Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Editors' statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

The ubiquity of the fallacy of composition in cognitive enhancement and in education.

Research into cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, and arguments for and against it have failed to identify the logical fallacy underlying this debate: the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a lesser-known fallacy of ambiguity, but it has been explored and applied extensively to other fields, including economics. The fallacy of composition, which occurs when the characteristics of the parts of the whole are incorrectly extended to apply to the whole itself, and the conclusion is false, should be addressed in the debate on cognitive enhancement and within education. Within cognitive enhancement, the premise that individual distinct cognitive processes can be enhanced by cognitive enhancers leads to the conclusion that they must enhance cognition overall, and this idea is pervasive in the literature. If the goal of cognitive enhancement is to enhance cognition or learning, and not merely individual cognitive processes, then this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition. The ambiguity of "cognitive," "cognition," and "enhancement" only perpetuates this fallacy and creates more confusion surrounding the purposes and goals of enhancement. Identifying this fallacy does not threaten the existing body of research; however, it provides a novel framework to explore new avenues for research, education, and enhancement, particularly through education reform initiatives. Education enhances and facilitates learning, and improvements to education could be considered cognitive enhancements. Furthermore, the same fallacy is ubiquitous in education; educators commit it by "teaching to the test" and prioritizing memorization over generalizable skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. We will explore these new avenues for research and highlight principles of learning success from other disciplines to create a clearer understanding of the means and ends of cognitive enhancement. Recognizing the pervasiveness of composition fallacy in cognitive enhancement and education will lead to greater clarity of normative positions and insights into student learning that steer away from fallacious reasoning.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement.

Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans. Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject's age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be "safe" where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects. Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs.

Media portrayal of ethical and social issues in brain organoid research.

BACKGROUND: Human brain organoids are a valuable research tool for studying brain development, physiology, and pathology. Yet, a host of potential ethical concerns are inherent in their creation. There is a growing group of bioethicists who acknowledge the moral imperative to develop brain organoid technologies and call for caution in this research. Although a relatively new technology, brain organoids and their uses are already being discussed in media literature. Media literature informs the public and policymakers but has the potential for utopian or dystopian distortions. Thus, it is important to understand how this technology is portrayed to the public. METHODS: To investigate how brain organoids are displayed to the public, we conducted a systematic review of media literature indexed in the Nexis Uni database from 2013-2019. News and media source articles passing exclusion criteria (n = 93) were scored to evaluate tone and relevant themes. Themes were validated with a pilot sample before being applied to the dataset. Thematic analysis assessed article tone, reported potential for the technology, and the scientific, social, and ethical contexts surrounding brain organoids research. RESULTS: Brain organoid publications became more frequent from 2013 to 2019. We observed increases in positively and negatively toned articles, suggesting growing polarization. While many sources discuss realistic applications of brain organoids, others suggest treatment and cures beyond the scope of the current technology. This could work to overhype the technology and disillusion patients and families by offering false hope. In the ethical narrative we observe a preoccupation with issues such as development of artificial consciousness and "humanization" of organoid-animal chimeras. Issues of regulation, ownership, and accuracy of the organoid models are rarely discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the power that media have to inform or misinform the public, it is important this literature provides an accurate and balanced reflection of the therapeutic potential and associated ethical issues regarding brain organoid research. Our study suggests increasing polarization, coupled with misplaced and unfounded ethical concern. Given the inhibitory effects of public fear or disillusion on research funding, it is important media literature provides an accurate reflection of brain organoids.

The public impact of academic and print media portrayals of TMS: shining a spotlight on discrepancies in the literature.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an FDA approved treatment for major depression, migraine, obsessive compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction. TMS has gained popular media support, but media coverage and commercial reporting of TMS services may be contributing to the landscape of ethical issues. METHODS: We explore the differences between the academic and print media literature portrayals of TMS to evaluate their ethical impact for the public. We performed a comprehensive literature review using PubMed and NexisUni databases to evaluate the literature available on TMS from 2014 to 2019. Our sample consisted of 1632 academic articles and 468 print media articles for a total of 2100 articles. We then coded each article for seven specific top-level codes: (1) type of source, (2) year of publication, (3) purpose of TMS application, (4) age of subjects, (5) population, (6) overall tone, and (7) specification of TMS parameters. We also made some additional notes of the TMS parameters where specified and the breakdown of mental health applications. RESULTS: Our results indicated several discrepancies between the academic and the print media reporting about TMS technology, particularly with regards to tone and specificity. Namely, the academic sample was largely neutral and specific about the parameters under which TMS was being applied, while the print media sample was heavily optimistic and presented the application of TMS with far less specificity. There was some convergence between the two samples, such as the focus of both on therapy as the predominant TMS application. CONCLUSIONS: We call upon the academic community to increase scrutiny of TMS services in order to ensure that people's knowledge of health technologies is not unduly influenced by sensational claims and a general lack of adequate information.

Morality, Risk-Taking and Psychopathic Tendencies: An Empirical Study.

Research in empirical moral psychology has consistently found negative correlations between morality and both risk-taking, as well as psychopathic tendencies. However, prior research did not sufficiently explore intervening or moderating factors. Additionally, prior measures of moral preference (e.g., sacrificial dilemmas) have a pronounced lack of ecological validity. This study seeks to address these two gaps in the literature. First, this study used Preference for Precepts Implied in Moral Theories (PPIMT), which offers a novel, more nuanced and ecologically valid measure of moral judgment. Second, the current study examined if risk taking moderates the relationships between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment. Results indicated that models which incorporated risk-taking as a moderator between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment were a better fit to the data than those that incorporated psychopathic tendencies and risk-taking as exogenous variables, suggesting that the association between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment is influenced by level of risk-taking. Therefore, future research investigating linkages between psychopathic tendencies and moral precepts may do well to incorporate risk-taking and risky behaviors to further strengthen the understanding of moral judgment in these individuals.

The Socio-Political Roles of Neuroethics and the Case of Klotho.

An increasing amount of very diverse scholarship self-identifies as belonging to the field of neuroethics, illuminating a need to provide some reference points for what that field actually entails. We argue that neuroethics is a single field with distinct perspectives, roles, and subspecialties. We propose that-in addition to the three traditional perspectives delineated by Eric Racine-a fourth, socio-political perspective, must be recognized in neuroethics. The socio-political perspective in neuroethics focuses on the interplay between the behavioral as well as the brain sciences and the socio-political system; this interplay includes social regulation in addition to all other realistic elements of social and political neurodiscourses. Thus, defining what-if any-roles the socio-political perspective in neuroethics might have is a pressing issue. Doing so could provide guidance for defining the criteria for prospective ethical evaluations in neuroethics. A promising approach to doing this could be by describing the roles of neuroethics in terms of the more concrete examples of the roles of political philosophy in general, as in the tradition of John Rawls. We take klotho, the supposed "longevity protein," as a modern neuroethics case to exemplify the obstacles faced in securing neuroethics' legitimacy and how the Rawlsian framework we propose may be applied to handle cases such as this. Ultimately, the socio-political perspective in neuroethics should not be swayed by the media hype and ought to offer useful ethical guidance and articulation of genuine ethical concerns to policy makers and the public alike.

Cooperative behavior in the workplace: Empirical evidence from the agent-deed-consequences model of moral judgment.

Introduction: Moral judgment is of critical importance in the work context because of its implicit or explicit omnipresence in a wide range of work-place practices. The moral aspects of actual behaviors, intentions, and consequences represent areas of deep preoccupation, as exemplified in current corporate social responsibility programs, yet there remain ongoing debates on the best understanding of how such aspects of morality (behaviors, intentions, and consequences) interact. The ADC Model of moral judgment integrates the theoretical insights of three major moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism) into a single model, which explains how moral judgment occurs in parallel evaluation processes of three different components: the character of a person (Agent-component); their actions (Deed-component); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component). The model offers the possibility of overcoming difficulties encountered by single or dual-component theories. Methods: We designed a 2 × 2 × 2-between-subjects design vignette experiment with a Germany-wide sample of employed respondents (N = 1,349) to test this model. Results: Results showed that the Deed-component affects willingness to cooperate in the work context, which is mediated via moral judgments. These effects also varied depending on the levels of the Agent- and Consequences-component. Discussion: Thereby, the results exemplify the usefulness of the ADC Model in the work context by showing how the distinct components of morality affect moral judgment.