4.8 Review

Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives

Journal

NEURON
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 19-36

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.09.021

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Kavli Foundation
  2. Korea Brain Research Institute (Brain Research Policy Center Operation Program), Daegu City
  3. Ministry of Science and ICT of Korea
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation [785907]
  5. Wellcome Trust
  6. Gatsby Foundation
  7. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship [APP1123311]
  8. KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [16K21738]
  9. Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics
  10. Our Brain, Ourselves, Our World

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to the nature of understanding the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available