Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Issues in Neuroscience Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Research Ethics: Challenges in the 21st Century

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 132))

  • 477 Accesses

Abstract

We have only a limited understanding of how the brain enables thought and behavior and how it becomes dysfunctional in neuropsychiatric disorders. Research in cognitive psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery and nuclear medicine has been critical to our current understanding of the brain. Continued research is necessary to gain more knowledge of the etiology and pathophysiology of brain disorders and develop therapies to safely and effectively control and possibly prevent them. Yet mapping the brain through neuroimaging and intervening in the brain with psychotropic drugs, growth factors or implantable neuromodulating devices entail certain risks for research subjects participating in clinical trials. These risks need to be weighed against the potential benefit of knowledge gained from the outcomes of these trials to millions of people suffering from psychiatric and neurological diseases. The risks in neuroscience research are greater than in any other area of medicine and biotechnology because the brain is the source of the mind and the psychological properties that define persons. Can patients with neuropsychiatric disorders give informed consent to participate in neuroscience research? If they cannot consent, then can others give proxy consent on their behalf? What are the obligations of investigators recruiting and monitoring research subjects? In discussing the ethical issues in this research, this chapter focuses on neuroimaging to assess patients with severe brain injuries, neuromodulating techniques such as deep brain stimulation in neurology and psychiatry and brain-computer interfaces to bypass brain and spinal cord injury in restoring movement and communication.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aharoni, E., G. Vincent, C. Harenski, V. Calhoun, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, M. Gazzaniga, et al. 2013. Neuroprediction of future arrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 6223–6228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, J., and M. Phillips. 2013. Distinguishing between unipolar depression and bipolar depression: Current and future clinical and neuroimaging perspectives. Biological Psychiatry 73: 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 2005. How volunteering for an MRI scan changed my life. Nature 434: 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, P. 2007. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 357: 1834–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, M. 2016. The neuroethics of biomarkers: What the development of bioprediction means for moral responsibility, justice and the nature of mental disorder. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2019. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A., A. Damasio, and H. Damasio. 2000. Emotion, decision-making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 10: 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birbaumer, N., G. Gallegos-Ayala, M. Wildgruber, S. Silvoni, and S. Soekadar. 2014. Direct brain control and communication in paralysis. Brain Topography 27: 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boksa, P. 2013. A way forward for research on biomarkers for psychiatric disorders. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 38: 75–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, V., and M. Arbabshirani. 2013. Neuroimaging based automatic classification of schizophrenia, 206–230. Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong and Savulescu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisi, C., T. Moffitt, A. Knodt, H. Harrington, D. Ireland, T. Melzer, et al. 2020. Associations between life-course persistent antisocial behaviour and brain structure in a population-representative longitudinal birth cohort. The Lancet Psychiatry 7: 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudy, D., V. Deletis, F. Almahariq, P. Marcinkovic, J. Skrlin, and V. Paradzik. 2018. Deep brain stimulation for the early treatment of the minimally conscious state and vegetative state: Experience in 14 patients. Journal of Neurosurgery 128: 1189–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. 2008. Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, J., and H. Farid. 2018. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances 4: eaao5580. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aa05580.

  • Eklund, A., T. Nichols, and H. Knutsson. 2016. Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 7900–7905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E., C. Grady, R. Crouch, R. Lie, F. Miller, and D. Wendler, eds. 2008. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskandar, E. 2018. Thalamic stimulation in vegetative or minimally conscious patients. Journal of Neurosurgery 128: 1187–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fins, J. 2015. Rights come to mind: Brain injury, ethics and the struggle for consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M., ed. 2010. Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacino, J., J. Fins, S. Laureys, and N. Schiff. 2014. Disorders of consciousness after acquired brain injury: The state of the science. Nature Reviews Neurology 10: 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, W. 2010. What neuroscience can (and cannot) tell us about criminal responsibility, 13–28. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, W. 2014. The limitations and potential of neuroimaging in the criminal law. Journal of Ethics 18: 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glannon, W., ed. 2015. Free will and the brain: Neuroscientific, philosophical and legal perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, N., A. Jolly, K. Zimmerman, N. Bourke, G. Scott, J. Cole, et al. 2020. Diffuse axonal injury predicts neurodegeneration after moderate-severe traumatic brain injury. Brain 143: 3685–3698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzheimer, P., M. Husain, S. Lisanby, S. Taylor, L. Whitworth, S. McClintock, et al. 2017. Subcallosal cingulate deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: A multisite, randomized, sham-controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry 11: 839–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O., A. Wagner, D. Faigman, and M. Raichle. 2013. Neuroscientists in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 730–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laureys, S., G. Celesia, F. Cohadon, J. Lavrijsen, J. Leon-Carrion, W. Sannita, et al. 2010. Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: A new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome. BMC Medicine 8: 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-015-8-68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebedev, M., and M. Nicolelis. 2017. Brain-computer interfaces: From basic science to neuroprostheses and neurorehabilitation. Physiological Reviews 97: 769–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magrassi, L., G. Maggioni, C. Pistarini, C. Di Perri, S. Bastianello, A. Zippo, et al. 2016. Results of a prospective study (CATS) on the effects of thalamic stimulation in minimally conscious and vegetative patients. Journal of Neurosurgery 125: 972–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, D., J. Fins, and E. Racine. 2018. The therapeutic misconception: An examination of its normative assumptions and a call for its revision. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 27: 154–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S., and A. Roskies, eds. 2013. A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. 2010. Lost in translation: an essay on law and neuroscience, 529–562. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. 2015. Neuroscience, free will and criminal responsibility, 251–286. Glannon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa, L. 2013. The cognitive-emotional brain: From interactions to integration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M., ed. 2015. Ethical issues in neuroscience research: Integrative approaches and paths to progress. New York: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, J., L. Pycroft, A. Sandberg, T. Aziz, and J. Savulescu. 2018. Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy. Ethics and Information Technology 20: 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pycroft, L., S. Boccard, S. Owen, J. Stein, J. Fitzgerald, A. Greer, et al. 2016. Brainjacking: Implant security issues in invasive neuromodulation. World Neurosurgery 92: 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez-Celis, A., M. Becker, M. Nuno, J. Schauer, N. Aghaeepour, and J. Van de Water. et al. (2021). Risk assessment analysis for maternal autoantibody-related autism (MAR-ASD): a subtype of autism. Molecular Psychiatry 26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-020-00998-8.

  • Ramsey, N., and J. Millan, eds. 2020. Handbook of clinical neurology: Brain-computer interfaces. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, A. 2008. Neuroimaging and inferential distance. Neuroethics 1: 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, A. 2013a. Brain imaging techniques, 37–74. Morse and Roskies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskies, A. 2013b. Other neuroscientific techniques, 75–88. In Morse and Roskies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter, M. 2013. Biomarkers: potential and challenges, 188–205. In Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong and Savulescu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiff, N., J. Giacino, K. Kalmar, J. Victor, K. Baker, M. Gerber, et al. 2007. Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury. Nature 448: 600–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segall, S. 2010. Health, luck and justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, J., D. Krusienski, and J. Wolpaw. 2012. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 87: 268–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S., E. Dixon, D. Okonkwo, and M. Richardson. 2014. Neurostimulation for traumatic brain injury: A review. Journal of Neurosurgery 121: 1219–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, I., W. Sinnott-Armstrong, and J. Savulescu, eds. 2013. Bioprediction, biomarkers and bad behavior: Scientific, legal and ethical challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, I., and N. Rose. (2009). Biomarkers in psychiatry. Nature 202–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (2013). Bioprediction in criminal cases, 77–90. Singh, Sinnott-Armstrong and Savulescu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, A., N. Schiff, J. Giacino, S. Laureys, and O. Gosseries. 2019. Therapeutic interventions in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. Lancet Neurology 18: 600–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, E. 2015. Brain implant trials raise ethical concerns. Science 348: 1186–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, E. 2017. Brain implant trials spur ethical discussions. Science 358: 710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dongen, J., F. Hagenbeek, M. Suderman, P. Roetman, K. Sugden, A. Chiocchetti, et al. 2021. DNA methylation signatures of aggression and closely related constructs: A meta-analysis of epigenome-wide studies across the lifespan. Molecular Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.10381/s41380-020-0087-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpaw, J., and D. McFarland. 2004. Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a non-invasive brain-computer interface in humans. Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences 101: 17849–17854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpaw, J, and E. Wolpaw. 2012a. Brain-computer interfaces: Something new under the sun, 3–12. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpaw, J., and E. Wolpaw, eds. 2012b. Brain-computer interfaces: Principles and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

    Walter Glannon

Authors
  1. Walter Glannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter Glannon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Tomas Zima

  2. International Academy of Law and Mental Health, Montréal, QC, Canada

    David N. Weisstub

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Glannon, W. (2023). Ethical Issues in Neuroscience Research. In: Zima, T., Weisstub, D.N. (eds) Medical Research Ethics: Challenges in the 21st Century. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 132. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12692-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation