Neuroethics Beyond Traditional Media

  • Chiara Saviane
Reference work entry


Brain science is vital to help us understand how the brain works and identify brain disease treatments. Fast technological advances are opening doors to clinical and nonclinical applications which may affect our health as well as different aspects of our society, from education to business and criminal justice. The scope, benefits, and risks of new technologies and therapies are still uncertain, but they raise crucial ethical, social, and legal issues which involve people from all walks of life. Citizens need to acquire the competences to make informed choices and contribute to decision-making processes which may be critical for their life and the society they want to live in. To this aim, several activities have been promoted over the last decade at the European level, thanks to key players such as the European Commission and the European Dana Alliance for the Brain.

This chapter describes in detail some major European initiatives which have used different approaches beyond traditional media to raise public awareness and engagement in neuroscience and neuroethics, providing sound information, fostering multidisciplinary debates and participation to policy-making processes. These include European projects, such as Brains in Dialogue, Meeting of Minds and Decide, and many activities promoted by the European Dana Alliance for the Brain. Some impediments still exist for a true dialogue and a real involvement of citizens in decision-making processes; however, some successful approaches, ranging from public events to social media, have been identified and could be developed and investigated further.


Deep Brain Stimulation European Level Public Engagement Public Event Science Museum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. (2011). An experimental approach to strengthen the role of science centers in the governance of science. In J. C. Marstine (Ed.), The Routledge companion to museum ethics (pp. 164–173). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Europeans, science and technology. (2001). European Commission. Accessed 30 Dec 2012.
  3. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. (2010). European Commission. Accessed 30 December 2012.
  4. Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., Fischler, C., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Hampel, J., Mejlgaard, N., Quintanilha, A., Rammer, A., Revuelta, G., Stares, S., Torgersen, H., & Wager, W. (2011). The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 29(2), 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldschmidt, R., & Renn, O. (2006). Meeting of minds – European Citizens’ Deliberation on brain sciences. Final report of the external evaluation. Resource document. King Baudouin Foundation. Accessed 31 May 2013.
  6. Illes, J., Blakemore, C., Hansson, M. G., Hensch, T. K., Leshner, A., Maestre, G., Magistretti, P., Quirion, R., & Strata, P. (2005). International perspectives on engaging the public in neuroethics. Nature Review Neuroscience, 6(12), 977–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2012). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science Published online on October 31, 2012. doi: 10.1177/0963662512458624.Google Scholar
  8. Ramani, D., & Saviane, C. (2010). Neuroscience: experience of an interdisciplinary dialogue. PCST 2010 Proceedings. Retrieved from
  9. Science and Society Action Plan. (2002). Resource document. European Commission. Accessed 30 Dec 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Advanced StudiesScuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (SISSA)TriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations