Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neuroscientific technologies to assess, monitor and influence brain activity offer tremendous potential in the prevention and treatment of neurological and mental illnesses. However, these innovations, and their pursuit, also raise serious ethical questions. Neuroethics is a field that explores the ethical, legal, societal, philosophical, and cultural implications of neuroscience and related neurotechnologies. Many of these considerations have distinct cultural and contextual dimensions. Along with the advancement of neuroscience research in Africa, it is therefore critical to advance neuroethics as an integral component of neuroscience research on the continent.

In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers. Our analysis exposes that there has been a demonstrative increase of neuroethics research while the issues addressed under this label had mostly been present before the establishment of the field. We show that the research on the ethical, legal and social aspects of neuroscience research is hardly related to neuroscience research on moral decision-making and that the academic backgrounds and affiliations of many neuroethics researchers speak for a very close entanglement of neuroscience and neuroethics. As our article suggests that after more than one decade there still is no dominant agenda for the future of neuroethics research, it calls for more reflection about the theoretical underpinnings and prospects to establish neuroethics as a marked-off research field distinct from neuroscience and the diverse branches of bioethics.

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between religion, spirituality and neuroscience, with a focus on understanding the biological bases of religious experiences. The study aims to analyze how different spiritual practices affect the human brain, identify the brain regions involved, and examine the impact of these practices on mental health and emotional well-being. Furthermore, we seek to discuss the ethical implications of including religious themes in medical and psychological practice.   Method: The study uses a qualitative literature review approach in English and Portuguese, based on national and international sources. Scientific articles, case studies and research related to the neuroscience of religion and spirituality were analyzed. The data was collected and organized to identify the biological foundations of spiritual experiences, the social and psychological implications, as well as the ethical issues associated with this theme.   Results and conclusion: The results indicate that different spiritual practices activate several brain areas, including the frontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens and striatum, associated with rewards, emotions, moral reasoning and concentration. The mystical mind is considered an innate capacity of the human brain, enabling transcendental experiences in all cultures. Furthermore, the frequent practice of spirituality can lead to profound brain changes, favoring discernment, empathy and better decisions. Religiosity and spirituality have a positive impact on mental health, helping to cope with anxiety, fears and promoting emotional well-being.   Research implications: This study has significant implications in the area of mental health and clinical practice, highlighting the importance of considering patients' spirituality and religiosity as an integral part of their emotional health. Furthermore, the research paves the way for a greater understanding of the biological bases of religious and spiritual experiences, which may have applications in clinical treatments and the promotion of psychological well-being. The ethical implications raised are also relevant for healthcare professionals, who must approach these issues with sensitivity and respect, avoiding the imposition of personal values. On a broader scale, research contributes to intercultural understanding and peaceful coexistence between different religious groups, promoting tolerance and mutual respect.

The scientific relationship between neuroscience and artificial intelligence is generally acknowledged, and the role that their long history of collaboration has played in advancing both fields is often emphasized. Beyond the important scientific insights provided by their collaborative development, both neuroscience and AI raise a number of ethical issues that are generally explored by neuroethics and AI ethics. Neuroethics and AI ethics have been gaining prominence in the last few decades, and they are typically carried out by different research communities. However, considering the evolving landscape of AI-assisted neurotechnologies and the various conceptual and practical intersections between AI and neuroscience—such as the increasing application of AI in neuroscientific research, the healthcare of neurological and mental diseases, and the use of neuroscientific knowledge as inspiration for AI—some scholars are now calling for a collaborative relationship between these two domains. This article seeks to explore how a collaborative relationship between neuroethics and AI ethics can stimulate theoretical and, ideally, governance efforts. First, we offer some reasons for calling for the collaboration of the ethical reflection on neuroscientific innovations and AI. Next, we explore some dimensions that we think could be enhanced by the cross-fertilization between these two subfields of ethics. We believe that considering the pace and increasing fusion of neuroscience and AI in the development of innovations, broad and underspecified calls for responsibility that do not consider insights from different ethics subfields will only be partially successful in promoting meaningful changes in both research and applications.

In recent years, philosophical-legal studies on neuroscience (mainly in the fields of neuroethics and neurolaw) have given increasing prominence to a normative analysis of the ethical-legal challenges in the mind and brain sciences in terms of rights, freedoms, entitlements and associated obligations. This way of analyzing the ethical and legal implications of neuroscience has come to be known as “neurorights.” Neurorights can be defined as the ethical, legal, social, or natural principles of freedom or entitlement related to a person’s cerebral and mental domain; that is, the fundamental normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind. Although reflections on neurorights have received ample coverage in the mainstream media and have rapidly become a mainstream topic in the public neuroethics discourse, the frequency of such reflections in the academic literature is still relatively scarce. While the prominence of the neurorights debate in public opinion is crucial to ensure public engagement and democratic participation in deliberative processes on this issue, its relatively sporadic presence in the academic literature poses a risk of semantic-normative ambiguity and conceptual confusion. This risk is exacerbated by the presence of multiple and not always reconcilable terminologies. Several meta-ethical, normative ethical, and legal-philosophical questions need to be solved in order to ensure that neurorights can be used as effective instruments of global neurotechnology governance and be adequately imported into international human rights law. To overcome the shortcomings above, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive normative-ethical, historical and conceptual analysis of neurorights. In particular, it attempts to (i) reconstruct a history of neurorights and locate these rights in the broader history of idea, (ii) outline a systematic conceptual taxonomy of neurorights, (iii) summarize ongoing policy initiatives related to neurorights, (iv) proactively address some unresolved ethico-legal challenges, and (v) identify priority areas for further academic reflection and policy work in this domain.

This article, titled “A Unified Understanding of the Human Mind - A Neuroethical Perspective,” examines the evolution of the concept of the human mind in Western thought and its integration with neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and relational dimensions. The author explores how the understanding of the mind has changed over time, influenced by shifts in philosophical paradigms, scientific advancements, and societal perspectives. The article traces the historical development of the mind’s concept, starting from ancient Greece, through influential thinkers like Plato and René Descartes, and progressing to contemporary perspectives. It highlights various philosophical and scientific approaches, including structuralism, functionalism, empiricism, and associationism, which have shaped our understanding of the mind. The article also delves into contemporary integration, where advancements in neuroimaging and the rise of holistic approaches offer a more nuanced understanding of the human mind. The author emphasizes the importance of the relational dimension and the interconnectedness of mental processes, the brain, and the external environment. This integrated perspective can benefit psychiatric treatment and psychological assessments by fostering a holistic approach to mental health. In conclusion, the article advocates for a multidimensional perspective that bridges subjective and objective aspects of human experience, offering promise for theoretical knowledge and practical applications in psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience.

In this article, we begin by identifying three main neuroethical approaches: neurobioethics, empirical neuroethics, and conceptual neuroethics. Our focus is on conceptual approaches that generally emphasize the need to develop and use a methodological modus operandi for effectively linking scientific (i.e., neuroscience) and philosophical (i.e., ethics) interpretations. We explain and assess the value of conceptual neuroethics approaches and explain and defend one such approach that we propose as being particularly fruitful for addressing the various issues raised by neuroscience: fundamental neuroethics.

The idea that deep brain stimulation (DBS) induces changes to personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) is so deeply entrenched within neuroethics discourses that it has become an unchallenged narrative. In this article, we critically assess evidence about putative effects of DBS on PIAAAS. We conducted a literature review of more than 1535 articles to investigate the prevalence of scientific evidence regarding these potential DBS-induced changes. While we observed an increase in the number of publications in theoretical neuroethics that mention putative DBS-induced changes to patients’ postoperative PIAAAS, we found a critical lack of primary empirical studies corroborating these claims. Our findings strongly suggest that the theoretical neuroethics debate on putative effects of DBS relies on very limited empirical evidence and is, instead, reliant on unsubstantiated speculative assumptions probably in lieu of robust evidence. As such, this may reflect the likelihood of a speculative neuroethics bubble that may need to be deflated. Nevertheless, despite the low number of first-hand primary studies and large number of marginal and single case reports, potential postoperative DBS changes experienced by patients remain a critical ethical concern. We recommend further empirical research in order to enhance theoretical neuroethics work in the area. In particular, we call for the development of better instruments capable of capturing potential postoperative variations of PIAAAS.

•Smaller, more affordable, and more portable MRI scanners offer opportunities to address unmet research needs and long-standing health inequities in remote and resource-limited international settings.•However, the use of portable MRI in field-based settings raises challenging ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that have not been adequately examined.•A guiding principle for field-based MRI research must be ensuring that local communities are ongoing partners in the co-creation of knowledge.•Field-based MRI research in remote, low-resource settings should produce local value to justify the risks of the research and minimize the possibility of abuse.•More opportunities for genuine bi-directional learning are needed to address these issues, and development of consensus guidance should prioritize participation of stakeholders from resource-limited communities. Smaller, more affordable, and more portable MRI brain scanners offer exciting opportunities to address unmet research needs and long-standing health inequities in remote and resource-limited international settings. Field-based neuroimaging research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can improve local capacity to conduct both structural and functional neuroscience studies, expand knowledge of brain injury and neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders, and ultimately improve the timeliness and quality of clinical diagnosis and treatment around the globe. Facilitating MRI research in remote settings can also diversify reference databases in neuroscience, improve understanding of brain development and degeneration across the lifespan in diverse populations, and help to create reliable measurements of infant and child development. These deeper understandings can lead to new strategies for collaborating with communities to mitigate and hopefully overcome challenges that negatively impact brain development and quality of life. Despite the potential importance of research using highly portable MRI in remote and resource-limited settings, there is little analysis of the attendant ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI). To begin addressing this gap, this paper presents findings from the first phase of an envisioned multi-staged and iterative approach for creating ethical and legal guidance in a complex global landscape. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to the emerging technology for field-based MRI research. Section 2 presents our methodology for generating plausible use cases for MRI research in remote and resource-limited settings and identifying associated ELSI issues. Section 3 analyzes core ELSI issues in designing and conducting field-based MRI research in remote, resource-limited settings and offers recommendations. We argue that a guiding principle for field-based MRI research in these contexts should be including local communities and research participants throughout the research process in order to create sustained local value. Section 4 presents a recommended path for the next phase of work that could further adapt these use cases, address ethical and legal issues, and co-develop guidance in partnership with local communities.