Editorial: "What say you?" The promise and potential pitfalls of using automated and passive monitoring approaches to assess parenting behaviours from verbal and written communication.

Rates of mental health problems in adolescence are rising as highlighted in this current issue of the Journal. It is therefore increasingly important to identify children who may be at risk so that preventive interventions can be deployed before they reach adolescence. Adverse parenting has long been considered a risk factor for poor mental health in adolescence, but the methods traditionally used to assess this are laborious, burdensome and costly. Recently, passive monitoring and automated approaches to collecting and analysing spoken and written forms of parental communication have been proposed. This editorial examines the promise of such technological advances for assessing parenting and provides words of caution from parents and young people that should be heeded before rolling these approaches out at scale.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) approaches in mental health projects involving young people: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rather than being perceived as merely 'part of the problem', the perspectives and experiences of young people play a pivotal role in devising effective solutions for mental health challenges. Two distinct methodologies that aid in this endeavour are 'patient and public involvement' (PPI) and 'responsible research and innovation' (RRI). However, there is a tendency to conflate PPI and RRI practices, leading to ambiguity in their application. Moreover, the extent and nature of young people's involvement in mental health-related projects (namely: research, intervention, product development) employing these methodologies, and the subsequent implications thereof, remain unclear. Consequently, the proposed scoping review aims to identify and analyse literature pertaining to PPI and RRI approaches in mental health projects that engage young people in collaboration. METHODS: The selected databases will be MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science, IBBS, CINAHL (EBSCO) and ASSIA. Comprehensive searches will span from the inception of each database. A pilot test will be conducted to assess the screening criteria and data extraction form, with two authors independently reviewing titles and abstracts. Full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria will undergo narrative syntheses, with results presented in tabular format. Feedback on the findings from a youth perspective will be sought from young people within our broader research network, namely Sprouting Minds. The review will adhere to the guidelines outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and follow the PRISMA-ScR procedures. Inclusion criteria will comprise English-language, primary research peer-reviewed articles focused on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) or Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), examining mental health-related research processes, interventions, and products developed in collaboration with young people. Studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches will be considered, while non-journal publications will be excluded. DISCUSSION: The intended scoping review aims to map the literature concerning mental health-related projects that engage with young people through PPI or RRI approaches. The outcomes hold promise for enriching the participatory research domain, particularly in studies centred on young people and their mental well-being. Furthermore, by delineating potential overlaps and distinctions between PPI and RRI, the findings stand to aid mental health researchers and practitioners in making informed decisions about the most suitable approach for their projects when partnering with young individuals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (registration: DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N4EDB ).

This study aims to understand how young people are involved in mental health projects (namely: research, intervention, and product development) and how their perspectives shape the outcomes. Two approaches, Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), are often used in these projects, but it's not clear how they differ or how young people are involved. To explore this, the researchers will review existing literature on mental health projects involving young people. They will search databases for articles that describe or evaluate these projects, focusing on how young people are involved in the research and/or development processes. They will include studies in English that have been peer-reviewed and cover both numerical and text-based research. Young people will be involved to provide feedback from their perspective. This review will follow established guidelines to ensure trustworthiness and transparency. The findings from this review will help researchers and professionals understand the best ways to involve young people in mental health projects. By clarifying the differences between PPI and RRI and highlighting effective strategies, this study aims to improve future research and ultimately benefit young people's mental health.

Gray Matters: Exploring Technologists' Perceptions of Dual-Use Potentiality in Emerging Neurotechnology Applications.

In this article, we report on a pilot study examining perceptions of dual use among neurotechnologists and neuroethicists. We carried out 10 semistructured interviews with participants from established universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia about the risks they saw with the new technology and who has responsibility for safely developing it. We used a grounded theory approach to code and develop themes from the data and establish a foundation for analysis. Our findings showed that dual use was not considered binary, but rather multifaceted and fluid, with the commercialization and globalization of the emerging science shifting participants' understandings of what neurotechnologies are considered beneficial and harmful, rendering future uses unknowable.

Ethical and Social Aspects of Neurorobotics.

The interdisciplinary field of neurorobotics looks to neuroscience to overcome the limitations of modern robotics technology, to robotics to advance our understanding of the neural system's inner workings, and to information technology to develop tools that support those complementary endeavours. The development of these technologies is still at an early stage, which makes them an ideal candidate for proactive and anticipatory ethical reflection. This article explains the current state of neurorobotics development within the Human Brain Project, originating from a close collaboration between the scientific and technical experts who drive neurorobotics innovation, and the humanities and social sciences scholars who provide contextualising and reflective capabilities. This article discusses some of the ethical issues which can reasonably be expected. On this basis, the article explores possible gaps identified within this collaborative, ethical reflection that calls for attention to ensure that the development of neurorobotics is ethically sound and socially acceptable and desirable.

Francis Crick, cross-worlds influencer: A narrative model to historicize big bioscience.

The essay is an empirical case study of famed British scientist Francis Crick. Viewing him as a 'cross-worlds influencer' who was moreover dedicated to a cause, I have tried to understand how these two characteristics influenced the trajectory of his long career and how they shaped his contributions to the diverse research fields in which he was active, and concluded that these characteristics reconfigure Crick's career into a coherent whole. First, I identify a major thread running through Crick's career: helping organise 'un-disciplined' new research fields, and show that his successive choices were not serendipitous but motivated by what he construed as a crusade against 'vitalism': anti-vitalism was a defining driver of his career. I then examine how Crick put his skills as a crossworlds influencer to the service of his cause, by helping organise his chosen fields of intervention. I argue that his activities as a cross-worlds influencer were an integral part of his way of 'doing science' and that his contributions to science, neuroscience in particular, should be re-evaluated in this light. This leads me to advance a possible strategy for historians to investigate big bioscience fields. Following Abir-Am, I propose to trace their genealogies back to the fluctuating semi-institutional gatherings and the institutional structures that sustained them. My research on Crick supports the view that such studies can bring insights into the question of why the contours of contemporary big bioscience endeavours have come to be shaped the way they are. Further, the essay provides a heuristic device for approaching these enquiries: 'follow the cross-worlds influencers' who worked to build and organise these semi-institutional gatherings and institutional structures.

Of the Helmholtz Club, South-Californian seedbed for visual and cognitive neuroscience, and its patron Francis Crick.

Taking up the view that semi-institutional gatherings such as clubs, societies, research schools, have been instrumental in creating sheltered spaces from which many a 20th-century project-driven interdisciplinary research programme could develop and become established within the institutions of science, the paper explores the history of one such gathering from its inception in the early 1980s into the 2000s, the Helmholtz Club, which brought together scientists from such various research fields as neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, psychophysics, computer science and engineering, who all had an interest in the study of the visual system and of higher cognitive functions relying on visual perception such as visual consciousness. It argues that British molecular biologist turned South Californian neuroscientist Francis Crick had an early and lasting influence over the Helmholtz Club of which he was a founding pillar, and that from its inception, the club served as a constitutive element in his long-term plans for a neuroscience of vision and of cognition. Further, it argues that in this role, the Helmholtz Club served many purposes, the primary of which was to be a social forum for interdisciplinary discussion, where 'discussion' was not mere talk but was imbued with an epistemic value and as such, carefully cultivated. Finally, it questions what counts as 'doing science' and in turn, definitions of success and failure-and provides some material evidence towards re-appraising the successfulness of Crick's contribution to the neurosciences.