sciences, ed. B. Rappert, 197–213. Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitby, S. 2012. Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Preserving academic and scientific freedom. Science, People, and Politics (3)2. http://www.gavaghancommunications.com/sppwhitby.html. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  13. 13.
    Gooday, G. 2010. The challenges of teaching history & philosophy of science, technology & medicine to ‘science’ students. The Higher Education Academy, Subject Centre for Philosophical & Religious Studies. http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk/hps/hsresource.html. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  14. 14.
    Benneworth, P., and B.W. Jongbloed. 2010. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts, and social science valorisation. Higher Education 59: 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arts & Humanities Research Council. Knowledge Transfer Strategy 2008–2011. http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/publications/documents/knowledge-transfer-strategy-2008-2011.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  16. 16.
    Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 2001. Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization 8(2): 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, US National Academy of Sciences, US National Academy of Engineering, and US Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2009. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, David I. 2011. Enhancing student employability through Ethics-based outreach activities and open educational resources. Bioscience Education 18(7SE). http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol18/. Accessed 15 October 2012.
  19. 19.
    University of Manchester. Interdisciplinary Network on Teaching of Ethics for Neuroscientists. Workshop 2: The ideal state of ethics education for neuroscientists in 2015. September, 2012. http://lab.ls.manchester.ac.uk/neuroethicseducation/. Accessed 26 September 2012.
  20. 20.
    University of Bradford. Dual-Use Bioethics. http://dual-usebioethics.net. Accessed 26 September 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, Division of Peace Studies, School of Social and International StudiesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations