Neuroethics and neuroscience Neuroética e neurociência

Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2016

Neuroethics describes several interdisciplinary topics exploring the application and implications of engaging neuroscience in societal contexts. To explore this topic, we present Part 3 of a four-part bibliography of neuroethics' literature focusing on the "ethics of neuroscience." To complete a systematic survey of the neuroethics literature, 19 databases and 4 individual open-access journals were employed. Searches were conducted using the indexing language of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). A Python code was used to eliminate duplications in the final bibliography. This bibliography consists of 1137 papers, 56 books, and 134 book chapters published from 2002 through 2014, covering ethical issues in neuroimaging, neurogenetics, neurobiomarkers, neuro-psychopharmacology, brain stimulation, neural stem cells, neural tissue transplants, pediatric-specific issues, dual-use, and general neuroscience research issues. These works contain explanations of recent ...

Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 2006

The study gives an overview of ethical questions raised by the progress of neuroscience in identifying and intervening in neural correlates of the mind. Ethical problems resulting from brain research have induced the emergence of a new discipline termed neuroethics. Critical questions concern issues, such as prediction of disease, psychopharmacological enhancement of attention, memory or mood, and technologies such as psychosurgery, deep-brain stimulation or brain implants. Such techniques are capable of affecting the individual's sense of privacy, autonomy and identity. Moreover, reductionist interpretations of neuroscientific results challenge notions of free will, responsibility, personhood and the self which are essential for western culture and society. They may also gradually change psychiatric concepts of mental health and illness. These tendencies call for thorough, philosophically informed analyses of research findings and critical evaluation of their underlying conceptions of humans. Advances in neuroscience raise ethical, social and legal issues in relation to the human person and the brain. Potential benefits of applying neuroimaging, psychopharmacology and neurotechnology to mentally ill and healthy persons have to be carefully weighed against their potential harm. Questions concerning underlying concepts of humans should be actively dealt with by interdisciplinary and public debate.

Archives of Neuroscience, 2014

Context: Ethical issues have always been a topic of concern in basic science and clinical research. The ethical implications of neuroscience research and treatment have adopted the label "neuroethics," with great relevance and value. Evidence Acquisition: Human subjects and patients undergoing research and treatment exhibit their naturally judgmental nature on what is "moral" or "ethical'' and raise several questions pin pointing broader dilemmas in regarding moral and ethical issues posed by scientific research along with clinical treatment regimens. Results: Neuroethics encompasses the numerous ways and diverse methodologies throughwhich developments in basic and clinical neuroscience traverse with social, legal, moral and ethical issues. Conclusions: This review article puts forth emphasis on moral and ethical approaches regarding neuroscience research and treatment methodologies in the scientific arena.

Revista Bioética

Recent advances in neuroscience have led to numerous ethical questions. Neuroethics is the study of ethical, legal and social advancements in neuroscience which, despite being a recently developed discipline, has a long historical tradition. The concern with ethical issues in neuroscience is extremely old and dates back to the philosophical and scientific traditions that originally sought to understand the relationship between the brain and behavior. More recently, the field of neuroethics has emerged in the context of public and academic debate over the consequences of the advances arising from neuroscience. In the current context, technological innovations, which have arisen from the expansion of neuroscience research, have raised new ethical dilemmas. This article aims to analyze the historical course of ethics within the field of neuroscience, specifically the appearance and the recent institutionalization of neuroethics.

Contextos Clínicos, 2013

The debate about the ethical aspects surrounding the brain is growing these days and consequently the sciences directly related to it covered by neurosciences. Neuroethics is a recent field linked to the intersection of bioethics and neuroscience, and its advances raise ethical questions. The aim of this article is to verify and to comment important aspects of neuroethics. It was accomplished to critically review the literature. Ethics applied to areas related to neurosciences needs criteria that will serve as reference to consider variables and judge circumstances; the recent advances in neuroscience raise important ethical questions that need to be discussed and observed by Neuroethics; there is a need to define the boundaries between the use of technologies and therapies to treat an ill patient and usages only to improve the performance of normal healthy individuals. Recent progress on cognitive neuroscience brings important ethical, practical, technological, philosophical, spiritual and moral questions to society.

Ethical problems resulting from brain research have given rise to a new discipline termed neuroethics, representing a new kind of knowledge capable of discovering the neural basis for universal ethics. The article (1) tries to evaluate the contributions of neuroethics to medical ethics and its suitability to outline the foundations of universal ethics, (2) critically analyses the process of founding this universal ethic. The potential benefits of applying neuroimaging, psy-chopharmacology and neurotechnology have to be carefully weighed against their potential harm. In view of these questions, an intensive dialogue between neuroscience and the humanities is more necessary than ever.

In their presentation of the ethics of decoded neurofeedback (DNF), Nakazawa et al (in press) provide an interesting reflection on a potentially new neuro-intervention hitherto unaddressed. I agree with them that pro-active ethical analyses of emerging neuro-technologies are of crucial importance. Nonetheless, I have a twofold concern with their approach. First, their extensive discussion on possible therapeutic uses of DNF (p. 7ff) is largely ahead of the actual research reality. They seem to intermingle the option of treating people with the necessity to conduct scientific research on the safety and efficacy of DNF. From an ethical point of view, however, there are important differences between medical care and medical research. Second, the authors claim that DNF can be applied for moral neuroenhancement (p. 11). Their ethical analysis of the risks and benefits in this context, however, focuses solely on procedural issues – moral pluralism, (ir)reversibility, adverse effects –, but does not pay attention to questions of content. Leaving out moral values, however, renders one unable to distinguish between kind people made kinder and racist people rendered more racist. As a consequence, we cannot yet determine which potential implications are indeed advantageous or worrisome.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2010

Neuroethics studies the ethical, social, and legal issues raised by actual or expected advances in neuroscience. The relevant fields in neuroscience include, but are not limited to, neuroimaging, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychopharmacology, neurogenetics, and neuropsychiatry. For many, neuroethics is best understood as a subcategory of bioethics, and although not all agree, for the purposes of the present collection of articles, this definition is assumed. Although bioethics as a field of study started in the early 1970s as a normative enterprise, mainly practiced by philosophers and theologians, it has since become truly inter- and multidisciplinary, comprising also law, sociology, psychology, gender studies, disability studies, anthropology, history, and many other approaches. What we particularly wanted to do in this issue, however, was to find the most pertinent questions of neuroethics from the viewpoint of philosophy, and the call for papers was drafted accordingly.

Science and Engineering Ethics, 2012

Advances in neuroscience continue to enhance understanding of the brain and provide new tools to take advantage of that understanding. These changes are poised to profoundly alter society. Given that the impact will be felt not only by neuroscientists, but by diverse members of society, it is imperative that conversations engage all stakeholders. Doing so will allow for the sharing of diverse views and perspectives to understand and frame the science, better educate and prepare the public for new developments, and provide a shared approach to identifying and resolving ethical challenges. These were the goals of Neuroethics Week, staged in 2007 by the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology in San Diego, and are the basis for the contributions to this special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics. Keywords Education Á Ethics Á Multidisciplinary Á Neuroethics Á Neuroscience Á Public engagement Neuroethics Two areas of modern neuroscientific inquiry include the mechanistic roots for ethical decision-making and behavior and the ethical, legal, and social challenges that accompany an increased understanding of brain function. Sometimes summarized as the ''neuroscience of ethics'' and ''ethics of neuroscience,'' these kinds of studies have come to be defined collectively as neuroethics (Bird 2009; Roskies 2002). This issue is devoted broadly to this conception of ''neuroethics.'' M. Kalichman (&) Á D.

Neuroethics, 2013

Using a metaphorical reminiscence upon holiday toys-and the hopes, challenges and possibilities they presented-this essay addresses the ways that the heuristics, outcomes and products of neuroscience have effected change in the human condition, predicament, and being. A note of caution is offered to pragmatically assess what can be done with neurotechnology, what can't, and what should and shouldn't-based upon the capacities and limitations of both the science, and our collective ability to handle knowledge, power and the unknown. This is not an appeal to impede brain research. To the contrary, it is a call to engage neuroethics as a discipline and set of practices 1) to allow a deeper, more finely-grained understanding of brains and their functions in ecological dynamics (that we define as morality and ethics), and 2) to intuit how to engage neuroscientific research and its applications in the social sphere (inclusive of medicine, public life and national agenda), to more accurately perceive how neuroscience is changing human society and the human being, and to instantiate more relevant ethics and laws that are in step with advancing epistemological capital and technological capability.