Stephanie J. Bird

Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience

Neuroethics, a recently modernized field at the intersection of bioethics and neuroscience, is founded on centuries of discussion of the ethical issues associated with mind and behavior. Broadly defined, neuroethics is concerned with ethical, legal and social policy implications of neuroscience, and with aspects of neuroscience research itself. Advances in neuroscience increasingly challenge long-held views of the self and the individuals relationship to society. Neuroscience also has led to innovations in clinical medicine that have not only therapeutic but also non-therapeutic dimensions that extend well beyond previously charted boundaries. The exponential increase in cross-disciplinary research, the commercialization of cognitive neuroscience, the impetus for training in ethics, and the increased attention being paid to public understanding of science all illuminate the important role of neuroethics in neuroscience.

Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering

Global society is facing formidable current and future problems that threaten the prospects for justice and peace, sustainability, and the well-being of humanity both now and in the future. Many of these problems are related to science and technology and to how they function in the world. If the social responsibility of scientists and engineers implies a duty to safeguard or promote a peaceful, just and sustainable world society, then science and engineering education should empower students to fulfil this responsibility. The contributions to this special issue present European examples of teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering, and provide examples and discussion of how this teaching can be promoted, and of obstacles that are encountered. Speaking generally, education aimed at preparing future scientists and engineers for social responsibility is presently very limited and seemingly insufficient in view of the enormous ethical and social problems that are associated with current science and technology. Although many social, political and professional organisations have expressed the need for the provision of teaching for social responsibility, important and persistent barriers stand in the way of its sustained development. What is needed are both bottom-up teaching initiatives from individuals or groups of academic teachers, and top-down support to secure appropriate embedding in the university. Often the latter is lacking or inadequate. Educational policies at the national or international level, such as the Bologna agreements in Europe, can be an opportunity for introducing teaching for social responsibility. However, frequently no or only limited positive effect of such policies can be discerned. Existing accreditation and evaluation mechanisms do not guarantee appropriate attention to teaching for social responsibility, because, in their current form, they provide no guarantee that the curricula pay sufficient attention to teaching goals that are desirable for society as a whole.

Of mice and men (and women and children): scientific and ethical implications of animal models.

1. Animal models of human behavior and disease are commonly used and have contributed significantly to progress in understanding the physiological mechanisms of both normal function and disease, and in the development of effective therapies. 2. Little attention has been given, however, to the scientific and ethical implications of choosing a particular animal model. 3. This paper discusses the rationale for the selection of particular animal models that have been chosen to study certain human diseases or behaviors, and provides examples to illustrate how underlying assumptions about methods and about physiological mechanisms and other relevant features of the disease or behavior of interest are embedded in the choice of an animal model. 4. Although these assumptions influence the direction of research, they are rarely analyzed explicitly, or evaluated empirically. The authors recommend that assumptions should be clearly stated and that, whenever possible, they be specifically and thoroughly evaluated empirically.

Overlooked aspects in the education of science professionals: Mentoring, ethics, and professional responsibility

Science as profession is generally defined narrowly as research. Science education as preparation for a profession in research is usually perceived as course work and laboratory training, even though the necessary knowledge and skills to pursue a research career are more extensive and diverse and are learned in one-on-one interaction with mentors. A complete education of science professionals includes the values, ethical standards and conventions of the discipline since they are fundamental to the profession. Mentoring and education in the responsible conduct and reporting of research and in the ethical dimensions of science are among the professional responsibilities of scientists and need to be discussed as part of science education. Moreover, science as an enterprise is much more than research and includes a number of other components, including science teaching, science journalism, and science policy. Each of these contributes to the nature of science and its role in society.

Scientific certainty: research versus forensic perspectives.

The scientific community and the judicial system are different components of society with different structures and functions. Nevertheless, science can contribute relevant and useful information to judicial deliberations if the inherent limitations of that information are understood. These limitations stem from the way the information is presented and perceived both by those who are providing it and those who are providing the context in which it is presented.

Responsible Research: What is Expected?

Abstract“Responsible research” and “good science” are concepts with various meanings depending on one’s perspective and assumptions. Fellow researchers, research participants, policy makers and the general public also have differing expectations of the benefits of research ranging from accurate and reliable data that extend the body of knowledge, to solutions to societal concerns. Unless these differing constituencies articulate their differing views they may fail to communicate and undermine the value of research to society.

Trust and the Collection, Selection, Analysis and Interpretation of Data: A Scientist's View

Trust is a critical component of research: trust in the work of co-workers and colleagues within the scientific community; trust in the work of research scientists by the non-research community. A wide range of factors, including internally and externally generated pressures and practical and personal limitations, affect the research process. The extent to which these factors are understood and appreciated influence the development of trust in scientific research findings.

Editors' Overview: Topics in the Responsible Management of Research Data

Responsible data management is a multifaceted topic involving standards within the research community regarding research design and the sharing of data as well as the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data. Transparency in the manipulation of images is increasingly important in order to avoid misrepresentation of research findings, and research oversight is also critical in helping to assure the integrity of the research process. Intellectual property issues both unite and divide academe and industry in their approaches to data management. Central to the realization and promulgation of responsible data management is clear and careful communication of standards and expectations within the research community to trainees as well as among colleagues. These topics are examined and explored in depth in a special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics on responsible data management.

Science and Engineering Ethics Enters its Third Decade

During the last 20 years public discourse in the developed and developing worlds has changed radically. The terms ‘‘ethics’’, ‘‘morals’’, ‘‘rights’’, ‘‘safety’’, ‘‘privacy’’, ‘‘media’’, ‘‘genetic engineering’’, ‘‘information technology’’, ‘‘big data’’, ‘‘robots’’, ‘‘satellites’’, ‘‘environment’’, ‘‘climate’’, ‘‘fracking’’, and ‘‘security’’ have loomed large and are set to grow larger. How do these concerns, topics and technological developments affect the way people will think and behave in the years ahead? It is not possible to predict the future, but it is necessary to take a view of what the future might be, so as to head off imminent disasters. The dystopic depictions of George Orwell’s ‘‘1984’’, Aldous Huxley’s ‘‘Brave New World’’, Alvin Toffler’s ‘‘Future Shock’’, Arthur Koestler’s ‘‘Darkness at Noon’’ and Franz Kafka’s ‘‘The Castle’’ seem to forecast what is likely to arise rather than project imagined, fanciful futures. There are some indications that these less than idyllic possibilities are materializing when one examines recent debates about privacy versus security, engagement in conflicts in distant countries, the societal impact of computers, information technology and robots, war (‘‘defence’’) by remote control, and the effects of changing climate on the lives of citizens. Remembering the quotation attributed to Edmund Burke (1729–1797) that ‘‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’’ it is clear that something must be done. But what? Science and Engineering Ethics is a tool, a component of a system whose properties are expressed in the dissemination, catalysis and stimulation of ideas that examine and seek to improve the way people and societies behave. To do this

Potential for bias in the context of neuroethics. Commentary on "Neuroscience, neuropolitics and neuroethics: the complex case of crime, deception and fMRI".

Neuroscience research, like all science, is vulnerable to the influence of extraneous values in the practice of research, whether in research design or the selection, analysis and interpretation of data. This is particularly problematic for research into the biological mechanisms that underlie behavior, and especially the neurobiological underpinnings of moral development and ethical reasoning, decision-making and behavior, and the other elements of what is often called the neuroscience of ethics. The problem arises because neuroscientists, like most everyone, bring to their work assumptions, preconceptions and values and other sources of potentially inappropriate bias of which they may be unaware. It is important that the training of neuroscientists, and research practice itself, include open and in-depth discussion and examination of the assumptions that underlie research. Further, policy makers, journalists, and the general public, that is, the consumers of neuroscience research findings (and by extension, neurotechnologies) should be made aware of the limitations as well as the strengths of the science, the evolving nature of scientific understanding, and the often invisible values inherent in science.