Advertisement

Models of Engagement in Neuroethics Programs: Past, Present, and Future

  • Laura Specker SullivanEmail author
  • Judy Illes
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

This chapter surveys models for ethics engagement in neuroscience research and training and offers suggestions for future development. We review different ways in which ethics programs have sought to partner with neuroscience programs and critically align neuroscience with its ethical, legal, social, and policy implications. We compare the methods of neuroethics programs with other ethics programs associated with the biomedical sciences to elucidate current levels of interdisciplinary collaboration and the potential for expansion in the future. Based on our findings, we explore ways by which neuroethics can proactively seek new approaches to link with neuroscience and medicine.

Notes

Acknowledgments

JI is Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics and President of the International Neuroethics Society. Her work and the National Core for Neuroethics have been supported by a range of government and private funders including the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the BC Knowledge Development Fund, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute. LSS is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, University of Washington, and at the National Core for Neuroethics. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Award Number EEC-1028725. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Abelson J, Eyles J (2004) Public participation and citizen governance in the Canadian health system. Changing Health Care in Canada: The Romanow Papers, vol 2, pp 279–311Google Scholar
  2. Balmer AS, Calvert J, Marris C, Molyneux-Hodgson S, Frow E, Kearnes M et al (2015) Taking roles in interdisciplinary collaborations: reflections on working in post-ELSI spaces in the UK synthetic biology community. Sci Technol Stud 28(3):3–25Google Scholar
  3. Bennett I, Sarewitz D (2006) Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Sci Cult 15(4):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess M (2004) Public consultation in ethics: an experiment in representative ethics. J Bioeth Inq 1(1):4–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess M, O’Doherty K, Secko D (2008) Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Pers Med 5(3):285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler R, Dwosh E, Beattie BL, Guimond C, Lombera S, Brief E et al (2009) Genetic counseling for early-onset familial Alzheimer disease in a large aboriginal kindred from a remote community in British Columbia: unique challenges and possible solutions. J Genet Couns 5(4):90–99Google Scholar
  7. Cabrera L, Beattie LB, Dwosh E, Illes J (2015) Converging approaches to understanding early onset familial Alzheimer disease: A First Nation study. SAGE Open Medicine 3Google Scholar
  8. Cabrera L, Tesluk J, Matthews R, Chakraborti M, Illes J (2016) Brain matters: from environmental ethics to environmental neuroethics. Environ Health 15:20–25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez SB (2011) Two chicks in a lab with eggs. Hast Cent Rep 41(3):21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho MK, Tobin SL, Greely HT, McCormick J, Boyce A, Magnus D (2008) Strangers at the benchside: research ethics consultation. Am J Bioeth 8(3):4–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks A, Li N, Snyder J, Dharamsi S, Benjaminy S, Jacob KJ et al (2015) “You don’t want to lose that trust that you’ve built with this patient…”: (dis)trust, medical tourism, and the Canadian family physician-patient relationship. BMC Fam Pract 16:25Google Scholar
  12. Dickinson HD (2002) How can the public be meaningfully involved in developing and maintaining an overall vision for the health system consistent with its values and principles? Commission on the Future of Health Care in CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K et al (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 57(1):55–64Google Scholar
  14. Einsiedel EF, Ross H (2002) Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Sci Eng Ethics 8:579–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher E (2005) Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technol Soc 27(3):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher E, O’Rourke M, Evans R, Kennedy EB, Gorman ME, Seager TP (2015) Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. J Respons Innov 2(1):39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goering S (forthcoming) Thinking differently: neurodiversity and neural engineering. In: Rommelfanger K, Johnson LS (eds) Routledge handbook of neuroethics. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Have HT (2006) The activities of UNESCO in the areas of ethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 16(4):333–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Illes J, Reimer J, Kwon BK (2011) Stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury: readiness, reluctance, redefinition. Stem Cell Rev Rep 7(4):997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Illes J, Davidson J, Matthews R (2014) Environmental neuroethics: changing the environment—changing the brain. J Law Biosci 1:221–223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Illes J, Owen AM, Byram AC; the MCS Working Group (2016) Operationalizing neuroimaging for disorders of consciousness in the face of uncertainty and contingency: a view for the Canadian landscape. Can J Neurol Sci 1–3Google Scholar
  23. Jasanoff S (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):621–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen CB (2005) Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology. Acta Sociol 48(3):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Juengst ET (1991) The human genome project and bioethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1(1):71–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirschen MP, Topjian AA, Abend NS, Illes J (2014) Neuroprognostication after pediatric cardiac arrest. Pediatr Neurol 51(5):663–668Google Scholar
  27. Klein E (2015) Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identifying risks and exploring meaning. Sci Eng Ethics 22(5):1299–1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein E, Ojemann J (2016) Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices. J Neural Eng 13(4):043001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein E, Brown T, Sample M, Truitt AR, Goering S (2015) Engineering the brain: ethical issues and the introduction of neural devices. Hast Cent Rep 45(6):26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein E, Goering S, Gagne J, Shea CV, Franklin R, Zorowitz S et al (2016) Brain-computer interface-based control of closed-loop brain stimulation: attitudes and ethical considerations. Brain Comput Interfaces 3(3):140–148Google Scholar
  31. Leroux T, Hirtle M, Fortin LN (1998) An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. J Consum Policy 21:445–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leshner AI (2003) Public engagement with science. Science 299:977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Longstaff J, Krahmova V, Portalis E, Illes J (2015) Sharing with more caring: coordinating and improving the ethical governance of data and biomaterials obtained from children. PLoS One 10(7):e0130527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mascalzoni D, Dove ES, Rubinstein Y, Dawkins HJ, Kole A, McCormack P et al (2016) International Charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. Eur J Hum Genet 24(7):1096Google Scholar
  36. McCain L (2002) Informing technology policy decisions: the US human genome Project’s ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case. Technol Soc 24(1):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY, Rothenberg KH, Lockhart NC, Guyer MS (2014) The ethical, legal, and social implications program of the National Human Genome Research Institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment*. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 15(1):481–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Moses T, Illes J (2017) Ethics, ethicists, and professional organizations in the neurological sciences. Am J Bioeth Neurosci 8(1):3–11Google Scholar
  39. Nature (2004) Editorial: going public. Nature 431:833Google Scholar
  40. O’Doherty K, Hawkins A (2010) Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue biobanking. Public Health Genomics 13(4):197–206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Rourke M, Crowley SJ (2013) Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the toolbox project. Synthese 190(11):1937–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Page A, Baker D, Bobrow M, Boycott K, Burn J, Chanock S et al (2016) Genomics. A federated ecosystem for sharing genomic, clinical data. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Science 352(6291):1278–1280Google Scholar
  43. Rabinow P (2009) Prosperity, amelioration, flourishing: from a logic of practical judgment to reconstruction. Law Lit 21(3):301–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rabinow P, Bennett G (2012) Designing human practices: an experiment with synthetic biology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robillard JM (2016) The online environment: a key variable in the ethical response to complementary and alternative medicine for Alzheimer disease. J Alzheimer Dis 51(1):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robillard JM, Illes J, Arcand M, Beattie BL, Hayden S, Lawrence P et al (2015) Scientific validity and ethics of online tests for Alzheimer disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 1(3):281–288Google Scholar
  47. Robinson B, Vasko SE, Gonnerman C, Christen M, O’Rourke M, Fosl PS (2016) Human values and the value of humanities in interdisciplinary research. Cogent Arts Humanit 3(1):1123080Google Scholar
  48. Roskies A (2016) Neuroethics. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/neuroethics/
  49. Schnapp LM, Rotschy L, Hall TE, Crowley S, O’Rourke M (2012) How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method. Transl Behav Med 2(4):469–479Google Scholar
  50. Sharp RR, Taylor HA, Brinich MA, Boyle MM, Cho M, Coors M et al (2015) Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations. Acad Med 90(5):615–620CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Specker Sullivan L, Illes J (2016) Beyond communication and control: towards ethically complete rationales for brain-computer interface research. Brain Comput Interfaces 3(3):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Specker Sullivan L, Klein E, Brown T, Sample M, Pham M, Tubig P et al (under review) Keeping disability in mind: a case study in implantable brain-computer interface researchGoogle Scholar
  53. Stein DJ, Illes J (2015) Beyond scientism and skepticism: an integrative approach to global mental health. Front Psychiatry 6:166CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Stevenson S, Beattie BL, Vedan R, Dwosh E, Bruce L, Illes J (2013) Neuroethics, confidentiality, and a cultural imperative in imperative in early onset Alzheimer disease: a case study with a First Nation population. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 8(15):1–6Google Scholar
  55. Turner L (2003) The tyranny of ‘genethics’. Nat Biotechnol 21(11):1282–1282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Est R (2011) The broad challenge of public engagement in science: commentary on: “constitutional moments in governing science and technology”. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):639–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Core for NeuroethicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Center for Sensorimotor Neural EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations