Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative

Abstract

We thank Dr. Walter Koroshetz and Dr. Joshua Gordon for their support of this effort and the many BRAIN Initiative-affiliated investigators and staff who provided helpful input as these principles were developed.

BRAIN Initiative: Cutting-Edge Tools and Resources for the Community

“…Both emphasize the need to support the process of moving new tools from the inventors' benchtops into laboratories that can use them in their pursuit of important scientific questions. In addition, the Neuroethics Working Group of the BRAIN Initiative developed a framework (Guiding Principles) for characterizing and disseminating the neuroethical implications of tools and technologies emerging from the BRAIN Initiative (Bianchi et al, 2018;Greely et al, 2018). All Working Groups have emphasized the importance of supporting the dissemination and access, commercialization, user training, transla-tion, and integration of novel technologies for the use of the research community.…”

Of Ethical Frameworks and Neuroethics in Big Neuroscience Projects: A View from the HBP

“…In the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report, the BNS defends the integration of neuroethics and neuroscience in the BRAIN Initiative in the context of what appears to be a call for an ethical framework "that can operate at the level of large, government coordinated scientific initiatives" (NIH 2019, 26). The authors do not clarify their conception of ethical framework but they suggest that such framework can be built on the basis of a consideration of a number of documents, from the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects 1978) and the published findings of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues 2015), to the Global Neuroethics Delegates "Neuroethics Questions for Neuroscientists" (Rommelfanger et al 2018) and the NIH BRAIN "Neuroethics Working Group Guiding Principles" (Greely et al 2018) among others. Now, these documents are diverse, both in content and methods: some, such as the Belmont Report, are principle-oriented while others, such as the Neuroethics Questions for Neuroscientists, suggest topics that neuroscientists should consider when carrying out their research, and mention some principles but without defending any of them specifically.…”

Part-revived pig brains raise slew of ethical quandaries

“…The pig brains used in the study, which was conducted by a team based largely at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, produced a flat line on an electro encephalogram (EEG) of brain activity. Had any degree of sentience been recovered, let alone consciousness, one would expect to see low-amplitude waves in the alpha (8)(9)(10)(11)(12) and beta (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) range, at the very least 3,4 . In consultations with the Neuro ethics Working Group of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) BRAIN Initiative and in discussions with us, the researchers have stated that if they had detected such activity, they would have administered anaesthetic agents to prevent any experience similar to pain or distress, and would have reduced the brain temperature to swiftly quell the activity.…”

“…If technologies similar to BrainEx are improved and developed for use in humans, people who are declared brain dead (especially those with brain injuries resulting from a lack of oxygen) could become candidates for brain resuscitation rather than international attention. A starting point could be the guiding principles issued last December by the Neuroethics Working Group of the NIH BRAIN Initiative, which held a 2018 workshop on research with human neural tissue 15 .…”