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.

Reengineering Biomedical Translational Research with Engineering Ethics

It is widely accepted that translational research practitioners need to acquire special skills and knowledge that will enable them to anticipate, analyze, and manage a range of ethical issues. While there is a small but growing literature that addresses the ethics of translational research, there is a dearth of scholarship regarding how this might apply to engineers. In this paper we examine engineers as key translators and argue that they are well positioned to ask transformative ethical questions. Asking engineers to both broaden and deepen their consideration of ethics in their work, however, requires a shift in the way ethics is often portrayed and perceived in science and engineering communities. Rather than interpreting ethics as a roadblock to the success of translational research, we suggest that engineers should be encouraged to ask questions about the socio-ethical dimensions of their work. This requires expanding the conceptual framework of engineering beyond its traditional focus on "how" and "what" questions to also include "why" and "who" questions to facilitate the gathering of normative, socially-situated information. Empowering engineers to ask "why" and "who" questions should spur the development of technologies and practices that contribute to improving health outcomes.

The role of professional knowledge in case-based reasoning in practical ethics

The use of case-based reasoning in teaching professional ethics has come of age. The fields of medicine, engineering, and business all have incorporated ethics case studies into leading textbooks and journal articles, as well as undergraduate and graduate professional ethics courses. The most recent guidelines from the National Institutes of Health recognize case studies and face-to-face discussion as best practices to be included in training programs for the Responsible Conduct of Research. While there is a general consensus that case studies play a central role in the teaching of professional ethics, there is still much to be learned regarding how professionals learn ethics using case-based reasoning. Cases take many forms, and there are a variety of ways to write them and use them in teaching. This paper reports the results of a study designed to investigate one of the issues in teaching case-based ethics: the role of one's professional knowledge in learning methods of moral reasoning. Using a novel assessment instrument, we compared case studies written and analyzed by three groups of students whom we classified as: (1) Experts in a research domain in bioengineering. (2) Novices in a research domain in bioengineering. (3) The non-research group--students using an engineering domain in which they were interested but had no in-depth knowledge. This study demonstrates that a student's level of understanding of a professional knowledge domain plays a significant role in learning moral reasoning skills.

Validity and reliability of an instrument for assessing case analyses in bioengineering ethics education

Assessment in ethics education faces a challenge. From the perspectives of teachers, students, and third-party evaluators like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the National Institutes of Health, assessment of student performance is essential. Because of the complexity of ethical case analysis, however, it is difficult to formulate assessment criteria, and to recognize when students fulfill them. Improvement in students' moral reasoning skills can serve as the focus of assessment. In previous work, Rosa Lynn Pinkus and Claire Gloeckner developed a novel instrument for assessing moral reasoning skills in bioengineering ethics. In this paper, we compare that approach to existing assessment techniques, and evaluate its validity and reliability. We find that it is sensitive to knowledge gain and that independent coders agree on how to apply it.

"We now control our evolution": circumventing ethical and logical cul-de-sacs of an anticipated engineering revolution

Philosophers, scientists, and other researchers have increasingly characterized humanity as having reached an epistemic and technical stage at which “we can control our own evolution.” Moral–philosophical analysis of this outlook reveals some problems, beginning with the vagueness of “we.” At least four glosses on “we” in the proposition “we, humanity, control our evolution” can be made: “we” is the bundle of all living humans, a leader guiding the combined species, each individual acting severally, or some mixture of these three involving a market interpretation of future evolutionary processes. While all of these glosses have difficulties under philosophical analysis, how we as a species handle our fate via technical developments is all-important. I propose our role herein should be understood as other than controllers of our evolution.

Conscience dilemma: to become a bioengineer or to survive as a biologist

Bioengineering is the consideration of biological problems from modern engineering, therefore money-oriented, perspective. Today, grant-giving bodies always favor bioengineering projects rather than pure biology projects (like those in ecology, entomology, etc.). Therefore, today's biologist is forced to be on the horns of a dilemma. They have to either submit a very powerful and valid reason for the proposal of their project, or change the project to one having a potential of money-based outcome. On the other hand, because of dealing with the living components of nature, conducting a research in pure biology is like a kind of worship. For this reason, from a believer scientist's view, a deviation (in terms of research) from biology to bioengineering can be considered like committing a sin. Unfortunately, today's wild capitalism has been bringing new sinners day by day, and this system will continue for the foreseeable future unless grant-giving bodies comprehend the real importance of pure biology.

Harnessing our very life

The Aristotelian ideas of nature (physis) and technology (techné) are taken as a starting point for understanding what it would mean for technology to be truly living. Heidegger's critique of the conflation of scientific and technological thinking in the current era is accepted as demonstrating that humanity does not have a deep enough appreciation of the nature of life to harness its essence safely. Could the vision of harnessing life be realized, which we strongly doubt, living technology would give selected humans transforming powers that could be expected to exacerbate, rather than solve, current global problems. The source of human purposefulness, and hence of both technology and ethics, is identified in nature's emergent capability to instantiate informational representations in material forms. Ethics that are properly grounded in an appreciation of intrinsic value, especially that of life, demand that proposals to give humanity the capabilities of living technology address the social, political, economic, and environmental problems inherent in its development and potential deployment. Before any development is embarked on, steps must be taken to avoid living technology, whatever the term eventually designates, becoming available for destructive or antisocial purposes such as those that might devastate humanity or irrevocably damage the natural world.