The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics

Johnson, L. Syd M; Rommelfanger, Karen S.

doi:10.4324/9781315708652

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 90 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results captured the characteristics of R&D and social implementation efforts in each country but did not explore the socioeconomic or cultural factors that might explain these differences. The social acceptance of neurotechnology and the influence of culture and values on neuroethics have also been subjects of research that East Asian researchers are interested in ( Fukushi et al, 2017 , Sakura, 2012 , Wang et al, 2019 , Wu and Fukushi, 2012 ). Along with the process of developing policy and ethical responses to social implementation of neurotechnology, research from sociological, economic, cultural anthropological, and religious perspectives on East Asia might be developed in an integrated manner with neuroethics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the closure of the research group that led to the initial activities of neuroethics in Japan, its international presence declined, and domestic interdisciplinary discussions stagnated. The situation continued for some time, since it was difficult to introduce neuroethics into university and graduate education and recruit professional personnel due to delays in training people suitable for being in an educational position ( Gaillard, 2018 , Fukushi et al, 2017 ). During this period, researchers in bioethics, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion and law, science communication, and other fields with an interest in neuroethics engaged in autonomous and decentralized academic research.…”

Section: Current Situation and Efforts To Improve International Prese...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And what kind of preparations are being made for social implementation of neurotechnology based on the regional, social, cultural, and economic background of Asia? The importance of considering cultural diversity in non-Western countries and regions, including Asia, has often been noted in discussions on further development of neuroethics ( Global Neuroethics Summit Delegates et al, 2018 ; Emerging Issues Task Force, International Neuroethics Society, 2019 ), but there have been limited discussions and studies addressing specific cultural characteristics in this field ( Fukushi et al, 2017 , Sakura, 2012 , Wang et al, 2019 , Wu and Fukushi, 2012 ). On the other hand, there are studies using cognitive neuroscience and cultural psychology methodologies to elucidate cultural differences in neural mechanisms related to ethics and values (for example, Yang et al 2019 , also see Khalaila et al 2023 ; Kitayama and Park, 2010 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology

Fukushi

2024

IBRO Neuroscience Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Situation and Efforts To Improve International Prese...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology

Fukushi

2024

IBRO Neuroscience Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroethics

Sullivan

Goering

2017

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroethics is widely described as the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics. The ethics of neuroscience includes the ethical, legal and social implications of research and new technologies, particular issues with how neuroscientific research is carried out with animal or human subjects, and structural concerns about transparent funding for research or fair distribution of research outcomes. The neuroscience of ethics refers to insight from neuroscientific research on moral thought and moral action and is closely allied with moral psychology. More broadly, neuroethics is one branch of biomedical ethics – the study of ethical issues in biological and medical research and clinical practice. Neuroethics deals with issues of identity, authenticity, autonomy, free will and enhancement – that is, with questions about how our understandings of neuroscience and new technologies affect who we are, how we understand ourselves, what we can do and who we can become. Key Concepts Deep brain stimulation involves ethical questions about the nature and value of human identity. Neurotechnology can support, enhance or constrain autonomy, understood as an individual's capacities to self‐determine, that is to reflect on and to make significant life choices. Neuroscience may call into question responsibility and free will, as it provides more information about how humans form intentions and make conscious decisions. The ability to cognitively enhance individuals raises concerns about social equality, fairness and what it means to be a human being. Neurological interventions are relevant to justice when their benefits and burdens fall disproportionately on different members of society or when relevant stakeholders are not consulted in the development of novel technology that will affect their lives.

show abstract

On the Contribution of Neuroethics to the Ethics and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary ethical analysis of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing rapidly. One of its most recognizable outcomes is the publication of a number of ethics guidelines that, intended to guide governmental policy, address issues raised by AI design, development, and implementation and generally present a set of recommendations. Here we propose two things: first, regarding content, since some of the applied issues raised by AI are related to fundamental questions about topics like intelligence, consciousness, and the ontological and ethical status of humans, among others, the treatment of these issues would benefit from interfacing with neuroethics that has been addressing those same issues in the context of brain research. Second, the identification and management of some of the practical ethical challenges raised by AI would be enriched by embracing the methodological resources used in neuroethics. In particular, we focus on the methodological distinction between conceptual and action-oriented neuroethical approaches. We argue that the normative (often principles-oriented) discussion about AI will benefit from further integration of conceptual analysis, including analysis of some operative assumptions, their meaning in different contexts, and their mutual relevance in order to avoid misplaced or disproportionate concerns and achieve a more realistic and useful approach to identifying and managing the emerging ethical issues.

show abstract

The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics

Cited by 10 publications

References 90 publications

East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology

East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology

Neuroethics

On the Contribution of Neuroethics to the Ethics and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About