Search

Ethical practice is a vital component in neuroscience innovation, and that practice must reflect the interests of society. However, truly ethical and responsible innovation may require moving beyond current theory toward more creative and imaginative approaches. Here, we present neuroethics hackathons as a case study in bridging theory to practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The corresponding author, K.S.R., is an advisory board member of Neuron., (Copyright © 2024.)

The scientific relationship between neuroscience and artificial intelligence is generally acknowledged, and the role that their long history of collaboration has played in advancing both fields is often emphasized. Beyond the important scientific insights provided by their collaborative development, both neuroscience and AI raise a number of ethical issues that are generally explored by neuroethics and AI ethics. Neuroethics and AI ethics have been gaining prominence in the last few decades, and they are typically carried out by different research communities. However, considering the evolving landscape of AI-assisted neurotechnologies and the various conceptual and practical intersections between AI and neuroscience-such as the increasing application of AI in neuroscientific research, the healthcare of neurological and mental diseases, and the use of neuroscientific knowledge as inspiration for AI-some scholars are now calling for a collaborative relationship between these two domains. This article seeks to explore how a collaborative relationship between neuroethics and AI ethics can stimulate theoretical and, ideally, governance efforts. First, we offer some reasons for calling for the collaboration of the ethical reflection on neuroscientific innovations and AI. Next, we explore some dimensions that we think could be enhanced by the cross-fertilization between these two subfields of ethics. We believe that considering the pace and increasing fusion of neuroscience and AI in the development of innovations, broad and underspecified calls for responsibility that do not consider insights from different ethics subfields will only be partially successful in promoting meaningful changes in both research and applications., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The recently published BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report offers a very helpful overview of the possible ethical, social, philosophical, and legal issues raised by neuroscience in the context of BRAIN's research priorities thus contributing to the attempt to develop ethically sound neuroscience. In this article, we turn to a running theme of the document: the need for an ethical framework for the BRAIN Initiative and for further integration of neuroethics and neuroscience. We assess some of the issues raised and provide an explanation of how we have addressed them in the Human Brain Project. We offer our experience in the HBP as a potential contribution to the international debate about neuroethics in the big brain initiatives. Our hope is that among other things, the type of exchange proposed by this AJOB special issue will prove productive in further identifying and discussing the issues and in inspiring appropriate solutions.

Recognizing that its research may raise various ethical, social, and philosophical issues, the HBP has made the identification, examination, and management of those issues a top priority. The Ethics and Society subproject is part of the core research project., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to the nature of understanding the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this article, we begin by identifying three main neuroethical approaches: neurobioethics, empirical neuroethics, and conceptual neuroethics. Our focus is on conceptual approaches that generally emphasize the need to develop and use a methodological modus operandi for effectively linking scientific (i.e., neuroscience) and philosophical (i.e., ethics) interpretations. We explain and assess the value of conceptual neuroethics approaches and explain and defend one such approach that we propose as being particularly fruitful for addressing the various issues raised by neuroscience: fundamental neuroethics.

Given the cultural psychoanalytic tradition that shapes the thought of Argentineans and their current skepticism with regard to neurosciences when it comes to understanding human behavior, this article addresses the question of how a healthy neuroethics can develop in the country.

El artículo discurre sobre las diferencias entre los sexos y el concepto de la neuroética. La autora comenta sobre el desarrollo de las neurociencias y describe los aspectos éticos de su estudio. También se considera la aplicación de las neurociencias en evaluar las diferencias sexuales y se examinan sus posibles consecuencias sociales.

Copyright of Recerca is the property of Universitat Jaume I and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)