Ethical considerations of neuroscience research: the perspectives on neuroethics in Japan

East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology

After more than half a century of research and development (R&D), Brain-computer interface (BCI)-based Neurotechnology continues to progress as one of the leading technologies of the 2020 s worldwide. Various reports and academic literature in Europe and the United States (U.S.) have outlined the trends in the R&D of neurotechnology and the consideration of ethical issues, and the importance of the formulation of ethical principles, guidance and industrial standards as well as the development of relevant human resources has been discussed. However, limited number studies have focused on neurotechnology R&D, the dissemination of neuroethics related to the academic foundation advancing the discussion on ethical principles, guidance and standards or human resource development in the Asian region. This study fills in this gap in understanding of Eastern Asian (China, Korea and Japan) situation based on the participation in activities to develop ethical principles, guidance, and industrial standards for appropriate use of neurotechnology, in addition to literature survey and clinical registries' search investigation reflecting the trends in neurotechnology R&D as well as its social implication in Asian region. The current study compared the results with the situation in Europa and the U.S. and discussed issues that need to be addressed in the future and discussed the significance and potential of corporate consortium initiatives in Japan and examples of ethics and governance activities in Asian Countries.

An XYZ-axis Matrix Approach for the Integration of Neuroscience and Neuroethics

The recent, unprecedented advancement in neuroscience has led to new discoveries about the human brain and its function. Yet at the same time, it has spurred novel ethical and regulatory issues, and the field of neuroethics has emerged as an interdisciplinary endeavor to address these issues. Across the globe, extensive efforts have been underway to achieve the integration of neuroscience and Neuroethics, with active engagement not only from academia but also from the government, the public, and industry. However, in some countries, integrating neuroscience and neuroethics has proved to be a particularly challenging task. For example, in South Korea, the government has primarily driven the integration effort, and only a small group of researchers is properly trained for conducting an interdisciplinary evaluation of ethical, legal, social, and cultural implications (ELSCI) of neurotechnology. On the basis of the last few years of experience pursuing a government-funded neuroethics project in South Korea, we developed a new operational framework to provide practical guidance on ELSCI research. This framework consists of the X, Y, and Z axes; the X-axis represents a target neurotechnology, the Y-axis represents different developmental stages of the technology, and the Z-axis represents ELSCI issues that may arise from the development and use of the neurotechnology. Here we also present a step-by-step workflow to apply this matrix framework, from organizing a panel for a target neurotechnology to facilitating stakeholder discussion through public hearings. This framework will enable meaningful integration of neuroscience and neuroethics to promote responsible innovation in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research.

RESULTS

A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data.

DISCUSSION

We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

"Involving interface": an extended mind theoretical approach to roboethics

In 2008 the authors held "Involving Interface," a lively interdisciplinary event focusing on issues of biological, sociocultural, and technological interfacing (see Acknowledgments). Inspired by discussions at this event, in this article, we further discuss the value of input from neuroscience for developing robots and machine interfaces, and the value of philosophy, the humanities, and the arts for identifying persistent links between human interfacing and broader ethical concerns. The importance of ongoing interdisciplinary debate and public communication on scientific and technical advances is also highlighted. Throughout, the authors explore the implications of the extended mind hypothesis for notions of moral accountability and robotics.

Brain-machine interface: the challenge of neuroethics

The burning question surrounding the use of Brain-Machine Interface (BMI) devices is not merely whether they should be used, but how widely they should be used, especially in view of some ethical implications that arise concerning the social and legal aspects of human life. As technology advances, it can be exploited to affect the quality of life. Since the effects of BMIs can be both positive and negative, it is imperative to address the issue of the ethics surrounding them. This paper presents the ways in which BMIs can be used and focuses on the ethical concerns to which neuroscience is thus exposed. The argument put forward supports the use of BMIs solely for purposes of medical treatment, and invites the legal framing of this.

CQ Sources/Bibliography

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

Incidental findings of brain magnetic resonance imaging study in a pediatric cohort in Japan and recommendation for a model management protocol

Background

The increasing use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in brain researches has led to growing concern over incidental findings (IFs). To establish a practical management protocol for IFs, it is useful to know the actual prevalence and problems of IF management. In the present study, we report the prevalence proportion and some handling problems of IFs in healthy Japanese children, and suggest a management protocol from ethical and practical standpoints.

Methods

Between 2006 and 2008, 120 healthy children aged 5–8 years participated in a structural MRI study conducted in a pediatric cohort in Japan. All MRI images were reviewed by a pediatric neurologist, and detected IFs were classified into 4 categories.

Results

IFs of all categories were detected in 40 of the 110 participants (36.4%) for whom T2-weighted or 3D-T1-weighted images were available. Findings of sinusitis and/or otitis media were most frequent (26.4%). Excluding these findings, the prevalence of IFs was still 10.9% (12 findings): 9 findings were categorized as “no referral” (8.2%), 2 as “routine referral” (1.8%), 1 as “urgent referral” (0.9%), and 0 as “immediate referral” (0.0%). In “routine referral” category, only one participant was referred for further examinations.

Conclusions

Although the prevalence of IFs was high, the proportion of those requiring further examination was low. This result revealed a fairly high false-positive rate and suggested that evaluating equivocal findings was the most difficult part of IF management. A management protocol needs to include a process to properly assess the clinical importance of findings.

A new ethics of psychiatry: neuroethics, neuroscience, and technology

Neuroethics is a new subset of bioethics that addresses ethical issues pertaining to the brain, primarily in the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, and neuroradiology. Research in brain science is progressing at a phenomenal rate and, as a result, the acquisition and application of knowledge and technology raises ethical questions of a practical and philosophical nature. While neuroethics is developing as a distinct field of study, one area that should be addressed in greater depth is the relevance and potential impact of neurotechnology in psychiatry. New knowledge in the mind-brain conundrum and increasingly sophisticated techniques for imaging and intervening in human cognition, emotion, and behavior pose ethical issues at the intersection of technology and psychiatry. This article presents a broad survey of the new directions in neuroethics, neuroscience, and technology and considers the implications of technological advances for the practice of psychiatry in the new millennium. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2009;15:391-401).

A note on ethical aspects of BCI

This paper focuses on ethical aspects of BCI, as a research and a clinical tool, that are challenging for practitioners currently working in the field. Specifically, the difficulties involved in acquiring informed consent from locked-in patients are investigated, in combination with an analysis of the shared moral responsibility in BCI teams, and the complications encountered in establishing effective communication with media.

The international dimensions of neuroethics

Neuroethics, in its modern form, investigates the impact of brain science in four basic dimensions: the self, social policy, practice and discourse. In this study, we analyzed a set of 461 peer-reviewed articles with neuroethics content, published by authors from 32 countries. We analyzed the data for: (1) trends in the development of international neuroethics over time, and (2) how challenges at the intersection of ethics and neuroscience are viewed in countries that are considered developed by International Monetary Fund (IMF) standards, and in those that are developing. Our results demonstrate a steady increase in global participation in neuroethics from 1989 to 2005, characterized by an increase in numbers of articles published specifically on neuroethics, journals publishing these articles, and countries contributing to the literature. The focus from all countries was on the practice of brain science and the amelioration of neurological disease. Indicators of technology creation and diffusion in developing countries were specifically correlated with increases in publications concerning policy implications of brain science. Neuroethics is an international endeavor and, as such, should be sensitive to the impact that context has on acceptance and use of technological innovation.