Meeting Highlights
MEETING REPORT
Download the meeting report for the 2016 INS Annual Meeting.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10
Emerging Genetics of Human Cognition and Behavior: New Challenges for Ethics and Policy
Steve Hyman discussed the insights that researchers are gaining into the genetic and molecular mechanisms underlying psychiatric disorders. While praising the ability of this knowledge to bring about effective treatments for cognitive disease, Hyman voiced concern that it could be applied in ethically problematic ways outside the therapeutic context.
- The Ethics of Genetic Technologies – Dana Foundation Blog
International Ambassador Session
We initiated the INS International Ambassador Program with a two-hour session dedicated to international neuroethics.
Meet Tomorrow’s World: A Meeting on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies Summary
Technology is rapidly reshaping the world we live in. In the past few decades, mankind has not significantly changed biologically but human societies have undergone continuous and unprecedented developments through technological innovation. Today, most human activities—from messaging to geolocation, from financial transactions to medical therapies—are computer-mediated.
- The Ethics of Emerging Technologies – Dana Foundation Blog
- Meet Tomorrow’s World: A Meeting on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies – The Neuroethics Blog
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11
Ethics of the BRAIN Initiative
In recent years, Europe, the USA and Japan have launched large-scale initiatives aimed to advance our understanding of the brain. Other countries, including China and South Korea, have announced plans to launch their own projects. Walter Koroshetz, Director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke discussed ethical issues raised by these projects.
The Competing Identities of Neuroethics
This panel session raised the question of whether or not neuroethics is an image of its creators, bringing different perspectives, methods and ways of practicing. On the one hand there is the scientific image (biological sciences) of neuroethics, while on the other hand the manifest image (the humanities and social sciences).
- Competing Perspectives in Neuroethics – Dana Foundation Blog
Flash Talks
A series of three minute talks each described the speaker’s research presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting.
Oral Abstract Presentations Session
The Oral Abstract Presentations was expertly moderated by Veljko Dubljevic and featured four authors of selected abstracts. With each speaker allotted only fifteen minutes, the session was fast-paced and dynamic and highlighted both emergent issues and scholars in the field of neuroethics.
Deconstructing Therapeutic Neurotechnology ‘Narratives’: A Case Study of DBS for Depressions
The panel on therapeutic neurotechnology featured a discussion on the ethics of narrative dispersal that shape patient care. Speakers highlighted experiences that enhanced or impeded the practice of introducing novel neurotechnologies. There was general agreement that patient therapy and technology implementation were optimized when narratives reflected data and were sensitive to patient perceptions.
- Ethics in Practice: DBS for Depression – Dana Foundation Blog
Photos
Photos of proceedings from the meeting are provided by Gillian Hue, Emory University.
Sponsors
The International Neuroethics Society thanks the following institutions and individuals for their generous contributions.
General Support:
Stipends / Prizes:
Anonymous Donor
Michael Patterson
2016 Program Committee
CO-CHAIRS
Joseph J. Fins
Weill Cornell Medical College
Joseph J. Fins, M.D., M.A.C.P. is The E. William Davis, Jr. M.D. Professor of Medical Ethics and Chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College where he is a Tenured Professor of Medicine, Professor of Medical Ethics in Neurology, Professor of Health Care Policy and Research, and Professor of Medicine in Psychiatry. He the founding Chair of the Ethics Committee of New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center where he is an Attending Physician and the Director of Medical Ethics. A member of the Adjunct Faculty of Rockefeller University and Senior Attending Physician at The Rockefeller University Hospital, he Co-Directs, the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury (CASBI) at Weill Cornell and Rockefeller. At Yale Law School, he is the Solomon Center Distinguished Scholar in Medicine, Bioethics and the Law. He is a past president of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities and former Governor of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Fins is a Member of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, an elected Member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and an Academico de Honor (Honored Academic) of the Real Academia Nacional de Medicina de España (the Royal Academy of Medicine of Spain). His most recent book is Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics & The Struggle for Consciousness published by Cambridge University Press.
Molly Crockett
University of Oxford
Dr Molly Crockett is Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology, Fellow of Jesus College, and Distinguished Research Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, University of Oxford. She holds a PhD in Experimental Psychology from the University of Cambridge and BSc in Neuroscience from UCLA. Prior to joining Oxford, Dr Crockett worked with economists and neuroscientists at the University of Zürich and University College London, studying human decision-making with the support of a Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship.
EARLY CAREER SCHOLAR CO-CHAIR
Rachel Wurzman
University of Pennsylvania
Rachel Wurzman is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Laboratory for Cognition and Neural Stimulation, where she uses non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroimaging techniques with to investigate markers of brain plasticity that may predict functional recovery and facilitate neurorehabilitation in stroke patients. She is also a Fellow in the Center for Neuroscience and Society at the University of Pennsylvania, where she studies ethical, legal, and social issues pertaining to noninvasive brain stimulation, and leads a working group on the same. Wurzman previously studied the developmental neurobiology of neuropsychiatric disorders in the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown University Medical Center, where she was awarded a PhD in Neuroscience in 2014. During her time at Georgetown, she was the founding Vice President of the Georgetown University Graduate Neuroethics Society and a researcher with the Neuroethics Studies Program of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, where she was the studied a variety of topics including neuroethical issues in diagnosing and treating neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders, neuroscience fiction and neuroethical obligations in the representation of brain science, and neuroethical issues arising from the use of neuroscience and neurotechnology in national security and defense. Wurzman was formerly a Neuroscience Scholar Program Fellow with the Society for Neuroscience, an intern with the Science Division of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President of the United States, a recipient of the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award for Individual Predoctoral Fellowships from the National Institutes of Health, and is a Smith College alumna.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Tom Buller
Illinois State University
Tom Buller is Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Illinois State University. His main teaching and research interests are in neuroethics and the philosophy of mind
Veljko Dubljevic
North Carolina State University
Veljko Dubljevic Ph.D.,D.Phil., is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and affiliate of the Science, Technology and Society program at North Carolina State University. Before arriving in Raleigh, he spent three years as a postdoctoral fellow at the Neuroethics Research Unit at IRCM and McGill University in Montreal, Canada. He studied philosophy (University of Novi Sad) and economics (Educons University), and obtained a PhD in political science (University of Belgrade). After that he joined the Research Training Group “Bioethics” at University of Tuebingen, and after studying philosophy, bioethics, and neuroscience, he obtained a doctorate in philosophy (University of Stuttgart). Veljko’s research focuses on ethics of neuroscience and technology, and neuroscience of ethics. He has over 40 publications in moral, legal and political philosophy and in neuroethics. He co-edited a volume at Oxford University Press (together with Fabrice Jotterand): Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives, and is working on his monograph Neuroethics and Justice: Public Reason in the Cognitive Enhancement Debate, (in Book Series “The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology,” under contract with Springer). He also serves as the inaugural managing editor and co-editor for the book series “Advances in Neuroethics” (under contract with Springer)
Judy Illes
University of British Columbia
Dr. Judy Illes is Professor of Neurology and Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia. She is Director of the National Core for Neuroethics at UBC, and faculty in the Brain Research Centre and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute. As a pioneer and eminent scholar in the field of Neuroethics, she has made ground-making contributions to ethical, social, and policy challenges at the intersection of biomedical ethics and neuroscience, including advances in stem cells, neuroimaging, neuroscience and the law, and the commercialization of health care.
Helen Mayberg
Emory University School of Medicine
Helen Mayberg, MD is Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Radiology and the Dorothy Fuqua Chair in Psychiatric Imaging and Therapeutics at Emory University. Her research has characterized neural systems mediating major depression and its recovery, defined brain-based illness subtypes to optimize treatment selection, and introduced the first use of deep brain stimulation for treatment resistant patients. She is a member of the National Academy of Medicine and is an active participant in a variety of advisory, editorial and scientific activities across multiple fields in the neurosciences.
Karen S. Rommelfanger
Emory University
Dr. Karen S. Rommelfanger is an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the Neuroethics Program Director at Emory University’s Center for Ethics, and Neuroscience Editor-in-Residence at the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience. She also serves on the NIH BRAIN Initiative’s Neuroethics Workgroup. Her research explores how evolving neuroscience and neurotechnologies challenge societal definitions of disease and medicine. A key part of her work is fostering communication across multiple stakeholders in neuroscience. As such she edits the largest international online neuroethics discussion forum The Neuroethics Blog and she is a frequent contributor and commentator in popular media such as The New York Times, USA Today and The Huffington Post. She also founded NEW (NeuroEthicsWomen) Leaders, an organization that aims to cultivate professional development and scholarly networks for women and under-represented groups in neuroethics.
Accepted Abstracts
Many thanks to the following individuals and organizations for supporting this year’s abstract authors and presenters.
- Two (2) $250 INS Travel Stipends
- Two (2) $250 Neuroethics Research Unit/IRCM Travel Stipends
- One (1) $500 Travel Stipend for travel from outside North America donated anonymously
- Four (4) book prizes provided by Oxford University Press
- Five (5) neuroscience books provided by Elsevier
- Five (5) book prizes provided by Springer
- One (1) year online subscription to the Neuroethics journal published by Springer
- Up to twenty-five (25) abstracts will be published in an online issue of AJOB Neuroscience (full abstract)
Abstract 2
Poster Presentation Award
Neurodiversity in Neuroethics: A Case Study of Brain Stimulation for Autism
J. C. Sarrett [1], K. S. Rommelfanger [2,3,4]
1. Emory University, Center for the Study of Human Health; 2. Emory University, Center for Ethics Neuroethics Program; 3. Emory University, Department of Neurology; 4. Emory University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences;
Abstract 3
Poster Preview & $250 INS Travel Stipend
Integrative Neuroscience to Define, Assess and Mitigate Recurrent Violent Behavior: Technical Issues, Neuroethico-Legal and Social Concerns
K. Herrera-Ferrá [1], J. Giordano [2]
1. Asociación Mexicana de Neuroética, Mexico City, Mexico; 2. Department of Neurology and Neuroethics Studies Program-Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC, USA;
Abstract 4
Neuroethics Education: Assessment and Pilot Curriculum for Neurology and Neurosurgery Residents
D. McAdams [1,2], J. Giordano [2,3]
1. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center; 2. Georgetown University Medical Center; 3. Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Abstract 5
Poster Presentation Award
Pain and the Developing Brain: Neuroethical Considerations in the Use of Neurotechnology in Pediatric Pain Research and Care
C. Khadra [1,2,3], S. Le May [1,2], S. J. Friedrichsdorf [4,5], J. Giordano [6]
1. University of Montreal, Canada; 2. CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, Canada; 3. McGill University Health Center, Canada; 4. University of Minnesota, USA; 5. Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, USA; 6. Department of Neurology and Neuroethics Studies Program, Georgetown University Medical Center, USA;
Abstract 9
A Connectionist Model of Implicit and Explicit Cognitive Processes and the Naturally Emerging Order of Mental Operations: An Introduction
J. N. Habiger
University of Washington – Seattle
Abstract 11
Psychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation: Recurrent and Neglected Ethical Issues
L. Y. Cabrera, R. McKenzie, R. Bluhm
Michigan State University
Abstract 12
Poster Preview
¿”Neuroensanchamiento”?: Perspectives and Terms in the Latin American and Spanish Literature Regarding Neuroenhancement
C. Colón-Ortiz, L. Y. Cabrera
Neuroscience Program, Michigan State University; Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University;
Abstract 15
Ethical Implications Associated with the Comprehension of Legal Language and Concepts
J. A. Wszalek
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Abstract 16
Poster Presentation Award
An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Plea Colloquies: Ethical Concerns
J. A. Wszalek, L. S.Turkstra
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Abstract 21
The Project of Neuroethics: Building a Firm Foundation
J. Beauregard
Rivier University, Nashua, NH, USA
Abstract 22
Made in His Image: Neuroethics, Social Re-Creation, and the Cultural Projection of Robotics Technologies
D. Larrivee [1,2], J. Beauregard [3]
1. Loyola University Chicago; 2. International Association Catholic Bioethicists; 3. Rivier College-New Hampshire
Abstract 23
Design as Technology: Ethical Narratives in the Reappraisal of Applied Neuroscience
L. Echarte [1], D. Larrivee [2,3]
1. University of Navarra-Pamplona, Spain; 2. Loyola University Chicago; 3. International Association Catholic Bioethicists;
Abstract 24
Dematerialization and the Infosphere: Ethical Reflections on Performative Neurotransformation in a Virtual World
D. Larrivee [1,2], L. Echarte [3]
1. Loyola University Chicago; 2. International Association Catholic Bioethicists; 3. University of Navarra School of Medicine, Pamplona, Spain;
Abstract 25
Poster Preview; Poster Presentation Award
In the Absence of Reason: Ethical Reflections on Predictive Brain Implants and Self-Ownership
J. Larrivee [1], A. Canadas [1], D. Larrivee [2]
1. Mount St Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, Maryland; 3. Loyola University Chicago;
Abstract 26
Systems or Symbiosis: Engineers Only? Ethical Appraisal at the Intersection of Neuro-Systems Convergence
A. Larrivee [1], D. Larrivee [2,3]
1. Catholic University of America-Washington, DC; 2. Loyola University Chicago; 3. International Association Catholic Bioethicists;
Abstract 27
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Design: Ethical Appraisal of Value Inserting Automation
D. Larrivee [1,2], M. Farisco [3]
1. Loyola University Chicago; 2. International Association Catholic Bioethicists; 3. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;
Abstract 28
The Computational Shift in Neuroscience: A Multifaceted Neuroethical Analysis
M. Farisco [1,2,3], K. Evers [1,2]
1. The Human Brain Project; 2. Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 3. Biogem Genetic Research Centre, Ariao Irpino (AV), Italy;
Abstract 29
Poster Presentation Award
A Penny for Your Thoughts: Valuation Underwrites Normative Choice
J. Haas
Washington University in St. Louis
Abstract 30
Publish or Perish – or Dope?
S. P. Mann [1], P. de Lora Deltoro [2], T. I. Cochrane [3,4], C. Mitchell [3]
1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge; 2. Departments of Public Law and Jurisprudence, Autonomous University of Madrid, 3. Center for Bioethics, Harvard University, 4. Department of Neurology, Brigham & Women’s Hospital;
Abstract 32
Poster Presentation Award
Ethical Considerations Towards Disclosure of Individual Results in Observational Studies for Cognitive Decline
S. Gauthier [1,3], M. Masellis [2], J. DeChamplain [3] on behalf of the CCNA ELSI Committee
1. McGill Center for Studies in Aging, Douglas Mental Health Research Institute; 2. Sunnybrook Hospital, University of Toronto; 3. Comité central d’éthique de la recherche du ministre de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Gouvernement du Québec;
Abstract 33
Re(current) Issues in Neuroethics: The Importance of Looking to the Past to Understand the Future
A. Wexler
Department of Science, Technology & Society, MIT; Center for Neuroscience and Society, University of Pennsylvania;
Abstract 34
Poster Presentation Award
Who Actually Uses Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Technologies, and Why? A Study of Consumer Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Device Users
A. Wexler [1, 2], N. Fitz [3]
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2. University of Pennsylvania; 3. University of British Columbia;
Abstract 36
Space Neuroethics
K. Tachibana
Kumamoto University, Japan
Abstract 37
Assessing the Impact of Neurotechnology on the Legal System
E. Fosch-Villaronga [1], M. Ienca [2]
1. Interdepartmental Centre for Research in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Law and in Computer Science and Law (CIRSFID), University of Bologna; 2. Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel;
Abstract 38
Oral Presentation & $250 IRCM Travel Stipend
Incorporating Ethics in Assistive Technology for Neurological and Elderly Care
M. Ienca [1], F. Jotterand [1,2], R. Kressig [3], B. Elger [1]
1. University of Basel; 2. Regis University; 3. Felix Platter Hospital;
Abstract 39
Poster Preview
The Catch-22 of CTE: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications
L. S. M. Johnson
Michigan Technological University
Abstract 40
Communicating About the Brain in the Digital Era
J. M. Robillard
National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia
Abstract 43
Oral Presentation & $250 IRCM Travel Stipend
Communicating Through a Brain-Computer Interface: An Innovative Approach to Assess Quality of Life in Patients with Severe Brain Injury
J. Tung [1], K. N. Speechley [1], C. Weijer [1,2]
1. Western University; 2. Rotman Institute of Philosophy;
Abstract 44
Prescribing Stimulants for Cognitive Enhancement: A Case Report and Analysis of the Medical Ethics
E. Cheung
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract 47
Oral Presentation
Patients’ Shifting Goals Over the Course of Deep Brain Stimulation: Implications for Informed Consent
C. S. Kubu [1], S. E. Cooper [2], A. Machado [1], J. Vitek [2], P. J. Ford [3]
1. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH; 2. Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; 3. Center for Neuroethics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH;
Abstract 48
Deep Brain Stimulation and Internal Health Locus of Control: Learning from Patients’ Words
L. Sankary [1,2], C. Kubu [1,3], A. Machado [3], M. Karafa [4], P. Ford [1,3]
1. NeuroEthics Program, Cleveland Clinic; 2. Case Western Reserve University School of Law; 3. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic; 4. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic;
Abstract 49
Poster Presentation Award
Addicted and Attached: A Neglected Perspective on Neuroscience Research Linking Addiction and Love
M. Wonderly
Princeton University
Abstract 50
The Neurobiology of Food Addiction and Its Implications for Obesity Treatment and Policy: Public and Patient Perspectives
A. Carter [1,2,3], A. Cullen [2], N. M. Lee [4], W. D. Hall [3,5]
1. Neuroethics and Society Program, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function; 2. School of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University; 3. University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland; 4. Neuroscience Interdepartmental Graduate Program, University of California, Los Angeles; 5. Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland;
Abstract 51
Using CRISPR to Create Animal Models of Neurological Disorders
C. Plunkett
Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center
Abstract 53
Ethical Issues in Democratized Online and Mobile Mental Health Counselling
K. Kreitmair
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics
Abstract 54
Poster Presentation Award
Preliminary Report from the Animal Research Neuroethics Workshop at the University of Pennsylvania
A. Shriver
The University of Pennsylvania Center for Neuroscience & Society
Abstract 55
Poster Preview & $500 Travel Stipend
Public Opinions on the Use of Neuroscience in Criminal Courts in Taiwan
K. C.-C. Wu
Department/Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Bioethics, National Taiwan University College of Medicine; Department of Psychiatry, National Taiwan University Hospital;
Abstract 57
Poster Presentation Award
Responsible Algorithmics: On the Ethics of Machine Learning in Neuroscience
P. Kellmeyer
Intracranial EEG and Brain Imaging Group, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center, University of Freiburg
Abstract 58
Proportionality as a Guiding Principle for Regulating Invasive Neurotechnological Medical Devices
P. Kellmeyer
Intracranial EEG and Brain Imaging Group, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center, University of Freiburg
Abstract 59
Ethics Representation in Professional Organizations in the Neurological Sciences
T. Moses [1,2], J. Illes [2]
1. School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; 2. National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia;
Abstract 61
Persuasive Devices: From Paternalistic to Maternalistic Choice Architectures
L. Specker Sullivan [1,2], P. Reiner [1]
1. National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia; 2. Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering and Department of Philosophy, University of Washington;
Abstract 62
Poster Presentation Award
At the Ethics Interface of Brain Computer Interfaces
L. Specker Sullivan [1,2], J. Illes [1]
1. National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia; 2. Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, University of Washington;
Abstract 63
Oral Presentation & $250 INS Travel Stipend
Neuroethics in Practice: Designing Principles for Neural Engineering Research
E. Klein [1,2,3], M. Sample [1,2], M. Pham [1,2], L. Specker Sullivan [1,2], T. E. Brown [1,2], P. Tubig [1,2], R. Folland [1,2], S. Goering [1,2]
1. Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering (CSNE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 2. Department of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 3. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR;
Abstract 64
Poster Preview; Poster Presentation Award
When Neuroethicists Become Labmates: Obstacles, Recommendations, and Metrics for Success
T. E. Brown [1,3], M. C. Thompson [2,3]
1. Department of Philosophy, University of Washington; 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington; 3. Center for Sensorimotor Neural Engineering, University of Washington;
Abstract 65
Teaching the Moral Foundations Theory Debate: Haidt, Greene and Churchland for the MBA Crowd
M. DeWilde
Grand Valley State University
Abstract 67
Poster Presentation Award
“Organizational Neuroethics”? Reflections on the Risks and Promises of Organizational Neuroscience
J. T. Martineau [1, 2], E. Racine [1, 2, 3]
1. Neuroethics Research Unit, IRCM; 2. University of Montreal; 3. McGill University;
Abstract 68
Person-Oriented Research Ethics: A Model for Research Ethics in Practice
M. A. Cascio [1,2], E. Racine [1,2,3]
1. Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM); 2. McGill University; 3. Université de Montréal;
Abstract 69
Poster Preview
Cultural Conflict: Inuit Youth Suicide as a Challenge for Psychiatric Ethics
W. Affleck, E. Racine
Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal; McGill University;
Abstract 70
What Role Do Individual Benefits Play in the Ethical Assessment of Traumatic-Stress Research?
W. Affleck, E. Racine
Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal; McGill University;
Abstract 71
Are Predictive Brain Implants a Menace to Autonomous Decisions? Results From a First-in-Human Study
F. Gilbert [1 2], M. Cook [2, 3, 4], T. O’Brien [3, 5]
1. ARC DECRA Fellow, UTAS; 2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science; 3. University of Melbourne; 4. Neurology St-Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne; 5. The Royal Melbourne;
Abstract 73
When a Patient Requests Off-Label Use of Neuro-Technologies for the Bioprediction of Cognitive Impairment, How Should a Physician Respond?
M. L. Baum
Division of Health Sciences and Technology (HST), Harvard Medical School; Program in Neuroscience, Division of Medical Sciences, Harvard University; Harvard-MIT combined MD-PhD program, Harvard Medical School & Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract 75
Poster Preview
Disentitlement as Discrimination: A Novel Project for Brain Science in the Law
E. R. Murphy
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract 76
Assessing fMRI-Based Memory Detection: Can Personally Experienced Event Memories be Differentiated from Second-Hand Event Knowledge?
T. E. Chow, A. J. Westphal, J. Rissman [1]
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract 77
Poster Preview
Ethical Considerations for the Growing Use and Addictive Properties of Captagon in the Middle East
S. Welch [1], J. Kirkpatrick [2], N. Kabbani [3]
1. Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, George Mason University; 2. The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, George Mason University; 3. Molecular Neuroscience Department, George Mason University;
Abstract 78
Poster Presentation Award
Ethics of First-in-Human Clinical Trials for Alzheimer’s Disease Utilizing Nerve Growth Factor Neurosurgery
F. Ahmad
University of Texas at San Antonio
Abstract 79
Poster Presentation Award
When Should Neurogenetics Mitigate Moral Culpability?
J. B. Segal
Harvard Medical School
Abstract 80
The Clinical Neuroethics Initiative
G. Palchik, T. Kushner, A. Yee
Clinical Neuroethics Initiative, Program in Medicine & Human Values, Sutter Health, San Francisco, CA
Abstract 81
Community and the Brain
N. Martinez
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics
Meet Tomorrow’s World: A Meeting on the Ethics of Emerging Technologies
Panelists from left to right: Roger Bingham, William D. Casebeer, Kate Darling, Hannah Maslen and Mayank Mehta.
William D. Casebeer, career intelligence analyst and Lieutenant Colonel in the US, Air Force proposed an interesting analogy between pervasive technology and the art of storytelling to show how technology could be actually used, in the near future, to raise empathy, deliver personalized experiences and facilitate human interaction.
Kate Darling, MIT Media Lab, observed that people often treat robots as being alive. That, she argued, is because robots embody physicality and movement. This phenomenon shows that robots can be used effectively for therapy, assistance and social interaction, but raises the risk of manipulation.
Similar risks of physical-digital conflation were addressed by Professor Mayank Mehta (University of California, Los Angeles) explained how space-mapping neurons in the brain react differently to virtual reality (VR) than they do to real-world environments. VR and assistive robotics do not only raise the risk of eroding our awareness of the physical-digital distinction, but raise privacy and identity concerns too.
Critical ethical questions were analyzed by Hannah Maslen and Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford. Maslen introduced the idea of a child’s “right to future openness” to emphasize the duty of parents to keep a sufficient number of options open for their children. Savulescu underlined the role of human morality in enabling social interaction within groups. Technology can be co-opted as an efficient tool to achieve these prosocial goals. Such process of enhancement, however, may cause structural transformations to critical aspects of our modern societies, including to the political dimension.
The panelists were generally optimistic about future advancements in technological innovation and dissemination. However, they called for a co-operative effort to anticipate the ethical and social implications of emerging technologies and open a public debate on these issues. It is now up to all of us to shape the technological future we want to live in.
Public Program audience and background sunset from the Shipley Special Events Suite at the San Diego Central Public Library.
– Marcello Ienca, University of Basel, Switzerland
International Ambassador Session
We initiated the INS International Ambassador Program with a two-hour session dedicated to international neuroethics, inviting leading figures of national-level brain science funding projects to describe research efforts, priorities, and highlight ethical considerations. The session also included breakout group discussions that addressed: fellowship and scholar exchange programs, responsibilities of oversight groups, and neuroethics career tracks and funding.
Speakers, moderators and discussion participants included:
• Hervé Chneiweiss, Ecole des Neurosciences de Paris (France)
• Karen Herrera-Ferrá, Sociedad Mexicana de Neuroética (Mexico)
• Sung-Jin Jeong, Korean Brain Project (South Korea)
• Eisuke Nakazawa, Japan Brain/Minds (Japan)
• Mu-Ming Poo, China Brain Science Project (China)
• Khara Ramos, BRAIN Initiative at NIH (United States)
• Julie Robillard, University of British Columbia (Canada)
• Karen Rommelfanger, Emory University (Moderator)
• Arleen Salles, Human Brain Project / Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas (Argentina)
• Yoshiyuki Takimoto, Japan Brain/Minds (Japan)
• Rachel Wurzman, University of Pennsylvania (Moderator)
Photos
From left to right, in back: Eisuke Nakazawa, Mu-Ming Poo, Julie Robillard, Yoshiyuki Takimoto, and Rachel Wurzman; followed in front by: Sung-Jin Jeong, Karen Rommelfanger, Arleen Salles, Karen Herrera-Ferrá, and Khara Ramos.
Moderators Rachel Wurzman and Karen Rommelfanger.
Audience members
Yoshiyuki Takimoto, Japan Brain/Minds (Japan)
Arleen Salles, Human Brain Project / Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas (Argentina)
Khara Ramos, BRAIN Initiative at NIH (United States)
Discussion participants
Discussion participants
Emerging Genetics of Human Cognition and Behavior: New Challenges for Ethics and Policy
Steven E. Hyman, Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute and former INS President
Steve Hyman began the Fred Kavli Distinguished Neuroethics Lecture by presenting several studies that demonstrate the genetic complexity of many psychiatric disorders. Unlike Huntington’s disease, which is attributable to a single allele, these studies show that most psychiatric conditions are polygenetic.
Lecture sponsored by the Fred Kavli Foundation
Additionally, Hyman discussed how many psychiatric disorders are governed by more than just genes. In doing so, he presented several studies including one that found that a monozygotic twin of a schizophrenic only has a 50% chance of developing the disease despite sharing 100% of his affected twin’s DNA. As he pointed out, this variability may be in part due to environmental factors. He further posited that interactions between disease and non-disease genes could account for some differences in how psychiatric disorders manifest.
As scientists parse these complexities further, they will gain a deeper understanding of the brain and human behavior. While Hyman acknowledged the relatively uncontroversial application of this knowledge to the development treatments for psychiatric diseases, he voiced concern that it could also be used in more ethically problematic ways.
To illustrate this concern, Hyman discussed how other aspects of the brain, such as cognitive ability and educational attainment (i.e. years spent in school), have been found to have genetic components. Hyman posed several ethical issues that could arise from a deeper understanding of this connection, e.g. genetic engineering of embryos to create smarter children or the use of genetic information to determine who should go to college. Furthermore, given the myriad factors that mediate cognition, he expressed worry that the role of genetics could be inappropriately overestimated. In fact, he cited the growing tendency of social scientists and courts to view genes as deterministic to demonstrate that this problem already exists.
Given the issues that can arise as we expand our understanding of the mind, Hyman called upon neuroethicists to think about how such research may be used or misused. Hyman also recommended building ethics into neuroscientific education and research as the field increasingly touches upon essential aspects of humanity.
– Jennifer Gummer, Columbia University, USA
Deconstructing Therapeutic Neurotechnology ‘Narratives’: A Case Study of DBS for Depressions
Helen Mayberg, Emory University
Deconstructing Therapeutic Neurotechnology Narratives: A Case Study of DBS for Depression, featured a lively discussion on the ethics of public and patient narrative dispersion and its impact on the partnership of professional alliances introducing novel neurotechnologies. Representatives from the medical, philosophical, and journalism professions related personal experiences of how narrative dispersal positively or negatively affected a spectrum of outcomes, including public perception and response, introduction of the neurotechnology, patient expectations, identification of therapeutic issues, and co-ordination between professions.
Neurosurgeon Helen Mayberg recounted the public euphoria in press accounts following on the initial success of DBS for treatment of depression, and its subsequent negative appraisal for outcomes requiring adjunct therapy. Mayberg identified in the bimodal reaction an inability of the popular press to assimilate underlying data that qualified DBS treatment outcome, and a predilection for novelty in medical practice. Such narrative reports promoted, in her view, negative expectations that primed reporting and biased public reception of viable neurotechnology.
Sara Goering, University of Washington
Philosopher Sara Goering emphasized the role of patient narrative in the development and evolution of prospective neurotechnologies. Such narratives necessarily predated technology design and implementation by inorporating end-user concerns and experiences. According to Goering, while these accounts are readily framed by concerns over identity, agency, and autonomy, patient contribution serves also to highlight personal concerns including personal relations and professional expectations. Journalist Mo Costandi pointed to the thematic bias dominating not only general press releases but also scientific reporting of the technology.
Mo Costandi, Freelance writer
According to Costandi, these thematic preferences shape public conclusions that sometime fuel highly speculative therapies noted for novelty and high risk such as the Freedman lobotomies. Importantly, the panelists emphasized that narrative accounts assist professionals best by reciprocal sensitivities, of the reports to medical data and of the professionals to the patient concerns.
– Denis Larrivee, Mount St. Mary’s University, USA
Oral Abstract Presentations Session
Panelists from left to right: Cynthia Kubu, Eran Klein, Jasmine Tung, Marcello Ienca and Veljko Dubljevic (moderator).
Jasmine Tung (Western University) shared with the audience the process of developing a novel brain computer interface to communicate with patients who suffered a traumatic brain injury. Jasmine discussed the challenges of such an approach and described a thorough and rigorous methodology to overcome these challenges.
We then heard from Cynthia Kubu (Cleveland Clinic) on the goals of patients with Parkinson’s disease undergoing treatment with deep-brain stimulation. Kubu showed compelling data that supported how these goals shift over the course of treatment, and she explored the implications of her findings for traditional ethics considerations such as informed consent.
Up next was Eran Klein (University of Washington) who described the results of a stakeholder survey on ethical guidelines for brain-computer interface research. Klein put forward candidate principles such as care for subjects, modesty, inclusivity and justice and called for an expanded discussion on this topic that involves a wider range of stakeholders.
Closing the session was Marcello Ienca (University of Basel) who described his literature review of patents and research on assistive technology for the care of older adults. Ienca described potential challenges for technology adoption and suggested moving from a reactive model of technology assessment to a proactive model that harnesses participatory design.
Each speaker delivered an engaging, high quality and high impact presentation. The session concluded with a lively Q&A period as each of the talks elicited reactions, comments and questions from audience members.
Presenters from left to right: Marcello Ienca, Jasmine Tung, Eran Klein and Cynthia Kubu.
– Julie Robillard, University of British Columbia, Canada
Flash Talks
Nine authors of accepted abstracts were selected to provide 3-minute flash talks introducing meeting attendeees to their research and encourage them to visit their poster.
From left to right: Karen Rommelfanger (moderator), Kevin Chien-Chang Wu, William Affleck, Karen Herra-Ferrá, Sarah Welch, Denis Larrivee, Timothy E. Brown, Laura Cabrera (presenting for Celizbets Colón-Ortiz), Syd Johnson, and Judy Illes (INS President). Not present: Emily Murphy.
Suicide among the Canadian Inuit
William Affleck, IRCM / McGill University, Canada
The suicide rate among the Inuit is 13x the Canadian average. Because of Canadian patient confidentiality practices and a western conception of autonomy, the family is not informed of suicide attempts. The Inuit worldview does not separate the individual from the family and their traditional healing methods include both individual and family. The goal of the research is to understand the Inuit view of autonomy.
When neuroethicists become labmates
Timothy E. Brown, University of Washington, USA
Brown and Thompson explore the interaction between an electrical engineer and a philosopher—neuroethicist working together on a project involving patient control of DBS. Issues that arose included trust across disciplines and finding measures to gauge the success of the collaboration.
Perspectives and terms in the Latin-American and Spanish academic literature regarding neuroenhancement
Celizbets Colón-Ortiz & Laura Cabrera, Michigan State University, USA
Neuroenhancement is described in many different ways. Compared to the Anglo-Saxon literature, there was a similar level of concern regarding social justice, less emphasis on the nature of the self, and greater discussion of issues of human dignity and spirituality. These differences highlight the importance of a cross-cultural perspective for neuroethics.
Integrative neuroscience to define, assess and mitigate recurrent violent behavior (RBV): Technical issues, neuroethico-legal and social concerns
Karen Herra-Ferrá, Sociedad Mexicana de Neuroética, Mexico
Herra-Ferrá investigated different modalities to serve as psychological classifiers for a DSM definition of RBV. These modalities were then examined through five different neuroethical lenses: technical issues; integrative challenge; neuro-reductionism; societal and/or political influence; and relative imbalance and misalignment of individual, family and public welfare and interests.
The Catch-22 of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE)
L. Syd M. Johnson, Michigan Technological University, USA
Johnson presented three examples of professional athletes (football players and boxers) who exhibited criminally anti-social behaviors during and after their active careers, all of whom died early, all diagnosed with CTE. The earliest stages of CTE may occur even in student athletes, and the disease appears to be progressive even after the athlete’s active career. However, because there is no way to diagnose CTE in a still-living person, a CTE diagnosis cannot serve as a mitigating factor nor to obtain help.
In the absence of reason: Ethical reflections on predictive brain implants and self-ownership
Denis Larrivee, Mount St. Mary’s University, USA
Over 100,000 brain implantable devices have been placed in patients, and the numbers are rapidly growing. Each device’s application is narrowly focused on a single medical condition, but it necessarily impacts autonomy and the integrative unity of the self and so may affect global faculties. In particular, predictive devices, used for Parkinson’s and epilepsy, may reduce self-ownership by preventing assimilation of the reasoned endorsement of values.
Ethical considerations on the growing use and addictive properties of Captagon in the Middle East
Sarah Welch, George Mason University, USA
An illegally-produced, more highly addictive version of the methamphetamine, Captagon, is widely supplied by ISIS to their militants to ensure continued loyalty, and to their suicide-bombers to overcome fear. While enhancing military combatants is not inherently unethical, these uses of Captagon are an example of enhancement gone wrong because of the unethical purposes the drug is used for.
Public opinion on the use of neurological evidence in Taiwan
Kevin Chien-Chang Wu, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Taiwanese courts not yet widely using neuroimaging evidence: only 1% of criminal and 18% of civil competency cases. Public opinion, assessed by 1,036 interviews, was highly against neuroscientific evidence replacing human judgment (>75%). Respondents were more willing to consider mitigating neurological evidence in the case of a brain tumor than in the case of alcohol intoxication, but generally did not place much weight on neuroscientific evidence.
– Adrian Byram, University of British Columbia, Canada
The Competing Identities of Neuroethics
Panelists from left to right: Paul Appelbaum, Tom Buller, Illina Singh, Jennifer Chandler, and Eric Racine (moderator).
This panel session, moderated by Eric Racine, raised the question of whether or nor neuroethics is an image of its creators, raising the possibility of competing identities, with different perspectives, methods and ways of practicing. On the one hand there is the scientific image (biological sciences) of neuroethics, while on the other hand the manifest image (the humanities and social sciences). Is it a neglected area of medical ethics, a discipline, an expertise, a content-field of bioethics or of neuroscience?
The panel started with a perspective from clinical psychiatry and neurology offered by Paul Appelbaum. He argued that a focus on ethical issues in the clinical setting is only one part of neuroethics, and that the empirical approach is one possible way of advancing neuroethics.
The second presentation, by Jennifer Chandler, offered the perspective of neurolaw. Chandler discussed the parallels and differences of neurolaw and neuroethics. Among the parallels that she identified are that both involved normative reflection, and that certain critiques apply to both (e.g. reductionism, essentialism, brain-mind problem, neurohype, and interdisciplinary).
Tom Buller, the next panelist, talked about the speculative identity of neuroethics. He compared the BRAIN initiative with the Apollo Program, arguing that this was an extraordinary opportunity in time. Buller also discussed two types of speculation: internal speculation and external speculation. Buller describes neuroethics as a form of environmental ethics.
Finally, Ilina Singh focused on the pragmatic identity of neuroethics. She talked about the relevance of a pragmatism that embraces logical ‘scientific’ approach to moral problem solving, that expresses moral through as hypotheses, that is experimental and that uses theoretical frameworks to tests hypothesis against. She also discussed some of the key problems with pragmatic approaches to neuroethics, such as methodological training and rigor, confusion over the value of empirical data in ethics, and a lack of sustained theoretical discussion.
The panel concluded that multiple views regarding neuroethics can be both a pitfall but they can also be an advantage.
– Laura Cabrera, Michigan State University, USA
Ethics of the BRAIN Initiative
Walter Koroshetz, Director of the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Focusing on largely on the U.S. Brain Initiative, Walter Koroshetz noted that brain pathologies often cause mental and neurological conditions such as depression and Alzheimer’s Disease. Despite technological advances that enable us to identify these pathologies in increasing detail, however, there is still a huge gap in our understanding of how such pathologies contribute to neural circuit dysfunction, and of how this in turn leads to mental and behavioral problems.
The Brain Initiative prioritises the development of novel technologies with the ultimate aim of closing this knowledge gap, by identifying all the cell types in the brain to elucidate their role in health and disease; creating multiple scale maps of neural architecture; building a dynamic picture of brain activity over time; linking neuronal circuit activity to behaviour; and identifying fundamental principles of brain function in order to learn more about how this complex organ works, and what happens when its proper functioning breaks down.
Although these projects share a common goal, they all have different priorities. Europe’s Human Brain Project, for example, is focused on developing next-generation supercomputing platforms to advance our understanding of the brain, whereas the Japanese Brain/MINDS project is focusing primarily on mapping the brain of the common marmoset. And while they are all producing vast amounts of data, there is as yet no standardized format for storing and annotating the information.
Furthermore, says Koroshetz, these initiatives have huge potential for societal change, and we as a society have been primed, largely by science fiction, to expect brain research to transform our understanding of what it means to be human, few of the researchers involved are concerned with the implications of their work, or how it is perceived by the general public.
It is imperative that we coordinate efforts to manage these ethical issues internationally, he says, and to begin a dialogue on the potential non-medical applications of brain research. It is also important for researchers to avoid making exaggerated claims about the implications of brain research, so that we do not give the general public unrealistic expectations of brain research, or make them fear it.
– Mo Costandi, Freelance writer, London, UK