Advertisement

Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Neuroscience

  • Jon LeefmannEmail author
  • Michael Jungert
Living reference work entry

Abstract

With the rise of neuroethics as a research field of its own since the early 2000s, ethical questions concerning the neurosciences have become a major focus of bioethical debate. Yet, the neuroethical discourse has primarily focused on ethical, legal, and social implications of the products of neuroscience research such as clinical interventions and neuro-technologies. Ethical questions concerning the research process in neuroscience have, however, been largely neglected. While topics such as the ethics of test-person recruitment and informed consent procedures, ethics of data sharing and authorship, responsibility for dual use of research results, or the role of ethical review boards are to a large part coextensive with questions in research ethics in other areas of the life sciences, there are still a number of topics distinctive of neuroscience research ethics. These topics will be the focus of this chapter. We will review the debate on disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging, discuss the ambivalent role of neuroscience research for informing the ethical standards of animal testing, and finally turn to the debate about responsible research communication and interdisciplinary trespassing in a time of increased public interest in neuroscience research and imagination about its potential social and cultural consequences.

Keywords

Scientific integrity Incidental findings Ethics of animal testing Knowledge transfer Neuroscience imperialism 

References

  1. Anderson M, Anderson SL (2007) Machine ethics: creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Mag 28(4):15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v28i4.2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckoff M, Jamison D (eds) (1996) Readings in animal psychology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AJ, Ringach DL (2016) Animal research in neuroscience: a duty to engage. Neuron 92(3):653–657.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beuter A (2017) The use of neurocomputational models as alternatives to animal models in the development of electrical brain stimulation treatments. Altern Lab Anim: ATLA 45(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbacher D (1996) The great apes – why they have a right to life. Ethica Animali. Special issue devoted to the Great Ape Project:142–154Google Scholar
  6. Blakemore C et al (2012) Implementing the 3Rs in neuroscience research: a reasoned approach. Neuron 75(6):948–950.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth TC et al (2012) Management of incidental findings during imaging research in “healthy” volunteers: current UK practice. Br J Radiol 85(1009):11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/73283917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovenkerk B, Kaldewaij F (2015) The use of animal models in behavioural neuroscience research. In: Lee G, Illes J, Ohl F (eds) Ethical issues in behavioral neuroscience, Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, vol 19. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 17–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braithwaite V (2010) Do fish feel pain? Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge S (2004) How we use rules to select actions: a review of evidence from cognitive neuroscience. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:564–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunnik EM, Vernooij MW (2016) Incidental findings in population imaging revisited. Eur J Epidemiol 31(1):1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0123-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunnik EM et al (2017) Ethical framework for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging studies, building on an interview study of researchers’ practices and perspectives. BMC Med Ethics 18(1):10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0168-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2004) Neuroeconomics: why economics needs brains. Scand J Econ 106(3):555–579.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00377.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choudhury S (2010) Culturing the adolescent brain: what can neuroscience learn form anthropology? Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 5(2–3):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choudhury S, Slaby J (2012) Critical neuroscience: a handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Wiley Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke S, Walsh A (2009) Scientific imperialism and the proper relations between the sciences. Int Stud Philos Sci 23(2):195–207.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590903007170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke S, Walsh A (2013) Imperialism, progress, developmental teleology, and interdisciplinary unification. Int Stud Philos Sci 27(3):341–351.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2013.825493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawkins MS (2006) The scientific basis for assessing suffering in animals. In: Singer P (ed) In defense of animals: the second wave. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp 26–39Google Scholar
  19. Deeke L, Kornhuber H (1978) An electrical sign of participation of the mesial ‘supplementary’ motor cortex in human voluntary finger movement. Brain Res 159(2):473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donohue SE, Wendelken C, Bunge S (2008) Neural correlates of preparation for action selection as a function of specific task demands. J Cogn Neurosci 20(4):694–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dupré J (1995) Against scientific imperialism. In: Proceedings of the 1994 biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, vol 2, pp 374–381Google Scholar
  22. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004) The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science (New York, NY) 306(5703):1903–1907.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Erdmann P (2017) Incidental findings – ethical aspects. In: Weckbach S (ed) Incidental radiological findings, Diagnostic Imaging. Springer, Cham, pp 9–24Google Scholar
  24. Exner C, Limbach C (2016) Animal experimentation in research, 10th edn. Available at: http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/geschaeftsstelle/publikationen/tierversuche_forschung_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferdowsian H (2011) Human and animal research guidelines: aligning ethical constructs with new scientific developments. Bioethics 25(8):472–478.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01923.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferdowsian HR, Beck N (2011) Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research. PLoS One 6(9):e24059.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Francione GL (2000) Introduction to animal rights. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Fumagalli R (2018a) Against neuroscience imperialism. In: Mäki U, Walsh A, Fernández Pinto M (eds) Scientific imperialism: exploring the boundaries of interdisciplinarity, Routledge studies in science, technology and society. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Fumagalli R (2018b) Who is afraid of scientific imperialism? Synthese 195(9):4125–4146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1411-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gennaro RJ (2009) Animals, consciousness, and I-thoughts. In: Lurz RW (ed) The philosophy of animal minds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 184–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibson LM et al (2018) Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging. Wellcome Open Res 2:114.  https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.13181.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glimcher PW (2003) The neurobiology of visual-saccadic decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci 26:133–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Glimcher PW (2010) Foundations of neuroeconomic analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Glock H-J (2013) Mental capacities and animal ethics. In: Petrus K, Wild M (eds) Animal minds & animal ethics: connecting two separate fields, Human-animal studies, vol 3. Transcript, Berlin, pp 113–146Google Scholar
  35. Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2007) The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:535–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grady C (2015) Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med 372(9):855–862.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1411250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 359(1451):1775–1785.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haggard P, Libet B (2001) Conscious intention and brain activity. J Conscious Stud 8:47–68Google Scholar
  39. Hartmann M (2012) Against first nature. Critical theory and neuroscience. In: Choudhury S, Slaby J (eds) Critical neuroscience: a handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  40. Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Haynes J-D (2011) Beyond Libet: Longterm predictions of free choice from neuroimaging signals. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W, Nadel L (eds) Conscious will and responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  42. Heinemann T, Hoppe C (2014) Incidental findings in neuroimaging research. Ethical considerations and a framework for ethical guidelines. In: Lanzerath D et al (eds) Incidental findings: Scientific, legal and ethical issues, Schriftenreihe der Hans-Neuffer-Stiftung, vol 26. Deutscher Ärzte Verlag, Köln, pp 59–71Google Scholar
  43. Heinrichs B (2014) Incidental findings and the right not to know. In: Lanzerath D et al (eds) Incidental findings: scientific, legal and ethical issues, Schriftenreihe der Hans-Neuffer-Stiftung, vol 26. Deutscher Ärzte Verlag, Köln, pp 83–91Google Scholar
  44. Hillix WA, Rumbaugh DM (2004) Animal bodies, human minds: ape, dolphin, and parrot language skills, Developments in primatology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holtzman GS (2018) Normative moral neuroscience: the third tradition of neuroethics. J Am Philos Assoc 127:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2018.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Illes J et al (2004) Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging: JMRI 20(5):743–747.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Illes J et al (2006) Ethics. Incidental findings in brain imaging research: what should happen when a researcher sees a potential health problem in a brain scan from a research subject? Science (New York, NY) 311(5762):783–784.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1124665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Illes J et al (2010) Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(1):61–69.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jahanshahi M et al (1995) Self-initiated versus externally triggered movements: I. An investigation using measurement of regional cerebral blood flow with PET and movement-related potentials in normal and Parkinson’s disease subjects. Brain 118(118):913–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jungert M (2017) Neurophilosophy or philosophy of neuroscience? What neuroscience and philosophy can and cannot do for each other. In: Leefmann J, Hildt E (eds) The human sciences after the decade of the brain. Academic/Elsevier, London, pp 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kant I (1785/2000) The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Korsgaard C (2005) Fellow creatures. Kantian ethics and our duties to animals. Tanner Lect Hum Values 25:77–110Google Scholar
  53. Korsgaard C (2011) Interacting with animals. A Kantian account. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG (eds) The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Leefmann J, Lesle S (2018) Knowledge from scientific expert testimony without epistemic trust. Synthese 91(5):264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01908-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leefmann J, Levallois C, Hildt E (2016) Neuroethics 1995–2012. A bibliometric analysis of the guiding themes of an emerging research field. Front Hum Neurosci 10:336.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leung L (2013) Incidental findings in neuroimaging: ethical and medicolegal considerations. Neurosci J 2013:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/439145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Libet B (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behav Brain Sci 8:529–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Libet B et al (1983) Time of conscous intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readines potential): the unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 106:623–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lurz RW (ed) (2009) The philosophy of animal minds. Cambridge University Press. Available at:, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mäki U (2013) Scientific imperialism: difficulties in definition, identification, and assessment. Int Stud Philos Sci 27(3):325–339.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2013.825496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Malabou C (2008) What should we do with our brain? Perspectives in continental philosophy. Fordham University Press, New York. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1c5chvmGoogle Scholar
  62. Maney DL (2015) Just like a circus: the public consumption of sex differences. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 19:279–296.  https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2014_339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mele AR (2006) Free will and luck. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Metzinger T (2009) The ego tunnel: the science of the mind and the myth of the self. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Meynen G (2014) Neurolaw: neuroscience, ethics, and law. Review essay. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 17(4):819–829.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9501-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S (2008) Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J Law Med Ethics: J Am Soc Law Med Ethics 36(2):271–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00269.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nelson L (1932) Vorlesungen über die Grundlagen der Ethik. Verlag Öffentliches Leben, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  68. Norton BG (1984) Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environ Ethics 6(2):131–148.  https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19846233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Connell G et al (2011) The brain, the science and the media. The legal, corporate, social and security implications of neuroimaging and the impact of media coverage. EMBO Rep 12(7):630–636.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Connor C, Rees G, Joffe H (2012) Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 74(2):220–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ogbuka C (2014) Managing serious incidental findings in brain-imaging research: when consent for disclosure is declined. J Cogn Neuroethics 2:51–59Google Scholar
  72. Orme NM et al (2010) Incidental findings in imaging research: evaluating incidence, benefit, and burden. Arch Intern Med 170(17):1525–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Panksepp J (2011) Cross-species affective neuroscience decoding of the primal affective experiences of humans and related animals. PLoS One 6(9):e21236.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pereboom D (2004) Is our conception of agent-causation coherent? Philos Top 32(1/2):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pitts-Taylor V (2010) The plastic brain: neoliberalism and the neuronal self. Health (London, England: 1997) 14(6):635–652.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459309360796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pykett J (2015) Brain culture: shaping policy through neuroscience. Policy Press, Bristol/Chicago. Available at: http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=2129487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J (2005) fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev Neurosci 6(2):159–164.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Racine E et al (2010) Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Soc Sci Med. (1982 71(4):725–733.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Racine E et al (2017) Media portrayal of a landmark neuroscience experiment on free will. Sci Eng Ethics 23(4):989–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9845-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rancher CE et al (2016) Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: a qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges. BMC Med Ethics 17(1):58.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0141-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  82. Richardson HS (2008) Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. J Law Med Ethics: J Am Soc Law Med Ethics 36(2):256–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00268.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ridderinkhof K et al (2004) The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science (New York, NY) 306(306):443–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rollin BE (2011) Animal pain. What it is and why it matters. J Ethics 15(4):425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rollin MDH, Rollin BE (2014) Crazy like a fox. Validity and ethics of animal models of human psychiatric disease. Camb Q Healthcar Ethics: CQ: Int J Healthcar Ethics Committees 23(2):140–151.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180113000674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rose NS, Abi-Rached JM (2013) Neuro: the new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new Millenium. Neuron 35(1):21–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Roskies A (2010) How does neuroscience affect our conception of volition? Annu Rev Neurosci 33:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  90. Ryberg J (2014) Punishing adolescents—on immaturity and diminished responsibility. Neuroethics 7(3):327–336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9203-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schaefer GO, Savulescu J (2018) The right to know: a revised standard for reporting incidental findings. Hast Cent Rep 48(2):22–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schmidt CO et al (2013) Psychosocial consequences and severity of disclosed incidental findings from whole-body MRI in a general population study. Eur Radiol 23(5):1343–1351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2723-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schmücker R (2017) Incidental findings: definition of the concept. In: Weckbach S (ed) Incidental radiological findings, Diagnostic imaging. Springer, Cham, pp 3–7Google Scholar
  94. Schuol S et al (2015) So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings. Genome Med 7(1):83.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-015-0198-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Scurich N, Shniderman A (2014) The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLoS One 9(9):e107529.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shibaski H, Hallett M (2006) What is the Bereitschaftspotential? Clin Neurophysiol 117:2341–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Singer P (1995) Practical ethics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. Takashima K et al (2017) Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: review and multi-institutional study. Brain Behavior 7(5):e00676.  https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2013) Anticipate and communicate ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts. Available at: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/node/3183.html
  100. Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tomasello M, Rakoczy H (2003) What makes human cognition unique? Mind Lang 18:121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Torrance S (2008) Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. AI & Soc 22(4):495–521.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0091-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vidal F (2018) What makes neuroethics possible? Hist Hum Sci 4(3).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695118800410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Viera de Castro A, Olsson A (2015) Does the goal justify the methods? Harm and benefit in neuroscience research using animals. In: Lee G, Illes J, Ohl F (eds) Ethical issues in behavioral neuroscience, Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, vol 19. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  105. Weckbach S (ed) (2017) Incidental radiological findings. Diagnostic imaging. Springer, Cham. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=4855711Google Scholar
  106. Wegner DM (2002) The illusion of conscious will, A Bradford book. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wolf SM (2011) Incidental findings in neuroscience research: a fundamental challenge to the structure of bioethics and health law. In: Illes J, Federico CA (eds) The Oxford handbook of neuroethics, Oxford library of psychology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  108. Wolf SM et al (2008) Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 36(2):219–248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yeates JW (2012) Brain-pain: do animals with higher cognitive capacities feel more pain? Insights for species selection in scientific experiments. In: Hagen K, Schnieke AE, Thiele F (eds) Large animals as biomedical models: Ethical, societal, legal and biological aspects, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, pp 24–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Applied Philosophy of Science and Key QualificationsFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations