Data sharing and privacy issues in neuroimaging research: Opportunities, obstacles, challenges, and monsters under the bed.

Collaborative networks and data sharing initiatives are broadening the opportunities for the advancement of science. These initiatives offer greater transparency in science, with the opportunity for external research groups to reproduce, replicate, and extend research findings. Further, larger datasets offer the opportunity to identify homogeneous patterns within subgroups of individuals, where these patterns may be obscured by the heterogeneity of the neurobiological measure in smaller samples. However, data sharing and data pooling initiatives are not without their challenges, especially with new laws that may at first glance appear quite restrictive for open science initiatives. Interestingly, what is key to some of these new laws (i.e, the European Union's general data protection regulation) is that they provide greater control of data to those who "give" their data for research purposes. Thus, the most important element in data sharing is allowing the participants to make informed decisions about how they want their data to be used, and, within the law of the specific country, to follow the participants' wishes. This framework encompasses obtaining thorough informed consent and allowing the participant to determine the extent that they want their data shared, many of the ethical and legal obstacles are reduced to just monsters under the bed. In this manuscript we discuss the many options and obstacles for data sharing, from fully open, to federated learning, to fully closed. Importantly, we highlight the intersection of data sharing, privacy, and data ownership and highlight specific examples that we believe are informative to the neuroimaging community.

Emerging ethical issues raised by highly portable MRI research in remote and resource-limited international settings.

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.

A marathon, not a sprint - neuroimaging, Open Science and ethics.

Open Science is calling for a radical re-thinking of existing scientific practices. Within the neuroimaging community, Open Science practices are taking the form of open data repositories and open lab notebooks. The broad sharing of data that accompanies Open Science, however, raises some difficult ethical and legal issues. With neuroethics as a focusing lens, we explore eight central concerns posed by open data with regard to human brain imaging studies: respect for individuals and communities, concern for marginalized communities, consent, privacy protections, participatory research designs, contextual integrity, fusions of clinical and research goals, and incidental findings. Each consideration assists in bringing nuance to the potential benefits for open data sharing against associated challenges. We combine current understandings with forward-looking solutions to key issues. We conclude by underscoring the need for new policy tools to enhance the potential for responsible open data.

The Open Brain Consent: Informing research participants and obtaining consent to share brain imaging data.

Having the means to share research data openly is essential to modern science. For human research, a key aspect in this endeavor is obtaining consent from participants, not just to take part in a study, which is a basic ethical principle, but also to share their data with the scientific community. To ensure that the participants' privacy is respected, national and/or supranational regulations and laws are in place. It is, however, not always clear to researchers what the implications of those are, nor how to comply with them. The Open Brain Consent (https://open-brain-consent.readthedocs.io) is an international initiative that aims to provide researchers in the brain imaging community with information about data sharing options and tools. We present here a short history of this project and its latest developments, and share pointers to consent forms, including a template consent form that is compliant with the EU general data protection regulation. We also share pointers to an associated data user agreement that is not only useful in the EU context, but also for any researchers dealing with personal (clinical) data elsewhere.

Ethical issues in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations.

Neuroimaging genetics is a rapidly developing field that combines neuropsychiatric genetics studies with imaging modalities to investigate how genetic variation influences brain structure and function. As both genetic and imaging technologies improve further, their combined power may hold translational potential in terms of improving psychiatric nosology, diagnosis, and treatment. While neuroimaging genetics studies offer a number of scientific advantages, they also face challenges. In response to some of these challenges, global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have been created to pool and compare brain data and replicate study findings. Attention has been paid to ethical issues in genetics, neuroimaging, and multi-site collaborative research, respectively, but there have been few substantive discussions of the ethical issues generated by the confluence of these areas in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations. Our discussion focuses on two areas: benefits and risks of global neuroimaging genetics collaborations and the potential impact of neuroimaging genetics research findings in low- and middle-income countries. Global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have the potential to enhance relations between countries and address global mental health challenges, however there are risks regarding inequity, exploitation and data sharing. Moreover, neuroimaging genetics research in low- and middle-income countries must address the issue of feedback of findings and the risk of essentializing and stigmatizing interpretations of mental disorders. We conclude by examining how the notion of solidarity, informed by an African Ethics framework, may justify some of the suggestions made in our discussion.

Alive inside.

This article provides an ethical analysis of the U.S. practice guideline update on disorders of consciousness. Our analysis focuses on the guideline's recommendations regarding the use of investigational neuroimaging methods to assess brain-injured patients. Complex and multifaceted ethical issues have emerged because these methods alter the clinical understanding of consciousness. We address issues of false hope, patient suffering, and cost. We argue that, in spite of these concerns, there is significant benefit to using neuroimaging to assess brain-injured patients in most cases.

Do New Neuroimaging Findings Challenge the Ethical Basis of Advance Directives in Disorders of Consciousness?

Some authors have questioned the moral authority of advance directives (ADs) in cases in which it is not clear if the author of the AD is identical to the person to whom it later applies. This article focuses on the question of whether the latest results of neuroimaging studies have moral significance with regard to the moral authority of ADs in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOCs). Some neuroimaging findings could provide novel insights into the question of whether patients with DOCs exhibit sufficient psychological continuity to be ascribed diachronic personal identity. If those studies were to indicate that psychological continuity is present, they could justify the moral authority of ADs in patients with DOCs. This holds at least if respect for self-determination is considered as the foundation for the moral authority of ADs. The non-identity thesis in DOCs could no longer be applied, in line with clinical and social practice.

Ethical and Legal Implications of the Methodological Crisis in Neuroimaging.

Currently, many scientific fields such as psychology or biomedicine face a methodological crisis concerning the reproducibility, replicability, and validity of their research. In neuroimaging, similar methodological concerns have taken hold of the field, and researchers are working frantically toward finding solutions for the methodological problems specific to neuroimaging. This article examines some ethical and legal implications of this methodological crisis in neuroimaging. With respect to ethical challenges, the article discusses the impact of flawed methods in neuroimaging research in cognitive and clinical neuroscience, particularly with respect to faulty brain-based models of human cognition, behavior, and personality. Specifically examined is whether such faulty models, when they are applied to neurological or psychiatric diseases, could put patients at risk, and whether this places special obligations on researchers using neuroimaging. In the legal domain, the actual use of neuroimaging as evidence in United States courtrooms is surveyed, followed by an examination of ways that the methodological problems may create challenges for the criminal justice system. Finally, the article reviews and promotes some promising ideas and initiatives from within the neuroimaging community for addressing the methodological problems.

Neuroethics: the pursuit of transforming medical ethics in scientific ethics.

Ethical problems resulting from brain research have given rise to a new discipline termed neuroethics, representing a new kind of knowledge capable of discovering the neural basis for universal ethics. The article (1) tries to evaluate the contributions of neuroethics to medical ethics and its suitability to outline the foundations of universal ethics, (2) critically analyses the process of founding this universal ethic. The potential benefits of applying neuroimaging, psychopharmacology and neurotechnology have to be carefully weighed against their potential harm. In view of these questions, an intensive dialogue between neuroscience and the humanities is more necessary than ever.

Naturalizing Responsibility.

In the contemporary debate on the use of the neurosciences in ethics and law, numerous arguments have been bandied about among scientists and philosophers looking to uphold or reject the reliability and validity of scientific findings obtained by brain imaging technologies. Among the most vexing questions is, Can we trust that technology? One point of disagreement is whether brain scans offer a window through which to observe the functioning of the mind, in such a way as to enable lawyers, judges, physicians, and lawmakers to detect anomalies in brain function that may account for criminal unconscious behavior. Those who stand behind brain imaging believe that this can indeed be achieved, whereas those in opposition stress that brain scans are highly open to interpretation and that the data they provide is insufficient to establish causal connections. The question essentially comes down to whether technology can reliably be used to determine the intentions of the individual, thus establishing mens rea, for example, and hence responsibility. This article focuses on the latter notion and explores whether we can rely on the neurosciences to shed light on a complex form of moral and legal reasoning, as well as the role of the neurosciences in reawakening a philosophical and legal interest in trying to set responsibility on an empirical basis.

Hot baths and cold minds: neuroscience, mind reading, and mind misreading.

The idea-the possibility-of reading the mind, from the outside or indeed even from the inside, has exercised humanity from the earliest times. If we could read other minds both prospectively, to discern intentions and plans, and retrospectively, to discover what had been "on" those minds when various events had occurred, the implications for morality and for law and social policy would be immense. Recent advances in neuroscience have offered some, probably remote, prospects of improved access to the mind, but a different branch of technology seems to offer the most promising and the most daunting prospect for both mind reading and mind misreading. You can't have the possibility of the one without the possibility of the other. This article tells some of this story.

Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcome after serious brain injury is highly variable. Following a period of coma, some patients recover while others progress into a vegetative state (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) or minimally conscious state. In both cases, assessment is difficult and misdiagnosis may be as high as 43%. Recent advances in neuroimaging suggest a solution. Both functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography have been used to detect residual cognitive function in vegetative and minimally conscious patients. Neuroimaging may improve diagnosis and prognostication. These techniques are beginning to be applied to comatose patients soon after injury. Evidence of preserved cognitive function may predict recovery, and this information would help families and health providers. Complex ethical issues arise due to the vulnerability of patients and families, difficulties interpreting negative results, restriction of communication to "yes" or "no" answers, and cost. We seek to investigate ethical issues in the use of neuroimaging in behaviorally nonresponsive patients who have suffered serious brain injury. The objectives of this research are to: (1) create an approach to capacity assessment using neuroimaging; (2) develop an ethics of welfare framework to guide considerations of quality of life; (3) explore the impact of neuroimaging on families; and, (4) analyze the ethics of the use of neuroimaging in comatose patients. METHODS/DESIGN: Our research program encompasses four projects and uses a mixed methods approach. Project 1 asks whether decision making capacity can be assessed in behaviorally nonresponsive patients. We will specify cognitive functions required for capacity and detail their assessment. Further, we will develop and pilot a series of scenarios and questions suitable for assessing capacity. Project 2 examines the ethics of welfare as a guide for neuroimaging. It grounds an obligation to explore patients' interests, and we explore conceptual issues in the development of a quality of life instrument adapted for neuroimaging. Project 3 will use grounded theory interviews to document families' understanding of the patient's condition, expectations of neuroimaging, and the impact of the results of neuroimaging. Project 4 will provide an ethical analysis of neuroimaging to investigate residual cognitive function in comatose patients within days of serious brain injury.

Seeing responsibility: can neuroimaging teach us anything about moral and legal responsibility?

As imaging technologies help us understand the structure and function of the brain, providing insight into human capabilities as basic as vision and as complex as memory, and human conditions as impairing as depression and as fraught as psychopathy, some have asked whether they can also help us understand human agency. Specifically, could neuroimaging lead us to reassess the socially significant practice of assigning and taking responsibility? While responsibility itself is not a psychological process open to investigation through neuroimaging, decision-making is. Over the past decade, different researchers and scholars have sought to use neuroimaging (or the results of neuroimaging studies) to investigate what is going on in the brain when we make decisions. The results of this research raise the question whether neuroscience-especially now that it includes neuroimaging-can and should alter our understandings of responsibility and our related practice of holding people responsible. It is this question that we investigate here.

Neuroimaging: beginning to appreciate its complexities.

For over a century, scientists have sought to see through the protective shield of the human skull and into the living brain. Today, an array of technologies allows researchers and clinicians to create astonishingly detailed images of our brain's structure as well as colorful depictions of the electrical and physiological changes that occur within it when we see, hear, think and feel. These technologies-and the images they generate-are an increasingly important tool in medicine and science. Given the role that neuroimaging technologies now play in biomedical research, both neuroscientists and nonexperts should aim to be as clear as possible about how neuroimages are made and what they can-and cannot-tell us. Add to this that neuroimages have begun to be used in courtrooms at both the determination of guilt and sentencing stages, that they are being employed by marketers to refine advertisements and develop new products, that they are being sold to consumers for the diagnosis of mental disorders and for the detection of lies, and that they are being employed in arguments about the nature (or absence) of powerful concepts like free will and personhood, and the need for citizens to have a basic understanding of how this technology works and what it can and cannot tell us becomes even more pressing.

Animal minds and neuroimaging--bridging the gap between science and ethics?

As Colin Allen has argued, discussions between science and ethics about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals often stall on account of the fact that the properties that ethics presents as evidence of animal mentality and moral status, namely consciousness and sentience, are not observable "scientifically respectable" properties. In order to further discussion between science and ethics, it seems, therefore, that we need to identify properties that would satisfy both domains. In this article I examine the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals from the perspective of neuroethics. By adopting this perspective, we can see how advances in neuroimaging regarding (1) research into the neurobiology of pain, (2) "brain reading," and (3) the minimally conscious state may enable us to identify properties that help bridge the gap between science and ethics, and hence help further the debate about the mentality and moral status of nonhuman animals.

Disclosing incidental findings in brain research: the rights of minors in decision-making.

MRI is used routinely in research with children to generate new knowledge about brain development. The detection of unexpected brain abnormalities (incidental findings; IFs) in these studies presents unique challenges. While key issues surrounding incidence and significance, duty of care, and burden of disclosure have been addressed substantially for adults, less empirical data and normative analyses exist for minors who participate in minimal risk research. To identify ethical concerns and fill existing gaps, we conducted a comprehensive review of papers that focused explicitly on the discovery of IFs in minors. The discourse in the 21 papers retrieved for this analysis amply covered practical issues such as informed consent and screening, difficulties in ascertaining clinical significance, the economic costs and burden of responsibility on researchers, and risks (physical or psychological). However, we found little discussion about the involvement of minors in decisions about disclosure of IFs in the brain, especially for IFs of low clinical significance. In response, we propose a framework for managing IFs that integrates practical considerations with explicit appreciation of rights along the continuum of maturity. This capacity-adjusted framework emphasizes the importance of involving competent minors and respecting their right to make decisions about disclosure.

A neuroimaging proof of principle study of Down's syndrome and dementia: ethical and methodological challenges in intrusive research.

BACKGROUND: Research into specific illnesses and the development of new treatments may only become possible as new technologies become available. When used for research, such technologies may best be described as 'intrusive', in that they require a considerable willingness and commitment on the part of the participants. This has increasingly been the case for brain disorders and illnesses where novel neuroimaging techniques, often combined with clinical and psychological assessments, have the potential to result in new understanding. People with intellectual disabilities (ID) have a history of under-representation as participants in research using such technologies and are therefore at risk of not receiving equal access to state-of-the-art treatments. We propose that 'intrusive' biomedical research is both possible and ethical in ID, and explore some of the methodological challenges by reference to a recent proof of principle study that used a relatively new ligand-based brain scanning technique in a group of volunteers with Down's syndrome. METHODS: Five overlapping stages of the study methodology were identified and evaluated for their acceptability to volunteers with mild to moderate ID through discussion, reflection, and analysis of structured feedback in the context of key policy documents, ethical guidelines and relevant legislation. RESULTS: Identification of key ethical and methodological challenges from reflective practice and participant feedback facilitated the emergence of strategies that permitted continual refinement of the study design. Important areas considered included (1) being clear about the purpose and scientific justification for the study; (2) reconciling the potential risks and benefits with relevant ethical guidelines and legislation; (3) identifying and implementing effective recruitment strategies; (4) optimising and assessing capacity to consent; and (5) making the 'intrusive' procedures as acceptable as possible to people with ID. CONCLUSION: We were able to demonstrate that a proof of principle study incorporating a novel brain scanning technique in a group of volunteers with ID was feasible, safe and well tolerated, despite the vulnerabilities of the study cohort and the intrusive nature of the research. We consider the study within an ethical and historical discourse about the principles that define current 'best practice' in ID research and propose a number of key recommendations for making intrusive research acceptable in people with ID.

Incidental finding of tumor while investigating subarachnoid hemorrhage: ethical considerations and practical strategies.

High-resolution neuroimaging modalities are used often in studies involving healthy volunteers. Subsequently, a significant increase in the incidental discovery of asymptomatic intracranial abnormalities raised the important ethical issues of when follow-up and treatment may be necessary. We examined the literature to establish a practical set of criteria for approaching incidental findings. Our objective is to develop an algorithm for when follow-up may be important and to provide recommendations that would increase the likelihood of follow-up. A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases to identify articles describing brain tumors and intracranial aneurysms. The treatment algorithm we present suggests that incidental intracranial masses suspicious for glioma should be biopsied or resected, while other masses are to be followed with serial imaging based on the expected growth pattern. Lack of follow-up can result in adverse outcomes that can be mitigated by using technology to facilitate communication and improve follow-up care. The importance of training physicians to be good communicators is also stressed. New technology including automated telephone systems, texting and email will improve access to patients and hopefully encourage compliance and follow-up.

Ethical implications of neuroimaging in sports concussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 1.6 to 3.8 million traumatic brain injuries that occur each year are related to sports injuries. New research has broadened the understanding of the acute and chronic pathophysiology of concussion associated with brain injury, and recent advances in diagnostic capabilities with neuroimaging are leading to new ethical questions around sport and care of the head-injured athlete. In this review, we synthesize the current literature on neuroimaging for assessing concussed athletes and explore ethical issues in the context of return to play, short- and long-term neurologic health effects following concussion and resource allocation that are emerging with new implications as neurotechnology becomes an increasingly powerful tool on the playing field of health.

Translating neuroethics: reflections from Muslim ethics: commentary on "Ethical concepts and future challenges of neuroimaging: an islamic perspective".

Muslim ethics is cautiously engaging developments in neuroscience. In their encounters with developments in neuroscience such as brain death and functional magnetic resonance imaging procedures, Muslim ethicists might be on the cusp of spirited debates. Science and religion perform different kinds of work and ought not to be conflated. Cultural translation is central to negotiating the complex life worlds of religious communities, Muslims included. Cultural translation involves lived encounters with modernity and its byproduct, modern science. Serious ethical debate requires more than just a mere instrumental encounter with science. A robust Muslim approach to neuroethics might require an emulsion of religion and neuroscience, thought and body, and body and soul. Yet one must anticipate that Muslim debates in neuroethics will be inflected with Muslim values, symbols and the discrete faith perspectives of this tradition with meanings that are specific to people who share this worldview and their concerns.