The INS Emerging Issues Task Force organized a virtual panel discussion on ‘Culturally-Aware Global Neuroethics.’ Panelists explored the issue of cultivating a culturally-aware global neuroethics, and discussed a range of illuminating examples of global priorities in neuroethics.
21st century environmental challenges coupled to novel scientific understandings of their impacts on neurological and mental health raise a distinct set of considerations at the interface between environmental ethics, brain health, and public policy. How do environmental factors like pollution, toxicity, and radiation affect the brain and present long-term epidemiological concerns? What about the relationship between environmental stressors and mental health among diverse demographic populations? How may public health and environmental strategies work in tandem to design interventions for the built and natural environments? And how can we facilitate discussion of all these questions to promote a future population-level resilience to the challenges brought on by environmental change?
To encapsulate these emerging concerns at the convergence between brain and environmental health whilst aligning it with ethical considerations, the Emerging Issues Task Force of the International Neuroethics Society organized a virtual panel discussion. The panel focused on four areas of analysis. Specific attention was given to how these four tiers come together to provide directions for future ethically-minded and behaviorally-driven environmental health research.
The INS Emerging Issues Task Force held a virtual panel discussion on the evolving role and increased adoption of digital applications to deliver mental health care. It was held as a session at the annual conference of the Italian Society for Neuroethics. Speakers were:
As researchers develop new non-invasive direct-to-consumer technologies that read and stimulate the brain, society must consider the appropriate uses of such devices. Will these brain technologies eventually allow enhancement of abilities beyond human capabilities? In what settings are people using these devices outside the purview of researchers or clinicians? Should consumers be allowed to ‘hack’ their own brain in order to improve performance?
To explore these challenges and the ethical issues raised by advances in do-it-yourself (DIY) neurotechnology, the Emerging Issues Task Force of the International Neuroethics Society organized a virtual panel discussion. The panel discussed neurotechnologies such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and electroencephalogram (EEG) headsets and their ability to change the way we understand and alter our brains. Particular attention will be given to the use of neurotechnology by everyday people and the implications this has for regulatory oversight and citizen neuroscience.
Our ever-expanding global neuroscience landscape requires that we, as a society and as scientists, consider the underlying values and ethics that drive brain research across culture and continents. Across the globe seven large-scale brain research initiatives have emerged and have committed to working together to ensure neuroscience advances together attending to the emerging ethical issues embedded in neuroscience and its implications for society. In this lecture, five neuroethics questions will be presented, to guide neuroscience research in international brain research initiatives.
This lecture covers the ethical implications of the use of brain computer interfaces, brain machine interfaces, and deep brain stimulation to enhance brain functions and was part of the Neuro Day Workshop held by the NeuroSchool of Aix Marseille University.
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is an important ethical, legal, and political theme for the European Commission. Although variously defined, it is generally understood as an interactive process that engages social actors, researchers, and innovators who must be mutually responsive and work towards the ethical permissibility of the relevant research and its products. The framework of RRI calls for contextually addressing not just research and innovation impact but also the background research process, especially the societal visions underlying it and the norms and priorities that shape scientific agendas.
The increasing use of neurotechnological devices for basic neuroscience research, clinical applications, but also in the consumer domain, creates substantial ethical and legal challenges for governing the access and use of human brain data collected by these devices. Furthermore, some neurotechnologies, such as AI-based closed-loop brain-computer interfaces, may interfere with a person's mental privacy or mental integrity which has given rise to a debate on the necessity and precise legal framing of neuroprotection laws, also referred to 'neurorights.'
In this interdisciplinary panel discussion, panelists explored and discussed the technical, ethical, and legal dimensions of brain data governance and neurorights.
Technologies that record and stimulate the brain are set to transform medical treatment, interpersonal life, and even what it means to be human; but these neurotechnologies may, if we’re not careful, continue legacies of harm against people of color, women, LGBTQIA-identifying persons, and disabled people. How can we keep neurotechnology from becoming oppressive? What would 'anti-oppressive' brain technology look like?
This lecture presents the hope, challenges, risks, and ethico-legal issues associated with advancements in neuroscience technology.
Panel discussion by leading scientists, engineers and philosophers discuss what brain-computer interfaces are and the unique scientific and ethical challenges they pose. hosted by Lynne Malcolm from ABC Radio National's All in the Mind program and features:
Neuroethics has been described as containing at least two components - the neuroscience of ethics and the ethics of neuroscience. The first involves neuroscientific theories, research, and neuro-imaging focused on how the brain arrives at moral decisions and actions, which challenge existing descriptive theories of how humans develop moral thinking and make ethical decisions. The second, ethics of neuroscience, involves applying normative theories about what is right, good and fair to ethical questions raised by neuroscientific research and new technologies, such as how to balance the public benefit of “big data” neuroscience while protecting individual privacy and norms of informed consent.
Panel of experts discuss the virtues and risks of our digital health data being captured and used by others in the age of Facebook, metadata retention laws, Cambridge Analytica and a rapidly evolving neuroscience. The discussion was moderated by Jon Faine, ABC Radio presenter. The panelists were:
This video provides an overview of the ethical issues that have arisen as a result of the application of advancements in neurotechnology. The video is intended to provide those new to neuroethics with an overview of the issues addressed by the field. If you have you ever thought about the ethical questions raised by technology that could peek into a human mind in an advanced and intimate way, then this is the video for you.
Press headlines frequently refer to robots that think like humans, or even have feelings, but is there any basis of truth in such headlines, or are they simply sensationalist hype? Computer scientist EW Dijkstra famously wrote, “the question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim”, but the question of robot thought is one that cannot so easily be dismissed. In this talk I will attempt to answer the question “how intelligent are present day intelligent robots?” and describe efforts to design robots that are not only more intelligent but also have a sense of self. But if we should be successful in designing such robots, would they think like animals, or even humans? And what are the realistic prospects for future (sentient) robots as smart as humans?
A high-level overview of the ethical issues related to data use in such a big, complex and multi-national research initiative as the HBP
What is Ethics in biomedical research? In this case the ethics we talk about is how we think we can use animals in biomedical research and what we gain from the experimental setup of experiments. We will talk about “a common set of values” and how 3R engagement can make a difference to experimental procedures and a progress in the positive outcome of experimental procedures and results and scientific papers of the future.
In this lecture, I consider some of the key social and ethical issues raised by the ‘big brain projects’ currently under way in Europe, the USA, China, Japan and many other regions. I will draw upon our own experience in the ‘ Foresight Lab’ of the HBP to discuss the ways in which these can usefully be approached from the perspective of responsible research and innovation and the AREA approach - anticipation, reflection, engagement and action. These include data protection, privacy and data governance; the search for ‘neural signatures’ of psychaitric and neurological disorders; ‘dual use’ or the military use of developments initially intended for clinical and civilian purposes; brain-computer interfaces and neural prosthetics; and the use of animals in brain research. Following a brief discussion of the challenges of translation from the lab to the real world, I will conclude by arguing that success in contemporary scientific research and innovation is best assured by openness, collaboration, sharing with fellow researchers; robust systems of data governance involving lay persons; frankness about realities of scientific research and innovation with fellow citizens; realism about complexities of links between researchers, publics and private enterprise; and understanding and engaging with the realities of science today in the real world.
Like any transformative technology, intelligent robotics has the potential for huge benefit, but is not without ethical or societal risk. In this lecture, I will explore two questions. Firstly, the increasingly urgent question of the ethical use of robots: are there particular applications of robots that should be proscribed, in eldercare, or surveillance, or war fighting for example? When intelligent autonomous robots make mistakes, as they inevitably will, who should be held to account? Secondly, I will consider the longer-term question of whether intelligent robots themselves could or should be ethical. Seventy years ago Isaac Asimov created his fictional Three Laws of Robotics. Is there now a realistic prospect that we could build a robot that is Three Laws Safe?
This lecture discusses differential privacy and synthetic data in the context of medical data sharing in clinical neurosciences.