The International Dimensions of Neuroethics

Abstract

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.

Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field

“…Hence, from a wider perspective of a technology-driven understanding of neuroethics this finding was expected. This result follows a trend that has been reported by Lombera and Illes (2009), who equally found that neuroethics research primarily centers in high-income countries as defined by the World Bank. However, in comparison to their investigation into the international dimensions of neuroscience from a quantitative perspective on the published research output, more contributions from countries like France, the Netherlands, Israel or Switzerland would have been expected.…”

“…This finding is consistent with those of Lombera and Illes (2009), who showed a dominance of publications on the “ethics and practice of brain science.” However, it does not mirror observations of Gooray and Fergusson (Gooray and Ferguson, 2013), who rank literature on moral philosophy and moral psychology as the second most abundant issue in neuroethics after issues in cognitive enhancement. This last opposing result, however, is very likely due to the use of different data-sets.…”

“…Our empirical, bottom-up analysis revealed not only a constant quantitative increase in the neuroethics literature over the years but also a constant relative size of the different subject categories. Hence, our study confirmed for neuroethics as a whole what has been reported by previous studies with a more limited focus (Seixas and Ayres Basto, 2008; Lombera and Illes, 2009; Garnett et al, 2011; Gooray and Ferguson, 2013). It also shows that most issues now discussed under the label of Neuroethics have indeed gained much more attention since the middle of the 2000s than they have gained in the antecedent decade and that the issues as such are not new and have not changed much over the years.…”

“…These investigations will help to highlight the main differences and similarities of neuroethics and adjoining scientific disciplines and contribute to a better understanding of the current state of neuroethics. Previous bibliometric work on this field has drawn on much smaller subsets of literature (Racine, 2010; Gooray and Ferguson, 2013), has addressed only very particular research fields within the much broader spectrum of neuroethics literature (Seixas and Ayres Basto, 2008; Lombera and Illes, 2009; Garnett et al, 2011, 2013; Boelsen, 2016) or has provided structured compilations of neuroethics literature without any quantitative further analysis (Buniak et al, 2014; Darragh et al, 2015). With this paper we offer the first comprehensive empirical analysis of the development and current state of neuroethics.…”

Neuroethics and Responsibility in Conducting Neuromarketing Research

“…As Illes et al [11] suggest, neuroethics can be broadly defined as concerned with ethical, legal and social policy implications of neuroscience, and with aspects of neuroscience research itself. Lombera et al [12] define neuroethics as a discipline that aligns the exploration and discovery of neurobiological knowledge with human value systems and intersects with biomedical ethics, being concerned with ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroscience. Gazzaniga [13] characterizes neuroethics in a general manner, as the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms.…”