Success in functional neuroimaging has brought the promise of quantitative data in the form of brain images to the diagnosis of disorders of the central nervous system for which only qualitative clinical criteria have previously existed. Even though the translation of research to clinical neuroimaging for conditions such as major depression may not be available yet, rapid innovation along this trajectory of discovery to implementation compels exploration of how such information will eventually affect providers and patients. Clinical neuroethics is devoted to elucidating ethical challenges prior to and during the transfer of new research capabilities to the bedside. Through a model of proactive ethics, clinical neuroethics promotes the development of responsible social and public policies in response to new diagnostic and prognostic capabilities for the benefit of patients and their families, and for providers within the health care systems in which they practice. To examine views about the potential interaction of clinical neuroimaging and depression, we surveyed both mental health providers and outpatients and inpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. From responses of 52 providers and 72 patients, we found high receptivity to brain scans for treatment tailoring and choice, for improving understanding of and coping with disease, and for mitigating the effects of stigma and self-blame. Our results suggest that, once ready, roll out of the fully validated technology has significant potential to reduce social burden associated with highly stigmatized illnesses like depression.
Neuroethics, in its modern form, investigates the impact of brain science in four basic dimensions: the self, social policy, practice and discourse. In this study, we analyzed a set of 461 peer-reviewed articles with neuroethics content, published by authors from 32 countries. We analyzed the data for:(1) trends in the development of international neuroethics over time, and (2) how challenges at the intersection of ethics and neuroscience are viewed in countries that are considered developed by International Monetary Fund (IMF) standards, and in those that are developing. Our results demonstrate a steady increase in global participation in neuroethics from 1989 to 2005, characterized by an increase in numbers of articles published specifically on neuroethics, journals publishing these articles, and countries contributing to the literature. The focus from all countries was on the practice of brain science and the amelioration of neurological disease. Indicators of technology creation and diffusion in developing countries were specifically correlated with increases in publications concerning policy implications of brain science. Neuroethics is an international endeavor and, as such, should be sensitive to the impact that context has on acceptance and use of technological innovation.
A novel, pathogenic presenilin 1 (PS1) mutation has recently been identified in a large Aboriginal kindred living in dispersed communities throughout British Columbia, Canada. Disseminating genetic information and ensuring that appropriate genetic counseling services are provided to all concerned relatives have posed several unique challenges. These challenges include knowledge exchange and continuity of care in a geographically remote and culturally distinct community. To our knowledge, this is the first time a specific genetic counseling approach has been needed for early-onset familial Alzheimer disease (EOFAD) in a North American Aboriginal community.
Consideration of the ethical, social, and policy implications of research has become increasingly important to scientists and scholars whose work focuses on brain and mind, but limited empirical data exist on the education in ethics available to them. We examined the current landscape of ethics training in neuroscience programs, beginning with the Canadian context specifically, to elucidate the perceived needs of mentors and trainees and offer recommendations for resource development to meet those needs. We surveyed neuroscientists at all training levels and interviewed directors of neuroscience programs and training grants. A total of 88% of survey respondents reported general interest in ethics, and 96% indicated a desire for more ethics content as it applies to brain research and clinical translation. Expert interviews revealed formal ethics education in over half of programs and in 90% of grants‐based programs. Lack of time, resources, and expertise, however, are major barriers to expanding ethics content in neuroscience education. We conclude with an initial set of recommendations to address these barriers which includes the development of flexible, tailored ethics education tools, increased financial support for ethics training, and strategies for fostering collaboration between ethics experts, neuroscience program directors, and funding agencies.
A quantitative survey was completed by 103 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 59 cardiologists who regularly prescribed β‐blockers to assess knowledge and use of this heterogeneous drug class for hypertension. More cardiologists than PCPs chose β‐blockers as initial antihypertensive therapy (30% vs 17%, P < 0.01). Metoprolol and carvedilol were the most commonly prescribed β‐blockers. Cardiologists rated “impact on energy” and “arterial vasodilation” as more important than PCPs (P < 0.05/<0.01, respectively). Awareness of vasodilation was greater for carvedilol (52%) than nebivolol (31%). Association between β‐blockers and clinical variables included nebivolol with β1‐selectivity, nebivolol and carvedilol with vasodilation and efficacy in older patients and African Americans, metoprolol with heart rate reduction, and atenolol and metoprolol with weight gain and hyperglycemia. Physicians preferred prescribing β‐blockers with lower risk of incident diabetes. Clinical practice guidelines influenced physician prescribing more than formularies or performance metrics. This survey captures physicians’ perceptions/use of various β‐blockers and clinically relevant knowledge gaps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.