Transcript Ethics for Neuroscience Course Outline ‘Non

Catherine Rhodes, Sarah Chan
 How
workshop 2 fits into aims of the network.
 To present a suggested core curriculum for
neuroscience ethics education as a stimulus for
discussion.
 Starting point rather than finished product
 Expectation that there will be an emergent
consensus from the workshop about what the
core curriculum should be, including:
• Topics to be covered
• Modes of learning delivery
• Useful teaching tools
We’ve chosen to start this process by beginning to
design a course in ethics for neuroscientists, which
can be developed through the workshops
 Chosen modular style because:

• Allows selection and adaptation by end users of most relevant
materials for their purposes
• Users can also change order of lectures to suit own needs
• A good way of allowing other groups to develop
complementary lectures and other teaching materials that can
be combined with / supplement this course
• Easier to adapt to different teaching formats – e.g. to develop a
seminar or workshop based on a particular theme

End product a comprehensive course that can be
used in various ways
 To:
• Expand knowledge, awareness, and understanding
of relevant issues and analytical approaches
• Encourage appropriate application to practice
• Provide tools to consider, assess and evaluate
context and implications of research
• Promote considered and timely responses to ethical
issues and social concerns raised by advances in
neuroscience
• Train to describe, analyse and communicate ethical
and social dimensions of research, which go beyond
the remit of procedural ethical reviews
1.
Introduction – Science Ethics and Responsible
Conduct of Research
2.
Neuroscience of Morality and Moral
Enhancement
3.
Uses and Interpretation of Brain Imaging
4.
Cognitive Enhancement
5.
Clinical and Experimental Practice
6.
Bridging Lecture – the ‘do no harm’ principle

Neuroscience of morality and moral enhancement
Incorporating such issues as: what it means to be ‘moral’; whether this
can be located in neurology; and, if so, whether it can be ‘improved’.

Uses and interpretation of brain imaging

Cognitive enhancement

Clinical and experimental practice
Covering issues related to: consciousness; privacy; use in the
criminal justice system; risk of neurological reductionism; and
interpretation of findings (by scientists, by policy makers, by the
public / jurors).
Covering issues relating to: definitions of normality and pathology /
mental illness; unfair advantage; non-voluntary / coerced use e.g. in
military and in children (link to informed consent); and gatekeeper
issues e.g. who grants access and on what basis.
Including coverage of issues relating to: research involving human
participants; use of animal models (binge-drinking in mice example);
the handling of incidental findings and the right not to know; and the
blurred boundary between clinicians and researchers.
 What
is science ethics?
 Elements
of responsible conduct of research
 Responsibilities:
• Individual and collective
• Reciprocal responsibilities of society and science
• Global dimensions of scientific responsibility
 Codes
of Ethics and Conduct
• Exercise analysing an existing code of ethics
 What science ethics involves:
• “As a field of inquiry, Science Ethics is concerned
with the study and understanding of scientifically
sound responses to matters of social and ethical
importance and concern, and imperatives to direct
scientific inquiry to specific research or analysis.”
(iSEI working paper – Science Ethics)
 Why study science ethics:
• Teaching ethics as ethics should enable
neuroscientists to understand the issues, formulate
ethical problems in a way that allows appropriate
analysis and ultimately to use those to come up with
consistent and justified reasons for action.
 Responsibilities
to the scientific community in
the internal conduct of research
 Responsibilities to research subjects
 Responsibilities to the scientific community
and society in the communication and
dissemination of research
 Responsibilities for the external impacts of
research
 Responsibilities for understanding and
addressing external factors that impede the
ethical application of research

What responsibilities does society have to science?
• Facilitation; funding; literacy; policy advisory role.
• Duty to participate?

What responsibilities does science have to society?
• Addressing social concerns and implications; communication
and dialogue; acceptance of some limitations.

The impact of intermediaries (such as the media and
policy groups)
• Is neuroscience being effectively communicated and
accurately reported to the public? Do they have realistic views
of its potential, limitations, implications and risks? And what
role should scientists have in these processes?
 Science
as a global endeavour
 Implications
for conceptions of the scientific
community
 Extent
to which scientific responsibility
extends to prioritising work which addresses
global challenges
 Issues
of scientific justice and the need for
cooperation and capacity-building
 Sources of guidance and materials:
• Institutional – guidance and procedures produced
•
•
•
•
by your department and university
Professional – standards and codes set by
professional bodies for specific disciplines
National non-governmental – standards and
guidance produced by groups broadly
representative of the scientific community
National governmental guidance and rules
International sources
 Exercising
analysing an existing code and
identifying areas for improvement

iSEI Working Paper – Science Ethics
http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/documents/Scien
ce%20Ethics_working%20paper%2026.3.12.pdf

On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct
of Research

Verhoog, H. “The Responsibilities of Scientists”,
Minerva, 19(4): 582-604.

The Royal Society’s Brainwaves Reports

Nuffield Council on Bioethics - Novel
Neurotechnologies





Society for Neuroscience’s Policy on Ethics
British Psychological Society’s Code of Human
Research Ethics
BPS Discussion Paper – Neuroethics and the
British Psychological Society Research Ethics Code
American Psychological Association – Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
World Health Organisation’s Biorisk Management:
Laboratory Biosecurity Guidance

Hastings Center Report
• “Can research and care be ethically integrated?”, Vol.41 July-Aug 2011.
• “Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: In whose
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
interests?”, Vol. 41 Mar-Apr 2011.
“Brain imaging and courtroom deception”, Vol.40 Nov-Dec 2010.
“In the blink of the mind’s eye”, Vol. 40 May-June 2010.
“Moral distress: a growing problem in the health professions?”, Vol. 40
Jan-Feb 2010.
“Medicalized weapons and modern war”, Vol. 40 Jan-Feb 2010.
“Cryptic coercion”, Vol. 40 Jan-Feb 2010.
“Behaviour control: from the brain to the mind”, Vol. 39 May-June 2009.
“Neuroscience’s uncertain threat to criminal law”, Vol.38 Nov-Dec 2008.
“Bench to bedside: mapping the moral terrain of clinical research”,
Vol.38 Mar-Apr 2008.
“Unscientific ethics: science and selective ethics”, Vol. 37 Jan-Feb 2007.

AJOB Neuroscience:
• 2012 Vol. 3 – “Neuroscience, choice and the free will debate”
• 2012 Vol.2 – “Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
use”
2012 Vol. 1 – various articles on deep-brain stimulation
2011 Vol. 4 – target article on moral enhancement; “Brain branding: when
neuroscience and commerce collide”; “Stop the blame game: scientists, journalists
and neuroscience in the public realm”.
2011 Vol. 3 – special issue on free will and agency
2011 Vol. 2 – “Why neuroscience does not pose a threat to moral responsibility”;
“Ethical use of neuroscience”
2011 Vol. 1 – various articles on deep-brain stimulation
2010 Vol. 4 – “To ELSI or not to ELSI: lessons for neuroethics from the HGP”;
“Neuroscience and norms”
2010 Vol. 3 – “Human enhancement for the common good: using neurotechnologies
to improve eyewitness memory”; “Don’t forget memory’s costs”; “Imperfection:
rights, duties and obligations”.
2010 Vol. 2 – target article “A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national
security” and various responses including “Misuse made plain: evaluating concerns
about neuroscience in national security”; “National security neuroscience and the
reverse dual-use dilemma”; “Critical perspective on dual-use technologies and a
plea for responsibility in science”
2010 Vol. 1 – target articles on neuro-enhancement in young people and addiction,
ethics and brain science.