Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials

We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called "moral entanglement." Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context through exploration of participants' vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials.

Can I Hold That Thought for You? Dementia and Shared Relational Agency

Agency is talked about by many as something that people living with dementia lose, once they've lost much else-autonomy, identity, and privacy, among other things. While the language of loss may capture some of what transpires in dementia, it can obscure how people living with dementia and their loved ones share agency through sharing capacities for memory, language, and decision-making. We suggest that one consequence of adopting a framework of loss is that it makes the default response to changes in agency the substitution of a family member's agency for the purported lost agency of someone living with dementia. We argue for an alternative framework in which sharing agency is recognized as a central feature of living with dementia. Building on the work of relational theorists, we argue for the value of thinking about agency in dementia as fundamentally shared, and explore potential implications for treatment, caregiver support, and building dementia-friendly environments.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Substance Use Disorders? An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Perspectives of People Currently in Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Although previous studies have discussed the promise of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a possible treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) and collected researcher perspectives on possible ethical issues surrounding it, none have consulted people with SUDs themselves. We addressed this gap by interviewing people with SUDs.

METHODS

Participants viewed a short video introducing DBS, followed by a 1.5-hour semistructured interview on their experiences with SUDs and their perspective on DBS as a possible treatment option. Interviews were analyzed by multiple coders who iteratively identified salient themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 people in 12-step-based, inpatient treatment programs (10 [50%] White/Caucasian, 7 Black/African American [35%], 2 Asian [10%], 1 Hispanic/Latino [5%], and 1 [5%] Alaska Native/American Indian; 9 women [45%], 11 men [55%]). Interviewees described a variety of barriers they currently faced through the course of their disease that mirrored barriers often associated with DBS (stigma, invasiveness, maintenance burdens, privacy risks) and thus made them more open to the possibility of DBS as a future treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with SUDs gave relatively less weight to surgical risks and clinical burdens associated with DBS than previous surveys of provider attitudes anticipated. These differences derived largely from their experiences living with an often-fatal disease and encountering limitations of current treatment options. These findings support the study of DBS as a treatment option for SUDs, with extensive input from people with SUDs and advocates.

The Role of Family Members in Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Trials: More Than Psychosocial Support

Family members can provide crucial support to individuals participating in clinical trials. In research on the "newest frontier" of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)-the use of DBS for psychiatric conditions-family member support is frequently listed as a criterion for trial enrollment. Despite the significance of family members, qualitative ethics research on DBS for psychiatric conditions has focused almost exclusively on the perspectives and experiences of DBS recipients. This qualitative study is one of the first to include both DBS recipients and their family members as interview participants. Using dyadic thematic analysis-an approach that takes both the individuals and the relationship as units of analyses-this study analyzes the complex ways in which family relationships can affect DBS trial participation, and how DBS trial participation in turn influences family relationships. Based on these findings, we propose ways to improve study designs to better take family relationships into account, and better support family members in taking on the complex, essential roles that they play in DBS trials for psychiatric conditions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12152-023-09520-7.

Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of 'Neurorights'

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty - often framed as "neurorights" in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.

Trustworthiness matters: Building equitable and ethical science

Trustworthy science requires research practices that center issues of ethics, equity, and inclusion. We announce the Leadership in the Equitable and Ethical Design (LEED) of Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEM) initiative to create best practices for integrating ethical expertise and fostering equitable collaboration.

Asking questions that matter – Question prompt lists as tools for improving the consent process for neurotechnology clinical trials

Implantable neurotechnology devices such as Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and Deep Brain Stimulators (DBS) are an increasing part of treating or exploring potential treatments for neurological and psychiatric disorders. While only a few devices are approved, many promising prospects for future devices are under investigation. The decision to participate in a clinical trial can be challenging, given a variety of risks to be taken into consideration. During the consent process, prospective participants might lack the language to consider those risks, feel unprepared, or simply not know what questions to ask. One tool to help empower participants to play a more active role during the consent process is a Question Prompt List (QPL). QPLs are communication tools that can prompt participants and patients to articulate potential concerns. They offer a structured list of disease, treatment, or research intervention-specific questions that research participants can use as support for question asking. While QPLs have been studied as tools for improving the consent process during cancer treatment, in this paper, we suggest they would be helpful in neurotechnology research, and offer an example of a QPL as a template for an informed consent tool in neurotechnology device trials.

Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects' Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation

BackgroundAn increasing number of studies utilize intracranial electrophysiology in human subjects to advance basic neuroscience knowledge. However, the use of neurosurgical patients as human research subjects raises important ethical considerations, particularly regarding informed consent and undue influence, as well as subjects' motivations for participation. Yet a thorough empirical examination of these issues in a participant population has been lacking. The present study therefore aimed to empirically investigate ethical concerns regarding informed consent and voluntariness in Parkinson's disease patients undergoing deep brain stimulator (DBS) placement who participated in an intraoperative neuroscience study.MethodsTwo semi-structured 30-minute interviews were conducted preoperatively and postoperatively via telephone. Interviews assessed participants' motivations for participation in the parent intraoperative study, recall of information presented during the informed consent process, and participants' postoperative reflections on the research study.ResultsTwenty-two participants (mean age = 60.9) completed preoperative interviews at a mean of 7.8 days following informed consent and a mean of 5.2 days prior to DBS surgery. Twenty participants completed postoperative interviews at a mean of 5 weeks following surgery. All participants cited altruism or advancing medical science as "very important" or "important" in their decision to participate in the study. Only 22.7% (n = 5) correctly recalled one of the two risks of the study. Correct recall of other aspects of the informed consent was poor (36.4% for study purpose; 50.0% for study protocol; 36.4% for study benefits). All correctly understood that the study would not confer a direct therapeutic benefit to them.ConclusionEven though research coordinators were properly trained and the informed consent was administered according to protocol, participants demonstrated poor retention of study information. While intraoperative studies that aim to advance neuroscience knowledge represent a unique opportunity to gain fundamental scientific knowledge, improved standards for the informed consent process can help facilitate their ethical implementation.

Fostering Neuroethics Integration with Neuroscience in the BRAIN Initiative: Comments on the NIH Neuroethics Roadmap

The BRAIN 2.0 roadmap lauds the neuroscientific advances made in the first decade of the BRAIN Initiative, but also calls attention to the need to carefully consider how these advances will inform and perhaps alter our understanding of "those deepest behaviors that, as humans we hold dear" (Roadmap, Executive Summary). In this short statement, we briefly consider several features of the BRAIN Neuroethics subgroup's roadmap that lie within our area of expertise, including the recommendations to (1) enhance integration of neuroscience and neuroethics, and (2) provide additional tools and resources for neuroscientists to recognize neuroethics issues and opportunities for neuroethics research.

Neurotechnology ethics and relational agency

Novel neurotechnologies, like deep brain stimulation and brain-computer interface, offer great hope for treating, curing, and preventing disease, but raise important questions about effects these devices may have on human identity, authenticity, and autonomy. After briefly assessing recent narrative work in these areas, we show that agency is a phenomenon key to all three goods and highlight the ways in which neural devices can help to draw attention to the relational nature of our agency. Drawing on insights from disability theory, we argue that neural devices provide a kind of agential assistance, similar to that provided by caregivers, family, and others. As such, users and devices participate in a kind of co-agency. We conclude by suggesting the need for developing relational agency-competencies-skills for reflecting on the influence of devices on agency, for adapting to novel circumstances ushered in by devices, and for incorporating the feedback of loved ones and others about device effects on agency.

Mapping the Dimensions of Agency

Neural devices have the capacity to enable users to regain abilities lost due to disease or injury - for instance, a deep brain stimulator (DBS) that allows a person with Parkinson's disease to regain the ability to fluently perform movements or a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) that enables a person with spinal cord injury to control a robotic arm. While users recognize and appreciate the technologies' capacity to maintain or restore their capabilities, the neuroethics literature is replete with examples of concerns expressed about agentive capacities: A perceived lack of control over the movement of a robotic arm might result in an altered sense of feeling responsible for that movement. Clinicians or researchers being able to record and access detailed information of a person's brain might raise privacy concerns. A disconnect between previous, current, and future understandings of the self might result in a sense of alienation. The ability to receive and interpret sensory feedback might change whether someone trusts the implanted device or themselves. Inquiries into the nature of these concerns and how to mitigate them has produced scholarship that often emphasizes one issue - responsibility, privacy, authenticity, or trust - selectively. However, we believe that examining these ethical dimensions separately fails to capture a key aspect of the experience of living with a neural device. In exploring their interrelations, we argue that their mutual significance for neuroethical research can be adequately captured if they are described under a unified heading of agency. On these grounds, we propose an "Agency Map" which brings together the diverse neuroethical dimensions and their interrelations into a comprehensive framework. With this, we offer a theoretically-grounded approach to understanding how these various dimensions are interwoven in an individual's experience of agency.

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review

Importance

Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants.

Observations

Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities.

Conclusions and Relevance

This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI

Artificial intelligence and brain-computer interfaces must respect and preserve people’s privacy, identity, agency and equality, say Rafael Yuste, Sara Goering and colleagues.

On the Necessity of Ethical Guidelines for Novel Neurotechnologies

Because novel neurotechnologies may alter human identity and society in profound ways, we advocate for the early integration of ethics into neurotechnology. We recommend developing and adopting a set of guidelines, like the Belmont Report on human subject research, as a framework for development and use of brain-related technologies.

New Perspectives on Neuroengineering and Neurotechnologies: NSF-DFG Workshop Report

GOAL

To identify and overcome barriers to creating new neurotechnologies capable of restoring both motor and sensory function in individuals with neurological conditions.

METHODS

This report builds upon the outcomes of a joint workshop between the US National Science Foundation and the German Research Foundation on New Perspectives in Neuroengineering and Neurotechnology convened in Arlington, VA, USA, November 13-14, 2014.

RESULTS

The participants identified key technological challenges for recording and manipulating neural activity, decoding, and interpreting brain data in the presence of plasticity, and early considerations of ethical and social issues pertinent to the adoption of neurotechnologies.

CONCLUSIONS

The envisaged progress in neuroengineering requires tightly integrated hardware and signal processing efforts, advances in understanding of physiological adaptations to closed-loop interactions with neural devices, and an open dialog with stakeholders and potential end-users of neurotechnology.

SIGNIFICANCE

The development of new neurotechnologies (e.g., bidirectional brain-computer interfaces) could significantly improve the quality of life of people living with the effects of brain or spinal cord injury, or other neurodegenerative diseases. Focused efforts aimed at overcoming the remaining barriers at the electrode tissue interface, developing implantable hardware with on-board computation, and refining stimulation methods to precisely activate neural tissue will advance both our understanding of brain function and our ability to treat currently intractable disorders of the nervous system.

Values in translation: how asking the right questions can move translational science toward greater health impact

The speed and effectiveness of current approaches to research translation are widely viewed as disappointing given small gains in real population health outcomes despite huge investments in basic and translational science. We identify critical value questions-ethical, social, economic, and cultural-that arise at moments throughout the research pathway. By making these questions visible, and promoting discussion of them with diverse stakeholders, we can facilitate handoffs along the translational pathway and increase uptake of effective interventions. Who is involved with those discussions will determine which research projects, populations, and methods get prioritized. We argue that some upfront investment in community and interdisciplinary engagement, shaped by familiar questions in ethics, social justice, and cultural knowledge, can save time and resources in the long run because interventions and strategies will be aimed in the right direction, that is, toward health improvements for all.

Postnatal reproductive autonomy: promoting relational autonomy and self-trust in new parents

New parents suddenly come face to face with myriad issues that demand careful attention but appear in a context unlikely to provide opportunities for extended or clear-headed critical reflection, whether at home with a new baby or in the neonatal intensive care unit. As such, their capacity for autonomy may be compromised. Attending to new parental autonomy as an extension of reproductive autonomy, and as a complicated phenomenon in its own right rather than simply as a matter to be balanced against other autonomy rights, can help us to see how new parents might be aided in their quest for competency and good decision making. In this paper I show how a relational view of autonomy--attentive to the coercive effects of oppressive social norms and to the importance of developing autonomy competency, especially as related to self-trust--can improve our understanding of the situation of new parents and signal ways to cultivate and to better respect their autonomy.

Beyond the medical model? Disability, formal justice, and the exception for the "profoundly impaired"

The formal justice model proposed by Anita Silvers in Disability, Discrimination, and Difference emphasizes the social model of disability and the need for full equality of opportunity, and it suggests that a distributive model of justice that gives special benefits to individuals with disabilities is self-defeating. Yet in that work, Silvers allows an exception for the "profoundly impaired." In this paper, I show how the formal justice theory falls short when it comes to defining and dealing with "profoundly impaired" individuals and explore the ways in which making the exception raises serious theoretical concerns for the grounding of the formal justice model.

Gene therapies and the pursuit of a better human

As a philosopher interested in biomedical ethics, I find recent advances in genetic technologies both fascinating and frightening. Future technologies for genetic therapies and elimination of clearly deleterious genes offer us the ability to get rid of the cause of much human suffering, seemingly at its physiological root. But memories of past eugenics programs gone horribly awry (whether we speak of Hitler's program, California sterilization laws and practices of the 1920s, or even contemporary practices, such as attempts to work out deals that exchange sterilization for early prison release) must make cautious our initial optimism for these generally well-intentioned programs. Most often the scientist proceeds in research with the best of intentions, but that does not make all scientific investigation worth pursuing.

Interhemispheric processing in left- and right-handers

Inter- and intrahemispheric processing for left- and right-handers were compared in two experiments. In one, subjects performed a digit-matching task and in the other they decided if two letters were part of a previously presented word. On some trials the matching items were presented initially only to one hemisphere (within-hemisphere trials), and hence the match decision could be reached by a hemisphere in isolation. On other trials, one item of the match pair was presented to each hemisphere (across-hemisphere trials), requiring interhemispheric interaction for the match decision. Patterns of performance on within-as compared to across-hemisphere trials were identical for the two handedness groups in both experiments. Furthermore, individual characteristics of subjects such as their hand posture, sex and family history of left-handedness did not affect the pattern of performance. These results suggest that interhemispheric processing may not differ between right- and left-handers.