Search

Advancements in novel neurotechnologies, such as brain computer interfaces (BCI) and neuromodulatory devices such as deep brain stimulators (DBS), will have profound implications for society and human rights. While these technologies are improving the diagnosis and treatment of mental and neurological diseases, they can also alter individual agency and estrange those using neurotechnologies from their sense of self, challenging basic notions of what it means to be human. As an international coalition of interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners, we examine these challenges and make recommendations to mitigate negative consequences that could arise from the unregulated development or application of novel neurotechnologies. We explore potential ethical challenges in four key areas: identity and agency, privacy, bias, and enhancement. To address them, we propose (1) democratic and inclusive summits to establish globally-coordinated ethical and societal guidelines for neurotechnology development and application, (2) new measures, including "Neurorights," for data privacy, security, and consent to empower neurotechnology users' control over their data, (3) new methods of identifying and preventing bias, and (4) the adoption of public guidelines for safe and equitable distribution of neurotechnological devices.

BackgroundEthics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts.Main textIn this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science.ConclusionsWe believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

Background: Social impairment has long been associated with psychosis, but recently a more nuanced understanding of how relationships are impacted by psychosis is emerging, taking into account both positive social changes (e.g. improved relationships, increased empathy for others) as well as challenges (e.g. stigma, shame). Methods: Ten participants were recruited from two early intervention services to participate in semi-structured interviews pertaining to their lived experience of psychosis. Thematic analysis was conducted on data related to social experiences during and after psychosis. Results: Participants reported a wide spectrum of experiences. Social withdrawal was common and sometimes enacted to protect oneself or others. Some participants reported feelings of confusion, shame, and guilt, resulting in internalized stigma and making it difficult to navigate relationships, especially after an experience of psychosis. Many participants reported positive social changes, including new, more meaningful, and closer relationships. Discussion: Recovery and adaptation following psychosis is not a linear process, and signs of both distress and growth may occur in parallel. Likewise, social withdrawal and connection may take place simultaneously or successively. More attention should be paid in both research and practice to the myriad ways in which psychosis impacts relationships and how this matters to service users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence and brain-computer interfaces must respect and preserve people’s privacy, identity, agency and equality, say Rafael Yuste, Sara Goering and colleagues.

The authors examined participants' experiences with peer specialists in Parachute NYC, a community mental health program of support teams trained in Open Dialogue and intentional peer support. Qualitative interviews were conducted with eight enrollees and 10 network members (enrollees' family members). All excerpts coded as pertaining to peers were thematically analyzed. Experiences with peer specialists were mostly positive. Participants especially valued peers' relatability and tendency to instill hope and engender empathy among enrollees and network members; peers' ability to foster community connections was also highly regarded. Generally, enrollees benefited from having peers and other health care professionals on a Parachute team because of their different forms of expertise. Concerns about peer specialists in dialogic care were reported by some network members, who questioned peers' degree of shared experiences, professionalism, and contributions to team unity. Despite generally positive findings, the optimal role for peers within the Open Dialogue model needs further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on advocating for environmental law efforts, particularly the right to a healthy environment, using Canada's Bill S-5 as an example. It argues that despite the legal advancements, such as the Aamjiwnaang First Nations Reserve case, additional measures might be necessary to address persistent environmental injustice issues, especially in areas surrounded by heavy industrial activities.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims—protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented—can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]