Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (3):593-600 (2012)
|Abstract||Neuroscience research, like all science, is vulnerable to the influence of extraneous values in the practice of research, whether in research design or the selection, analysis and interpretation of data. This is particularly problematic for research into the biological mechanisms that underlie behavior, and especially the neurobiological underpinnings of moral development and ethical reasoning, decision-making and behavior, and the other elements of what is often called the neuroscience of ethics. The problem arises because neuroscientists, like most everyone, bring to their work assumptions, preconceptions and values and other sources of potentially inappropriate bias of which they may be unaware. It is important that the training of neuroscientists, and research practice itself, include open and in-depth discussion and examination of the assumptions that underlie research. Further, policy makers, journalists, and the general public, that is, the consumers of neuroscience research findings (and by extension, neurotechnologies) should be made aware of the limitations as well as the strengths of the science, the evolving nature of scientific understanding, and the often invisible values inherent in science|
|Keywords||Bias in research Neurobiology of ethics Neuroethics Neuroscience Public policy Research practice Responsible conduct of research RCR Teaching neuroethics Teaching neuroscience|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Carissa Véliz (2011). Review of Enrique Bonete, Neuroética Práctica ( Practical Neuroethics ). [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):267-270.
Carissa Véliz (2011). Review of Enrique Bonete, Neuroetica Practica ( Practical Neuroethics ). [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):267-270.
James Giordano (2010). The Neuroscience of Pain, and a Neuroethics of Pain Care. Neuroethics 3 (1):89-94.
Nat Hansen (2013). A Slugfest of Intuitions: Contextualism and Experimental Design. Synthese 190 (10):1771-1792.
Janne Chung & Gary S. Monroe (2003). Exploring Social Desirability Bias. Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):291 - 302.
Lea-Rachel D. Kosnik (2007). Refusing to Budge: A Confirmatory Bias in Decision Making? Mind and Society 7 (2):193-214.
Sofia Lombera & Judy Illes (2009). The International Dimensions of Neuroethics. Developing World Bioethics 9 (2):57-64.
James Friedrich (2004). The “Bias” Bias in Social Psychology: Adaptive When and How? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):335-336.
Paul M. Churchland (1975). Two Grades of Evidential Bias. Philosophy of Science 42 (3):250-259.
Jessica Brown (2005). Williamson on Luminosity and Contextualism. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (219):319–327.
Michael Robertson (2011). Symposium: Neuroethics and Mental Health—Old Wine in New Bottles or a Legitimate New Field of Bioethical Inquiry. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):13-14.
Walter Glannon (2011). Review of Martha J. Farah, Ed., Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):263-265.
Carissa V.éLiz (2011). Review of Enrique Bonete, Neuroética Práctica ( Practical Neuroethics ). [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):267-270.
Michael Kalichman, Dena Plemmons & Stephanie J. Bird (2012). Editors' Overview: Neuroethics: Many Voices and Many Stories. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (3):423-432.
Carissa VÃ©Liz (2011). Review of Enrique Bonete, NeuroÃ©Tica PrÃ¡Ctica ( Practical Neuroethics ). [REVIEW] Neuroethics 4 (3):267-270.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-09-22
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?