Of Ethical Frameworks and Neuroethics in Big Neuroscience Projects: A View from the HBP

Abstract

The recently published BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report offers a very helpful overview of the possible ethical, social, philosophical, and legal issues raised by neuroscience in the context of BRAIN’s research priorities thus contributing to the attempt to develop ethically sound neuroscience. In this article, we turn to a running theme of the document: the need for an ethical framework for the BRAIN Initiative and for further integration of neuroethics and neuroscience. We assess some of the issues raised and provide an explanation of how we have addressed them in the Human Brain Project. We offer our experience in the HBP as a potential contribution to the international debate about neuroethics in the big brain initiatives. Our hope is that among other things, the type of exchange proposed by this AJOB special issue will prove productive in further identifying and discussing the issues and in inspiring appropriate solutions.

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

Keywords:

• Culture
• Ethical framework
• neuroethics
• neuroscience
• philosophy
• RRI

This article is referred to by:

Fostering Neuroethics Integration: Disciplines, Methods, and Frameworks

Reflecting on a Neuroethics Roadmap in a Global Crisis

A “Salad Bowl” Approach to Neuroethics Collaboration

The Urgent Need to Better Integrate Neuroscience and Neuroethics

INTRODUCTION

The recently published BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report (NIH 2019) is intended to provide “background, context, and specific approaches to achieve the integration of neuroscience and neuroethics during the remaining years of the BRAIN Initiative and beyond” (4). It presents a number of actual and possible ethical, social, philosophical, and regulatory issues raised by neuroscience in the context of BRAIN’s research priorities. In doing so, it offers a very helpful overview thus contributing to the attempt to develop ethically sound neuroscience. Some of the issues identified in the Report, such as the implications of neuroscientific research on our understanding of consciousness, agency, and of humanity itself are more theoretical and wide-ranging. Other more applied concerns such as potential dual uses, brain data harvesting, and experimentation with Non-Human Primates are more focused and applied. Which of those are more immediately relevant to the BRAIN Initiative is for its Neuroethics Working Group to determine.

Rather than focusing on one of these topics, we turn here to a running theme of the document: the need for an ethical framework for the BRAIN Initiative and further integration of neuroethics and neuroscience. The authors of the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report (Brain Neuroethics Subgroup, BNS) note that the BRAIN Initiative has taken neuroethics to be a priority from its inception and point out that BRAIN uses neuroethics principles and approaches to navigate some of the issues raised by its research. But in the process of carrying out a mid-course review of neuroethics progress within the BRAIN Initiative, the Report’s authors suggest that neuroethics needs to be further integrated into the research. When arguing for this, the group also raises issues about the need for developing an ethical framework but they fail to clarify how they define the ethical framework and what the relation between such framework and neuroethics is.

In this article, we assess some of these points and provide an explanation of how we have addressed them in the Human Brain Project, and present an outline of our neuroethical approach. We note, however, that there are no easy solutions for many of the concerns raised by the research and that practical implementation of some of the solutions is often a difficult task in itself and contingent in nature, that is, it depends on the particular context in which they arise. For this reason, rather than presenting our experience in the HBP as exemplary or definite, we offer it as a potential contribution to the international debate about neuroethics in the big brain initiatives. Our hope is that, among other things, the type of exchange proposed by this AJOB special issue will prove productive in further identifying and discussing the issues and in inspiring appropriate solutions.

OF ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS AND OTHER ISSUES

There is no agreed-upon understanding of the notion of “ethical framework.” In a useful article, Angus Dawson identifies at least three ways in which it is conceived in policy documents and committee reports: (a) descriptively, when it is presented as a description of the values and principles that have either guided deliberations or determined policy conclusions; (b) expressively, for example, when included as a general expression of the values that a policy-making committee endorses (even if not directly related to a policy), and (c) weakly normative, when presented as a set of principles that can be used to manage specific cases (Dawson 2010).

Dawson proposes another understanding: that ethical frameworks be seen as “providing context for or assistance with deliberation about what we ought to do in a particular context” (Dawson 2010). As such, he argues that ethical frameworks must be pragmatic, capturing the aims and nature of what they are framing, and aiding deliberation that will result in action. However, Dawson points out that ethical frameworks need not provide principles nor must they be expected to provide answers to specific ethical questions or even justification for specific actions (which is what ethical theories are supposed to do). Indeed, even when expected to bring the values at stake to the fore, in his view ethical frameworks are not to pre-commit to how much weight should be given to each of the relevant values. For Dawson, the utility of ethical frameworks rests precisely on their adaptiveness (because challenges change frameworks must be able to adapt), generality, and pragmatism.

In the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report, the BNS defends the integration of neuroethics and neuroscience in the BRAIN Initiative in the context of what appears to be a call for an ethical framework “that can operate at the level of large, government coordinated scientific initiatives” (NIH 2019, 26). The authors do not clarify their conception of ethical framework but they suggest that such framework can be built on the basis of a consideration of a number of documents, from the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects 1978) and the published findings of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues 2015), to the Global Neuroethics Delegates “Neuroethics Questions for Neuroscientists” (Rommelfanger et al. 2018) and the NIH BRAIN “Neuroethics Working Group Guiding Principles” (Greely et al. 2018) among others. Now, these documents are diverse, both in content and methods: some, such as the Belmont Report, are principle-oriented while others, such as the Neuroethics Questions for Neuroscientists, suggest topics that neuroscientists should consider when carrying out their research, and mention some principles but without defending any of them specifically. Thus, in a sense, it is not clear how the documents presented in the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report can be used to build a framework. However, that the Report advocates for an ethical framework that “elicits, engages, and provides reasonable answers to difficult questions” (NIH 2019, 26, 75) and that its authors claim that “an overarching ethical framework for the BRAIN Initiative should place the principles of social beneficence and distributive justice front and center” (NIH 2019, 26) suggests that they hold a principle-oriented, possibly normative understanding of ethical framework to address the ethical issues raised by brain research.

The more immediate issue, however, is that the apparent lack of a specific conception of ethical framework may have an impact on what the authors of the Report consider key: the integration of neuroethics and neuroscience. Indeed, the BNS hopes that, if anything, the BRAIN initiative will not see neuroethics as a “parallel effort” (NIH 2019, 5) but rather as fully integrated into the research program. But if so, what is to be integrated? And how?

The BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report understands neuroethics in general as a field that addresses not just normative and compliance issues but one that also focuses on more theoretical topics such as humanness, moral responsibility, and consciousness and, furthermore, one that exposes the limits and understands the promises of neuroscience as a field (NIH 2019, 13). Furthermore, a distinction is made between two methodological approaches in neuroethics, empirical (that revolves around data collection and social science methodologies) and conceptual (that they suggest involves an examination of concepts and critical reflection, NIH 2019, 13). In short, the BNS appears to have in mind a richer understanding of neuroethics from both a methodological and content perspective than traditionally assumed.

Now, while we wholeheartedly agree with a broader and richer understanding of neuroethics as a field, it is not clear what this means and how this works in the context of the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report where it is claimed that “Neuroethics should be integrated into the entire life cycle of a neuroscience research project-from hypothesis to research design and conduct to the dissemination of results and translation of knowledge” (NIH 2019, 5) but also that some “projects may not require the same type of neuroethics consideration at every stage, while still other projects may evolve to a future point in their funding period in which neuroethics expertise would be helpful or even necessary” (NIH 2019, 5). So what type of neuroethical approach must be integrated and is always necessary? Which is to be integrated into neuroscientific projects at later stages? And what are those late stages? Finally, what does the methodological distinction between conceptual and empirical approaches made by the BNS mean in the context of the document?

A VIEW FROM THE HBP

The HBP (a European Community Flagship Project of Information and Computing Technologies, ICT) is an ICT-based multidisciplinary brain project that aims to achieve a fuller and more integrated understanding of the brain and translate it into medicine and technology (Amunts et al. 2019). The project has involved the development of supercomputing technologies to federate and manage data, to integrate it in computer models and simulations of the brain, to identify patterns and organizational principles that only appear when the data is gathered, and to identify gaps to be filled by new experiments (Amunts et al. 2016). Initially divided into twelve subprojects, its outcomes include the creation and operation of an ICT infrastructure for neuroscience and brain-related research in medicine and computing recently launched under the name of EBRAINS. EBRAINS is expected to provide tools and services to address challenges in brain research and brain-inspired technology development. Its goal is to speed the effort to understand the human brain, its diseases, and the effects of drugs (allowing early diagnoses and personalized treatments) and to capture the brain’s computational capabilities (https://ebrains.eu/about).

Like the NIH BRAIN Initiative, from its inception, the HBP has recognized that its research may raise various ethical, social, philosophical, and regulatory issues. For the HBP this meant that identifying, examining, and addressing those issues was taken to be a priority. Furthermore, one of the stated main goals of the HBP is to ensure that the research is undertaken responsibly and that knowledge of the human brain benefits society (Human Brain Project Framework Partnership Agreement, https://sos-ch-dk-2.exo.io/public-website-production/filer_public/0d/95/0d95ec21-276a-478d-a2a9-d0c5922fb83a/fpa_annex_1_part_b.pdf (Salles, Bjaalie, et al. 2019). Translatability HBP knowledge into technologies and services that respond to societal needs is central. Finally, and importantly, the HBP is part of a European research infrastructure that considers that if we are to address the grand societal challenges (one of which is “health, demographic change and well-being” http://www.ncpwallonie.be/en/project-horizon2020-challenges) social considerations must be integrated into scientific research. In particular, there has been a shift from ELSA (ethical, legal and social aspects) to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) (Owen et al. 2012; Owen et al. 2013; Stilgoe et al. 2013; Von Schomberg 2013) introduced by science policymakers and funding agencies such as the European Commission (EC). In short, from the very beginning, the HBP was given a general ethical framework, which was our starting point and thus made it possible for us to avoid the fragmented debate about what kind of ethical framework to select and how to justify it.

RRI as an Ethical Framework

The RRI framework is not driven by a set of specific principles and, although it makes explicit the values at stake, it does not pre-commit to giving priority to some over others. RRI is intended to be a pragmatic, flexible, and general framework that assists in the process of ethical deliberation and action. It has an important aspirational aspect: research and innovation should be aligned with societal needs and carried out for and with society (Owen et al. 2012). This suggests some awareness of the social dimension of scientific research and of the importance of acknowledging and understanding the broader socioeconomic and political contexts in which the research is carried out and which the research is expected to benefit. Furthermore, this means recognizing that the research’s ethical and social impacts do not arise only at the border where neuroscience meets society at large but rather at the very beginning of the research process, which is socially and ethically relevant in itself. Because ethical and societal considerations are not intended as constraints to science but rather as benefits, part and parcel of its very development, RRI proposes that a careful interdisciplinary assessment of the diverse potential emergent issues should inform the trajectory of the scientific work and feed into the research agenda itself. But the RRI framework is not just aspirational: it calls for an interventionary attitude: it pushes HBP researchers to come together with diverse publics to facilitate reflection and develop their capacity aligning it to societal needs (Aicardi et al. 2018).

The Rome Declaration (2014) understands RRI as “the ongoing process of aligning research and innovation to the values, needs and expectations of society” (https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf). This is the basis of a number of interpretations. The EC defines RRI as “an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation” and makes explicit the importance of six key policy areas: public engagement, gender, open access, ethical issues (understood as research ethics), education, and governance. ¹ The work of authors like (Owen et al. 2012; Owen et al. 2013; Stilgoe et al. 2013), who argue that RRI requires anticipation, reflection, deliberation, and responsiveness, led to the development by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of the AREA framework (anticipation, reflection, engagement, and action) ² adopted and endorsed by the HBP’s Ethics and Society Subproject (SP12). But SP12 researchers did not just adopt the RRI AREA framework: they brought to it a number of diverse research traditions, skills, and practices. This multidisciplinary group has actively collaborated in reflecting on and implementing RRI and, by doing so, they have attempted to enrich the framework. ³ In short, SP12 researchers were given a clear general ethical framework (the RRI framework endorsed by the EC) that they have used to identify, articulate, and assess the issues arising from HBP. But in the process, they have carried out different types of analysis, including sociological and philosophical analysis and, thus, have tried to contribute to further refinement of the very concept of RRI (Salles et al. 2019a).

It is in this context that we can understand both how ethical and societal considerations and neuroscience are integrated, in general, into the project, and in particular how neuroethics is conceived and operationalized in the HBP. Ethical and societal considerations are expected to be built in at the development stage, not only ensuring that all the HBP research complies with the relevant legal and ethical regulations (ensuring that research has obtained appropriate ethical approval and is conducted according to approved ethical guidelines, which is done by working closely with researchers within the project) but importantly by preparing for the future by examining potential scenarios (so as to minimize risks and guide the direction of research) and engaging with the relevant stakeholders in an open and interactive way (Stahl et al. 2016). Ethical action is, thus, guided by anticipation and engagement, but also by careful reflection.

Integrating Neuroethics in the HBP

Within the HBP, the RRI AREA category “reflection” is partly intended to raise awareness among researchers of lessons from previous scientific and technological developments, and to build their capacity for a self-critical attitude toward their own activities, commitments, assumptions, and outcomes of their research (Aicardi et al. 2018; Stilgoe et al. 2013). But this does not exhaust reflection: within the HBP we have included neuroethical reflection understood broadly.

We have argued elsewhere that neuroethics is methodologically very rich and its scope quite large. In particular, we have proposed that it is possible and desirable to make a distinction between three main methodological approaches within the field (Evers et al. 2017; Farisco, Salles, et al. 2018; Salles and Evers 2017; Salles et al. 2019b). A “neurobioethical” approach is primarily normative and prescriptive and tends to be top-down: it applies ethical theory and reasoning to practical issues arising from neuroscientific research and its applications (clinical, commercial, etc.) and to those issues raised by public communication of neuroscientific findings and their impact. An “empirical neuroethical” approach is descriptive and occasionally explanatory: it uses empirical data to inform theoretical (e.g., what is moral reasoning) and practical issues (e.g., who is really a moral agent). In contrast, a “conceptual neuroethical” approach, even if involving prescriptive or descriptive aspects, is primarily theoretical and foundational. At its most basic, it entails the recognition that the full range of issues raised by neuroscience cannot be adequately dealt with without careful conceptual clarification of the relevant notions (a point also recognized by the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report and recently stated by the Emerging Issues Task Force of the International Neuroethics Society (Emerging Issues Task Force, International Neuroethics Society 2019)). This is a good starting point, but we want to go a step further by considering that a conceptual approach calls for more than conceptual clarification: it calls for exploring and eventually addressing the often implicitly assumed connection between neuroscience and basic philosophical (ethical) interpretations, particularly the relevance of neuroscience to answering fundamental questions, from the nature of consciousness and morality to the existence of a free will, among others.

As already noted, the authors of the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report mention the importance of conceptual analysis in the examination of neurotechnological advances and they call for a richer understanding of neuroethics’s focus and methodology. While this is a significant step, it is not clear, however, how the BNS expects this type of conceptual neuroethical approach to be operationalized when addressing issues raised by NIH BRAIN research. Nor is it clear whether the BNS thinks that such a conceptual approach is key or somewhat optional. In contrast, conceptual clarification and philosophical analysis are key in the operationalization of neuroethics in the HBP. Indeed, what appears to be the prevalent view that neuroscientific results are relevant to the discussion of philosophical questions raises important translational issues that require careful philosophical attention. It raises translational issues because, unless one supposes that brain facts and normative concepts correspond one to one (and there is no reason to take this for granted), the connection between them is not self-evident. Indeed, a particular understanding of “brain facts,” their correlation with mental events, their value, and their normative weight underlie the claim that neuroscience has such explanatory power. Thus, relevance assessment requires a conceptual analysis that allows the connection between neuroscientific data and ethical/societal and philosophical concerns to come to the fore.

Of course, although we are separating these different neuroethical approaches we are not advocating for a segregationist model of neuroethics according to which there is a sharp distinction between the applied/normative, empirical, and conceptual dimensions. The joint work of these different neuroethical approaches is not merely desirable but necessary in order to properly address the issues raised by neuroscience research whether those issues are practical (impact of the research on society, for example) or more theoretical (consciousness and human identity).

In short, a full-fledged neuroethics approach must offer more than assistance to neuroscientists and social scientists in identifying the ethical issues raised by neuroscientific findings and applications, in clarifying notions, and in applying ethical theory to solve moral issues. It is designed to focus on the construction of scientific knowledge and of ethical and social reasoning and analysis, on the relevant scientific and philosophical notions, and on the legitimacy of diverse interpretations, reflecting on neuroscience not just from the outside, but rather collaborating with it in order to get a shared definition of key notions relevant to the scientific and ethical discourse. (Evers et al. 2017; Farisco, Salles, et al. 2018; Salles et al. 2019a, 2019b).

PROGRESS, SOME ROADBLOCKS, AND PENDING ISSUES

So far we have argued that in contrast to the NIH BRAIN neuroethics research, the HBP was given the RRI framework that can fall under Dawson’s proposed understanding of ethical framework: it provides context for or assistance by bringing to the fore a number of values in order to reflect on what we ought to do in the context of HBP research. The RRI framework allows for certain flexibility when it comes to how to interpret it which, in our case, meant adopting and keeping the RRI AREA framework already discussed. Because neuroethics constitutes an important aspect of the reflective dimension called for by RRI, we have not felt the need to justify the necessity to integrate neuroethics and neuroscience: such necessity (even if still not universally endorsed) is the starting point and has allowed us to introduce a rich understanding of the field that includes a variety of contents and methodologies.

This does not mean that ours is a complete success story, for the degree of success varies between different areas. To illustrate, the goal to integrate neuroethical considerations in the identification and management of certain applied issues such as data protection and dual-use raised by HBP research has been quite successful. We have published two opinions, one on “Data Protection and Privacy” and a second one on “Responsible Dual Use,” and we just finished a third on “Trust and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence.” Opinions are a joint effort of the members of the Ethics and Society subproject, who in collaboration with members of the Ethics Advisory Board (an independent body that advises the HBP on ethical and societal issues raised by the research) and the Ethics Rapporteurs (scientists, technologists, academics or administrators representing each HBP subproject tasked with reporting the ethical and societal issues raised by their SP’s research) attempt to identify, reflect upon, and suggest possible strategies for dealing with pressing ethical issues arising from HBP research. In this sense, Opinions are truly multidisciplinary and such multidisciplinarity enhances the discussion of the relevant issues.

The Opinion on “Data Protection and Privacy” identifies some of the main privacy-related concerns within the HBP, articulates the basic ethical principles that should guide examination of the issues, and presents a brief review of the history of data protection and regulation in Europe, focusing on the current state of such regulation. It concludes with recommendations intended to minimize potential risks while securing the public benefit anticipated from HBP research. (https://sos-ch-dk-2.exo.io/public-website-production/filer_public/24/0e/240e2eaa-8a10-4a17-87bc-b056a3f0cc8c/opinion_on_data_protection_and_privacy_done_01.pdf).

The Opinion on “Responsible Dual Use” is the result of a number of activities through which members of the Ethics and Society subproject explored the strengths and weaknesses of existing definitions of dual-use, undertook conceptual clarification of the issues involved, described the scope of existing regulation in the EU and elsewhere and identified key ambiguities in those regulations and guidelines. The document finally suggests that we can increase our ability to identify which programs and projects of research, development, and innovation are “of concern” (at risk of dual use or misuse) by applying the principles of RRI to the concept of “dual use” and distinguishing between “responsible” and “irresponsible” systems of research and technological development (https://sos-ch-dk-2.exo.io/public-website-production/filer_public/f8/f0/f8f09276-d370-4758-ad03-679fa1c57e95/hbp-ethics-society-2018-opinion-on-dual-use.pdf).

Why do we consider this joint research successful? For two main reasons: in the first place, from the beginning, work on the Opinions was characterized by collaboration within our Ethics and Society group in particular and with the whole HBP in general. As a consequence, the focus was on topics that the project at large considers quite relevant. Second, these two Opinions have resulted in the creation of Working Groups (the Data Governance Working Group and the HBP Dual Use Working Group) with researchers from the whole project who jointly discuss and address ethical concerns as they emerge. Specifically, together with other bodies in the HBP, such as the Science and Infrastructure Board, the Directorate, and the Data Protection Officer among others, the Data Governance Working Group carries out a number of activities intended to shape the policy of the HBP regarding data governance including the production of a Policy Manual. In turn, the more recently created HBP Dual Use Working Group is working on the implementation of some of the recommendations in the Opinion. We expect our third Opinion, forthcoming, to have similar impact.

Empirical neuroethical reflection within the HBP has also produced interesting results as shown by our work on neuroscience and addiction (Farisco, Evers, et al. 2018) and on poverty and neuroscientific findings (Lipina and Evers 2017). As an example, the HBP Neuroethics and Philosophy team has developed an ethical analysis of the factors leading to addictive behaviors and, specifically, of the responsibility (both individual and societal) for such behaviors. The main argument is that in addition to the central nervous system’s neuronal/neurochemical bases of addiction, socio-economic status (i.e., individual background) modulates through aware and unaware processing what can be described as the person’s subjective “global well-being,” raising the need for additional rewards in the brain. Well-being (the lack of which plays a critical role in leading to addiction) can generally be perceived at aware and unaware levels, and it results from factors internal and external to the subject (e.g., bodily components and environmental influences). One of the factors impacting brain development is the socio-cultural environment, including political, cultural, and educational contexts: the information coming from these sources is internalized by the subject and contributes to shaping his personal aware and unaware well-being. The relevance of external factors in shaping individual actions raises the issue of social responsibility, if not in ethical terms, at least in terms of public policy.

We consider this to be a good example of integration between neuroscience and neuroethics because the described (more empirical) work is the result of the collaborative efforts of neuroscientists and philosophers who jointly focused on interpreting neuroscientific findings and in raising public awareness on the need for more scientifically informed and thus more effective public policy (https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/neuroscience-of-drug-addiction-highlights-policy-ethical-issues/). We plan to continue this type of collaborative work also in the last phase of the project.

However, these accomplishments should not mask some practical roadblocks. ⁴ We outline two. One is that, despite our best efforts, some researchers misunderstand our work as focusing mostly on ethics compliance and public engagement (Aicardi et al. 2018). This tendency might be explained by the fact that ethical reflection is not part of scientific training, and that neuroscientists are justifiably concerned with complying with all the relevant regulations and guidelines so that they can do their research. However, the view that ethical reflection is limited to compliance is highly problematic. It rests on a deep misunderstanding of the impact of neuroscientific research on society and also on the assumption that regulation captures all there is to ethics. It is clear, however, that there might be a number of ethical issues (quite obviously in the case of emerging issues) raised by the research that falls outside actual regulatory frameworks. Thus, the key role played by approaches that go beyond compliance with existing laws and guidelines.

A second issue we are confronted with is that a significant aspect of integrating neuroethics and neuroscience appears to require not just raising researchers’ awareness of the societal and ethical impact of their research—which SP12 does by building the capacity to identify and address implications—but also revising beliefs that are sometimes taken for granted in the scientific community, particularly the idea that science is value-neutral.

But promoting the understanding that science is not value-neutral and that it is socially embedded is both conceptually and practically challenging. It requires (1) A change in the way scientists usually see their own work as a research activity setting its own priorities and following its own rules; and (2) A change in the way scientists do their job, that is, moving from mono-disciplinarity or intra-scientific multidisciplinarity to broad multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, involving also extra-scientific expertise for inspiring scientific investigation and assessing its connection with society. This opens the issue of true integration and collaboration, of bridging disciplinary boundaries, not denying disciplinary specialization or diluting disciplinary identity but rather improving collaboration among disciplines within the framework of RRI with the main goal of achieving benefits for society. This is a work in progress but one that, due to recent changes in how the HBP is organized (in addition to a dedicated RRI WorkPackage, neuroethics tasks are now embedded in the different scientific WorkPackages), we are better equipped to address in this last phase of the project.

Finally, a few comments on a pending issue. The fact is that despite being in what we can call a multicultural project, we are just now beginning to truly engage with an aspect highlighted in the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report and also identified as crucial by representatives of the different Brain initiatives (the HBP included): how to acknowledge, understand, and manage cultural considerations in brain research in itself and its implications (Rommelfanger et al. 2018). Awareness of the extent to which environmental and cultural interactions impact the brain’s functional architecture, and recognition of the impact of cultural contexts in determining which aspects of neuroscience travel into public consciousness, and which have more resonance, have resulted in a few articles that have pointed to the need to expand the cultural and international reach of the discipline (Lombera and Illes 2009; Shook and Giordano 2014). But ultimately, there is currently little research on these two areas of concern, and even when a call for a global/international/cosmopolitan/culturally aware/culturally competent neuroethics is common, there is not enough reflection on what each of the terms used means thus risking confusion or just rhetorical use of the main notions. We wholeheartedly endorse the BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report’s call for more culturally sensitive research open to the potential insights offered by perspectives from different cultures (NIH 2019, 31) and we think that considering the conceptual tools we are developing, it is time to broach the subject of culture and thus continue to enrich both neuroethics and neuroscience. Indeed, a recognition of the crucial role of cultural diversity in neuroscience research might be a stepping stone not just for more effective collaboration between different international brain initiatives but notably for a more ethically sustainable neuroscientific research in general.

CONCLUSION

The BRAIN 2.0 Neuroethics Report is significant not just because of the repertoire of topics it identifies but because of its vision; one that sees ethical and societal considerations as essential to neuroscience. This is a vision that the HBP shares and that the HBP’s Ethics and Society research group continues to develop. In this paper, we have focused on this vision and its implementation in the HBP. We have presented our ethical framework and neuroethics methodology while at the same time explaining some practical challenges that we continue to encounter. In order to make progress in the identification and management of the many issues raised by the research anticipation, reflection, and the dialogue and interaction between different disciplines is key, as is the dialogue and interactions between researchers from the different international brain initiatives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Kathinka Evers for her comments to a previous version of this article.

Additional information

Funding

This project/research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Program for Research and Innovation under the specific grant agreement no. [945539] (Human Brain Project SGA3).

Notes

1 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-research-innovation

2 https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/framework/area/

3 The HBP, now in its last phase, has been restructured. SP12 is now distributed between a dedicated RRI WorkPackage (WP9) and neuroethics activities embedded in the scientific workpackages. The activities described in this paper will continue to be carried out and enriched during this last phase.

4 We are not focusing here on the challenges to the concept of RRI which has received a number of objections, for example, that its definition is open ended, some of its features conceptually obscure, and its implementation, even when possible, is often complex (Fisher and Rip. 2013). While this might be true, the group of ideas underlying it seem to us appropriate and useful in the context of our project.