» Articles » PMID: 16036688

Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics

Overview
Journal Am J Bioeth
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2005 Jul 23
PMID 16036688
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

From a twenty-first century partnership between bioethics and neuroscience, the modern field of neuroethics is emerging, and technologies enabling functional neuroimaging with unprecedented sensitivity have brought new ethical, social and legal issues to the forefront. Some issues, akin to those surrounding modern genetics, raise critical questions regarding prediction of disease, privacy and identity. However, with new and still-evolving insights into our neurobiology and previously unquantifiable features of profoundly personal behaviors such as social attitude, value and moral agency, the difficulty of carefully and properly interpreting the relationship between brain findings and our own self-concept is unprecedented. Therefore, while the ethics of genetics provides a legitimate starting point--even a backbone--for tackling ethical issues in neuroimaging, they do not suffice. Drawing on recent neuroimaging findings and their plausible real-world applications, we argue that interpretation of neuroimaging data is a key epistemological and ethical challenge. This challenge is two-fold. First, at the scientific level, the sheer complexity of neuroscience research poses challenges for integration of knowledge and meaningful interpretation of data. Second, at the social and cultural level, we find that interpretations of imaging studies are bound by cultural and anthropological frameworks. In particular, the introduction of concepts of self and personhood in neuroimaging illustrates the interaction of interpretation levels and is a major reason why ethical reflection on genetics will only partially help settle neuroethical issues. Indeed, ethical interpretation of such findings will necessitate not only traditional bioethical input but also a wider perspective on the construction of scientific knowledge.

Citing Articles

Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics.

Ruiz S, Valera L, Ramos P, Sitaram R Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024; 379(1915):20230098.

PMID: 39428886 PMC: 11491849. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0098.


Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.

Hendriks S, Ramos K, Grady C Neurology. 2022; 99(12):e1314-e1325.

PMID: 35981894 PMC: 9576293. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200886.


AI ethics in computational psychiatry: From the neuroscience of consciousness to the ethics of consciousness.

Wiese W, Friston K Behav Brain Res. 2021; 420:113704.

PMID: 34871706 PMC: 9125160. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113704.


Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing in Deep Brain Stimulation.

Zuk P, Sanchez C, Kostick K, Torgerson L, Munoz K, Hsu R Front Hum Neurosci. 2021; 14:578687.

PMID: 33424563 PMC: 7793701. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.578687.


Exploring Responsible Neuroimaging Innovation: Visions From a Societal Actor Perspective.

Arentshorst M, de Cock Buning T, Broerse J Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2018; 36(4):229-240.

PMID: 30369693 PMC: 6187574. DOI: 10.1177/0270467617727457.


References
1.
Farwell L, Smith S . Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal. J Forensic Sci. 2001; 46(1):135-43. View

2.
Roskies A . Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron. 2002; 35(1):21-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00763-8. View

3.
Merz J, Magnus D, Cho M, Caplan A . Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research. Am J Hum Genet. 2002; 70(4):965-71. PMC: 379126. DOI: 10.1086/339767. View

4.
Miller G . Neuroscience. The good, the bad, and the anterior cingulate. Science. 2002; 295(5563):2193-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.295.5563.2193a. View

5.
Illes J, Kirschen M, Gabrieli J . From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nat Neurosci. 2003; 6(3):205. DOI: 10.1038/nn0303-205. View