Empirical neuroethics. Can brain imaging visualize human thought? Why is neuroethics interested in such a possibility?

Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties

Advances in neuroscientific techniques have found increasingly broader applications, including in legal neuroscience (or “neurolaw”), where experts in the brain sciences are called to testify in the courtroom. But does the incursion of neuroscience into the legal sphere constitute a threat to individual liberties? And what legal protections are there against such threats? In this paper, we outline individual rights as they interact with neuroscientific methods. We then proceed to examine the current uses of neuroscientific evidence, and ultimately determine whether the rights of the individual are endangered by such approaches. Based on our analysis, we conclude that while federal evidence rules constitute a substantial hurdle for the use of neuroscientific evidence, more ethical safeguards are needed to protect against future violations of fundamental rights. Finally, we assert that it will be increasingly imperative for the legal and neuroscientific communities to work together to better define the limits, capabilities, and intended direction of neuroscientific methods applicable for use in law.

Global mental health and neuroethics

BACKGROUND

Global mental health is a relatively new field that has focused on disparities in mental health services across different settings, and on innovative ways to provide feasible, acceptable, and effective services in poorly-resourced settings. Neuroethics, too, is a relatively new field, lying at the intersection of bioethics and neuroscience; it has studied the implications of neuroscientific findings for age-old questions in philosophy, as well as questions about the ethics of novel neuroscientific methods and interventions.

DISCUSSION

In this essay, we address a number of issues that lie at the intersection of these two fields: an emphasis on a naturalist and empirical position, a concern with both disease and wellness, the importance of human rights in neuropsychiatric care, and the value of social inclusion and patient empowerment.

SUMMARY

These different disciplines share a number of perspectives, and future dialogue between the two should be encouraged.

Between the bench, the bedside and the office: The need to build bridges between working neuroscientists and ethicists

This paper presents findings from an empirical study that explored the meaning of ethics in the everyday work of neuroscientists. Observation and interviews were carried out in one neuroscience research group that was involved in bench-to-bedside translational research. We focus here specifically on the scientists’ perceptions of bioethics. Interviewees were often unfamiliar with bioethics as a discipline, particularly the more junior members of the group. Those who were aware of its existence largely viewed it as something distant from them, and as either too abstract, not relevant or an alien imposition on their work. Some interviewees themselves pointed to the need for better ‘bridge building’ between ethical principles and real-world examples drawn from scientific practice, and we argue that this space is where a more empirically grounded ethics may be useful in terms of actually engaging scientists at both the bench and the bedside.

Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology

BACKGROUND

'Neuromarketing' is a term that has often been used in the media in recent years. These public discussions have generally centered around potential ethical aspects and the public fear of negative consequences for society in general, and consumers in particular. However, positive contributions to the scientific discourse from developing a biological model that tries to explain context-situated human behavior such as consumption have often been neglected. We argue for a differentiated terminology, naming commercial applications of neuroscientific methods 'neuromarketing' and scientific ones 'consumer neuroscience'. While marketing scholars have eagerly integrated neuroscientific evidence into their theoretical framework, neurology has only recently started to draw its attention to the results of consumer neuroscience.

DISCUSSION

In this paper we address key research topics of consumer neuroscience that we think are of interest for neurologists; namely the reward system, trust and ethical issues. We argue that there are overlapping research topics in neurology and consumer neuroscience where both sides can profit from collaboration. Further, neurologists joining the public discussion of ethical issues surrounding neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience could contribute standards and experience gained in clinical research.

SUMMARY

We identify the following areas where consumer neuroscience could contribute to the field of neurology:First, studies using game paradigms could help to gain further insights into the underlying pathophysiology of pathological gambling in Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal dementia, epilepsy, and Huntington's disease.Second, we identify compulsive buying as a common interest in neurology and consumer neuroscience. Paradigms commonly used in consumer neuroscience could be applied to patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and frontotemporal dementia to advance knowledge of this important behavioral symptom.Third, trust research in the medical context lacks empirical behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Neurologists entering this field of research could profit from the extensive knowledge of the biological foundation of trust that scientists in economically-orientated neurosciences have gained.Fourth, neurologists could contribute significantly to the ethical debate about invasive methods in neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. Further, neurologists should investigate biological and behavioral reactions of neurological patients to marketing and advertising measures, as they could show special consumer vulnerability and be subject to target marketing.

Evidence-based neuroethics for neurodevelopmental disorders

Many neurodevelopmental disorders affect early brain development in ways that are still poorly understood; yet, these disorders can place an enormous toll on patients, families, and society as a whole and affect all aspects of daily living for patients and their families. We describe a pragmatic, evidence-based framework for engaging in empiric ethics inquiry for a large consortium of researchers in neurodevelopmental disorders and provide relevant case studies of pragmatic neuroethics. The 3 neurodevelopmental disorders that are at the focus of our research, cerebral palsy (CP), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), bring unique and intersecting challenges of translating ethically research into clinical care for children and neonates. We identify and discuss challenges related to health care delivery in CP; neonatal neurological decision making; alternative therapies; and identity, integrity, and personhood.

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.

Aggression, science, and law: The origins framework. Introduction

Human societies have formalized instincts for compliance with reciprocal altruism in laws that sanction some aggression and not other aggression. Neuroscience makes steady advances toward measurements of various aspects of brain function pertinent to the aggressive behaviors that laws are designed to regulate. Consciousness, free will, rationality, intent, reality testing, empathy, moral reasoning, and capacity for self-control are somewhat subject to empirical assessment. The question becomes: how should law accommodate the wealth of information regarding these elements of mind that the science of aggression increasingly makes available? This essay discusses the evolutionary purpose of aggression, the evolutionary purpose of law, the problematic assumptions of the mens rea doctrine, and the prospects for applying the neuroscience of aggression toward the goal of equal justice for unequal minds. Nine other essays are introduced, demonstrating how each of them fits into the framework of the permanent debate about neuroscience and justice. It is concluded that advances in the science of human aggression will have vital, but biologically limited, impact on the provision of justice.