Neuroethics guidance documents: principles, analysis, and implementation strategies.

Innovations in neurotechnologies have ignited conversations about ethics around the world, with implications for researchers, policymakers, and the private sector. The human rights impacts of neurotechnologies have drawn the attention of United Nations bodies; nearly 40 states are tasked with implementing the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's principles for responsible innovation in neurotechnology; and the United States is considering placing export controls on brain-computer interfaces. Against this backdrop, we offer the first review and analysis of neuroethics guidance documents recently issued by prominent government, private, and academic groups, focusing on commonalities and divergences in articulated goals; envisioned roles and responsibilities of different stakeholder groups; and the suggested role of the public. Drawing on lessons from the governance of other emerging technologies, we suggest implementation and evaluation strategies to guide practitioners and policymakers in operationalizing these ethical norms in research, business, and policy settings.

Genetic loss of norepinephrine does not alter adult hippocampal neurogenesis in dopamine beta-hydroxylase deficient mice.

Norepinephrine (NE), and specific adrenoceptors, have been reported to influence distinct aspects of adult hippocampal neurogenesis, including latent stem cell activation, progenitor proliferation, and differentiation. These findings are predominantly based on the use of pharmacological approaches in both in vitro and in vivo systems. Here, we sought to assess the consequences of genetic ablation of NE on adult hippocampal neurogenesis, by examining dopamine ß hydroxylase knockout (Dbh -/-) mice, which lack NE from birth. We find that Dbh -/- mice exhibit no difference in adult hippocampal progenitor proliferation and survival. Further, the number of immature newborn neurons, labeled using stage-specific developmental markers within the hippocampal neurogenic niche, was also unaltered in Dbh -/- mice. In contrast, the noradrenergic neurotoxin DSP-4, which had previously been shown to reduce adult hippocampal neurogenesis in rats, also resulted in a decline in hippocampal progenitor proliferation in C57/Bl6N mice. These findings indicate that pharmacological lesioning of noradrenergic afferents in adulthood, but not the complete genetic loss of NE from birth, impairs adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mice.

Building a culture of responsible neurotech: Neuroethics as socio-technical challenges.

Scientists around the globe are joining the race to achieve engineering feats to read, write, modulate, and interface with the human brain in a broadening continuum of invasive to non-invasive ways. The expansive implications of neurotechnology for our conception of health, mind, decision-making, and behavior has raised social and ethical considerations that are inextricable from neurotechnological progress. We propose "socio-technical" challenges as a framing to integrate neuroethics into the engineering process. Intentionally aligning societal and engineering goals within this framework offers a way to maximize the positive impact of next-generation neurotechnologies on society.

Assessing the Perceived Value of Neuroethics Questions and Policy to Neuro-Entrepreneurs.

Neuroscience and its findings have deep personal and cultural meaning, so the implications of brain science raise new flavors of ethical issues not covered by traditional bioethics. The field of neuroethics bridges this gap, addressing and responding to the ethical, legal, and social issues intimately related to the evolving landscape of neuroscience. Neuroethical concerns have registered at the highest levels of government. In 2018, an interdisciplinary global neuroethics group working with leading scientists from the International Brain Initiative, a consortium of seven large-scale national-level brain research projects around the globe, published "Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives." The document provides guiding questions to consider throughout the lifecycle of neuroscience research. These questions tackle issues such as identity, morality, cross-cultural differences, privacy, and potential stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making. In our work with the International Brain Initiative, we noted the important role that the private sector will play in translating and scaling neuroscience for society. We also noticed a gap in communication and collaboration between government, academia and the private sector. These guiding questions were largely co-created with policy makers and academics, so it was unclear how these issues might be received by neuro-entrepreneurs and neuro-industry. We hoped to identify not only common concerns, but also a common language for discussing neuroethical issues with stakeholders outside of government and academia. We used empirical ethics methods to assess the perceived value and attitudes of neuro-entrepreneurs toward neuroethical issues and whether or not these issues align with the process of neuro-innovation. We conducted one-on-one structured interviews with 21 neuro-entrepreneurs in the private sector and used two independent reviewers to analyze for themes. From this preliminary research, we identified key neuroethical themes and processual pain points of neurotech entrepreneurs throughout the innovation process. We also provide a preliminary neuroethics needs assessment for neuro-industry and suggest avenues through which neuroethicists can work with neurotech leadership to build an ethically aligned future. Overall, we hope to raise awareness and provide actionable steps toward advancing and accelerating societally impactful neuroscience.

Stigma and functional neurological disorder: a research agenda targeting the clinical encounter.

Stigma against patients with functional neurological disorder (FND) presents obstacles to diagnosis, treatment, and research. The lack of biomarkers and the potential for symptoms to be misunderstood, invalidated, or dismissed can leave patients, families, and healthcare professionals at a loss. Stigma exacerbates suffering and unmet needs of patients and families, and can result in poor clinical management and prolonged, repetitive use of healthcare resources. Our current understanding of stigma in FND comes from surveys documenting frustration experienced by providers and distressing healthcare interactions experienced by patients. However, little is known about the origins of FND stigma, its prevalence across different healthcare contexts, its impact on patient health outcomes, and optimal methods for reduction. In this paper, we set forth a research agenda directed at better understanding the prevalence and context of stigma, clarifying its impact on patients and providers, and promoting best practices for stigma reduction.

Outcome measurement in functional neurological disorder: a systematic review and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing outcome measures for functional neurological disorder (FND), to inform the development of recommendations and to guide future research on FND outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify existing FND-specific outcome measures and the most common measurement domains and measures in previous treatment studies. Searches of Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were conducted between January 1965 and June 2019. The findings were discussed during two international meetings of the FND-Core Outcome Measures group. RESULTS: Five FND-specific measures were identified-three clinician-rated and two patient-rated-but their measurement properties have not been rigorously evaluated. No single measure was identified for use across the range of FND symptoms in adults. Across randomised controlled trials (k=40) and observational treatment studies (k=40), outcome measures most often assessed core FND symptom change. Other domains measured commonly were additional physical and psychological symptoms, life impact (ie, quality of life, disability and general functioning) and health economics/cost-utility (eg, healthcare resource use and quality-adjusted life years). CONCLUSIONS: There are few well-validated FND-specific outcome measures. Thus, at present, we recommend that existing outcome measures, known to be reliable, valid and responsive in FND or closely related populations, are used to capture key outcome domains. Increased consistency in outcome measurement will facilitate comparison of treatment effects across FND symptom types and treatment modalities. Future work needs to more rigorously validate outcome measures used in this population.

Prodromes and Preclinical Detection of Brain Diseases: Surveying the Ethical Landscape of Predicting Brain Health.

The future of medicine lies not primarily in cures but in disease modification and prevention. While the science of preclinical detection is young, it is moving rapidly. Preclinical interventions offer hope to decrease the severity of a disease or delay the development of a disorder. With such promise, the research and practice of detecting brain disorders at a preclinical stage present unique ethical challenges that must be addressed to ensure the benefit of these technologies. Direct brain interventions have the potential to impact not just what a patient has but who they are and who they could become. Further, receiving an assessment for a preclinical or prodromal state has potential to impact perceptions about capacity, autonomy and personhood and could become entangled with stigma and discrimination. Exploring ethical issues alongside and integrated into the experimental design and research of these technologies is critical. This review will highlight ethical issues attendant to the current and near future states of preclinical detection across the life span, specifically as it relates to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease.

The NIH BRAIN Initiative: Integrating Neuroethics and Neuroscience.

The NIH Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to transform our understanding of the brain, and neuroethics is an essential component of this research effort. Coordination with other brain projects around the world will help maximize success.

Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives.

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.

Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative.

The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to revolutionize our understanding of how the brain functions in health and disease, in large part to address the growing societal impact of neurological, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Recent advances in neurotechnology are delivering unprecedented ways to interrogate and modulate brain function, and the BRAIN Initiative is focused on translation for human medical uses over the next decade. Since its inception, the NIH component of the BRAIN Initiative has utilized an iterative model of integrating ethics into the scientific trajectory of the Initiative, most recently with the creation of a Neuroethics Division of the NIH BRAIN Initiative Multi-Council Working Group. The Division serves as a resource of expertise, to help the BRAIN Initiative navigate issues involving ethics. Here we discuss the BRAIN Initiative, and its implications and aspirations for neuroethics. We also discuss new opportunities for collaboration and for integrating stakeholder voices.

Disentangling Stigma from Functional Neurological Disorders: Conference Report and Roadmap for the Future.

A multidisciplinary expert review of key issues and future directions from the conference "Controversial labels and clinical uncertainties: psychogenic disorders, conversion disorder, and functional symptoms." On October 9 and 10, 2015, a conference entitled "Controversial labels and clinical uncertainties: psychogenic disorders, conversion disorder, and functional symptoms" was held at the Center for Ethics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. This conference brought together a select group of 30 distinguished thought leaders and practitioners, including ethicists, researchers, clinicians, humanities scholars, and advocates to discuss the unique challenges and controversies related to the diagnosis, treatment, and stigma for patients with what is currently recognized as functional ("psychogenic") neurological disorders. Our group of experts explored the conflicts and ethical tensions within health care that must be addressed in order to advance care for these disorders. What follows is a reflection on the conversations between conference attendees outlining key challenges and value conflicts in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with functional disorders. With this report, we aim to provide a roadmap for reducing stigma and improving care for functional neurological disorders (FND). A path forward would involve (1) setting a multifactorial research agenda that equally prioritized access to effective psychotherapy as well as identification of novel biomarkers; (2) empowering patients with FND to be heard and to drive changes in care; and (3) reducing isolation for clinicians by providing formal training and setting up multidisciplinary care teams and support networks.