Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Need for Interdisciplinary Dialogue in Developing Ethical Approaches to Neuroeducational Research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that many ethical issues in neuroeducational research cannot be appropriately addressed using the principles and guidance available in one of these areas alone, or by applying these in simple combination. Instead, interdisciplinary and public dialogue will be required to develop appropriate normative principles. In developing this argument, it examines neuroscientific and educational perspectives within three broad categories of ethical issue arising at the interface of cognitive neuroscience and education: issues regarding the carrying out of interdisciplinary research, the scrutiny and communication of findings and concepts, and the application of research and associated issues of policy likely to arise in the future. To help highlight the need for interdisciplinary and public discussion, we also report the opinions of a group of educators (comprising trainee teachers, teachers and head teachers) on the neuroeducational ethics of cognitive enhancing drugs, infant screening, genetic profiling and animal research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here, all observations and measurements of behaviour, including that collected in the laboratory, are classified as essentially social in nature, since even pressing buttons must be interpreted in the context of the instructions provided by the experimenter.

References

  1. Cantlon, J.F., E.M. Brannon, E.J. Carter, and K.A. Pelphrey. 2006. Functional imaging of numerical processing in adults and 4-y-old children. [Article]. Plos Biology 4(5): 844–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson, A.J., S. Dehaene, O. Dubois, and M. Fayol. 2009. Effects of an adaptive game intervention on accessing number sense in low-socioeconomic-status kindergarten children. Mind, Brain, and Education 3(4): 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shaywitz, B.A., S.E. Shaywitz, B.A. Blachman, K.R. Pugh, R.K. Fullbright, P. Skudlarski, et al. 2004. Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention. Biological Psychiatry 55(9): 926–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Simos, P.G., J.M. Fletcher, E. Bergman, J.I. Breier, B.R. Foorman, E.M. Castillo, et al. 2002. Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology 58(8): 1203–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Temple, E., G. Deutsch, R.A. Poldrack, S.L. Miller, P. Tallal, and M.M. Merzenich. 2003. Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional fMRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 100: 2860–2865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hillman, C.H., K.I. Erickson, and A.F. Framer. 2008. Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blakemore, S.J. 2008. The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9: 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blakemore, S.J., and U. Frith. 2005. The learning brain. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  9. de Jong, T., T. van Gog, K. Jenks, S. Manlove, J. van Hell, J. Jolles, et al. 2009. Explorations in learning and the brain: On the potential of cognitive neuroscience for educational science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goswami, U. 2004. Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fenton, K.D., and P.A. Howard-Jones. 2011. Educators’ views on ethical issues at the interface of neuroscience and education—an exploratory survey. University of Bristol. Available on http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edpahj.

  12. Howard-Jones, P.A. 2010. Introducing neuroeducational research. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Howard-Jones, P.A., S. Demetriou, R. Bogacz, J.H. Yoo, and U. Leonards. 2011. Toward a science of learning games. Mind, Brain and Education 5(1), 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Howard-Jones, P.A., and S. Demetriou. 2009. Uncertainty and engagement with learning games. Instructional Science 37(6): 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Howard-Jones, P.A., R. Bogacz, J.H. Yoo, U. Leonards, and S. Demetriou. 2010. The neural mechanisms of learning from competitors. Neuroimage 53(2): 790–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shellock, F.G., and J.V. Crues. 2004. MR procedures: Biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology 232(3): 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. BERA. 2004. Revised ethical guidelines for educational research (2004).

  18. Illes, J., A.C. Rosen, L. Huang, R.A. Goldstein, T.A. Raffin, G. Swan, et al. 2004. Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. [Article]. Neurology 62(6): 888–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolf, S.M., F.P. Lawrenz, C.A. Nelson, J.P. Kahn, M.K. Cho, E.W. Clayton, et al. 2007, May. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Paper presented at the Symposium on Findings in Human Subjects Research—From Imaging to Genomics, Minneapolis, MN.

  20. BPS. 2006. Code of ethics and conduct.

  21. AERA. 2000. Ethical standards of the American educational research association.

  22. Leshner, A.I. 2005. It’s time to go public with neuroethics. [Editorial Material]. American Journal of Bioethics 5(2): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Draganski, B., C. Gaser, V. Busch, G. Schuierer, U. Bogdahn, and A. May. 2004. Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature 427: 311–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Paus, T. 2008. Mapping brain maturation and development of social cognition during adolescence. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lerner, R.M. 2005. Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. Washington DC: National Research Council/Institute of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor, C., and S. Gorrard. 2004. Combining methods in educational and social research. McGraw-Hill International.

  27. Jensen, P.S., L.E. Arnold, J.E. Richters, J.B. Severe, D. Vereen, B. Vitiello, et al. 1999. A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. [Article]. Archives of General Psychiatry 56(12): 1073–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Coch, D. 2007. Neuroimaging research with children: Ethical issues and case scenarios. Journal of Moral Education 36(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Downie, J., and J. Marshall. 2007. Pediatric neuroimaging ethics. [Article]. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16(2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim, B.S., J. Illes, R.T. Kaplan, A. Reiss, and W. Scott. 2002. Incidental findings on pediatric MR images of the brain. [Article]. American Journal of Neuroradiology 23(10): 1674–1677.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Downie, J., M. Schmidt, N. Kenny, R. D’Arcy, M. Hadskis, and J. Marshall. 2007. Paediatric MRI research ethics: The priority issues. [Review]. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4(2): 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lundy, L. 2007. ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. [Article]. British Educational Research Journal 33(6): 927–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Coghlan, A. 2004, 27 January. Cambridge’s primate reseacrh centre axed. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4605-cambridges-primate-research-centre-axed.html.

  34. Hagelin, J., H.-E. Carlsson, and J. Hau. 2003. An overview of surveys on how people view animal experimentation: Some factors that may influence the outcome. Public Understanding of Science 12: 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Baluch, B., and B. Kaur. 1995. Attitude change toward animal experimentation in an academic setting. Journal of Psychology 129(4): 477–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lang, C. 2010. Science, education, and the ideology of “how”. Mind, Brain and Education 4(2): 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pickering, S.J., and P.A. Howard-Jones. 2007. Educators’ views on the role of neuroscience in education: Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain and Education 1(3): 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morse, S.J. 2006. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3: 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Horton, J. 2006, 13th November. Stroppy teenagers can blame the brain. Edinburgh Evening News. Retrieved from http://living.scotsman.com/features/Stroppy-teenagers-can-blame-the.2826624.jp.

  40. Mills, D. (Writer). 2005. The dyslexia myth. In D. Mills (Producer), Dispatches. UK: Channel 4.

  41. Nicolson, R. 2005. Dyslexia: Beyond the myth. The Psychologist 18(11): 658–659.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Howard-Jones, P.A. 2009. Scepticism is not enough discussion. Cortex 45(4): 550–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sheridan, K., E. Zinchenko, and H. Gardner. 2006. Neuroethics in education. In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice and policy, ed. J. Illes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Farah, M.J. 2002. Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. [Article]. Nature Neuroscience 5(11): 1123–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McCabe, S.E., J.R. Knight, C.J. Teter, and H. Wechser. 2005. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: Prevalence and correlates from a national survey. [Article]. Addiction 100(1): 96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. DeSantis, A.D., E.M. Webb, and S.M. Noar. 2008. Illicit use of prescription ADHD medications on a college campus: A multimethodological approach. [Article]. Journal of American College Health 56(3): 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Roman, G.C., and S.J. Rogers. 2004. Donepezil: A clinical review of current and emerging indications. [Review]. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 5(1): 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gron, G., M. Kirstein, A. Thielscher, M.W. Riepe, and M. Spitzer. 2005. Cholinergic enhancement of episodic memory in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology 182(1): 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gazzaniga, M.S. 2005. Smarter on drugs. Scientific American: Mind 16: 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, R.C. Kessler, M.S. Gazzaniga, P. Campbell, et al. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456: 702–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Horn, G. 2008. Brain science, addiction and drugs. London: Academy of Medical Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jones, R., K. Morris, and D. Nutt. 2005. Drugs futures 2025? Foresight: Brain science, addiction and drugs state of science review. London: Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Molfese, D.L. 2000. Predicting dyslexia at 8 years of age using neonatal brain responses. Brain and Language 72: 238–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Guttorm, T.K., P.H.T. Leppanen, A.-M. Poikeus, K.M. Eklund, P. Lyytinen, and H. Lyytinen. 2005. Brain event-related potentials (ERPs) measured at birth predict later language development in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Cortex 41:291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Friedrich, M. 2008. Early neural markers of language learning difficulty in German. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Szucs, D., F. Soltesz, E. Jarmi, and V. Csepe. 2007. The speed of magnitude processing and executive functions in controlled and automatic number comparison in children: An electro-encephalography study. [Article]. Behavioral and Brain Functions 3: 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Goswami, U. 2008. Neuroscience in education. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Plomin, R. 2008. Genetics and the future diagnosis of learning disabilities. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Stein, Z. 2010. On the difference between designing children and raising them: Ethics and the use of educationally oriented biotechnology. Mind, Brain and Education 4(2): 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol, BS8 1JA, UK

    Paul A. Howard-Jones

  2. Department of Psychology, University of West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

    Kate D. Fenton

Authors
  1. Paul A. Howard-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate D. Fenton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul A. Howard-Jones.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Results of a survey of educators (N = 100) who were asked to express their agreement on statements relating to the neuroeducational ethics of cognitive enhancing drugs, infant screening, genetic profiling and animal research

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howard-Jones, P.A., Fenton, K.D. The Need for Interdisciplinary Dialogue in Developing Ethical Approaches to Neuroeducational Research. Neuroethics 5, 119–134 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9101-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9101-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation