Insiders and Outsiders: Lessons for Neuroethics from the History of Bioethics

REFERENCES

• A Definition of Irreversible Coma. 1968. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. Journal of the American Medical Association 205(6): 337–340. doi: 10.1001/jama.1968.03140320031009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baker, R. 2005. A draft model aggregated code of ethics for bioethicists. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(5): 33–41. doi: 10.1080/15265160500245188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R. 2018. Philosophers' invasion of clinical ethics: Historical and personal reflections. The American Journal of Bioethics 18(6): 51–54. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1461464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beecher, H. K. 1955. The powerful placebo. Journal of the American Medical Association 159(17): 1602–1606. doi: 10.1001/jama.1955.02960340022006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beecher, H. K. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine 274(24): 1354–1360. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196606162742405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belkin, G. 2014. Death before dying: History, medicine, and brain death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernat, J. L. 2008. Ethical issues in neurology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Bosk, C. L. 1999. Professional ethicist available: Logical, secular, friendly. Daedalus 128(4): 47–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Button, K. S., J. P. A. Ioannidis, C. Mokrysz, et al. 2013. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 14(5): 365–376. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callahan, D. 1996. Bioethics, our crowd, and ideology. The Hastings Center Report 26(6): 3–4. doi: 10.2307/3528741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008. Research ethics consultation: The Stanford experience. Ethics & Human Research 30(6): 1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Churchland, A. 2016. Anne Churchland. Neuron 92(5): 940–942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culliton, B. J., and W. K. Waterfall. 1978. Flowering of American bioethics. British Medical Journal 2(6147): 1270–1271. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6147.1270.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Vries, R. 2007. Who will guard the guardians of neuroscience? Firing the neuroethical imagination. EMBO Reports 8(S1): S65–S69. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eckenwiler L. A., and F. G. Cohn, eds. 2007. The ethics of bioethics: Mapping the moral landscape. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Else, H. 2019. How to banish manels and manferences from scientific meetings. Nature 573(7773): 184–186. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02658-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fins, J. J. 2008. A leg to stand on: Sir William Osler and Wilder Penfield's “neuroethics”. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(1): 37–46. doi: 10.1080/15265160701841975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, R. C. 1990. The evolution of American bioethics: A sociological perspective. In Social science perspectives on medical ethics, ed. George Weisz, 201–217. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, B. 1989. Bringing codes to Newcastle. In Clinical ethics: Theory and practice, eds. Barry Hoffmaster, Gwen Fraser, and Benjamin Freedman, 125–130. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, W., and J. W. Watts. 1950. Psychosurgery in the treatment of mental disorders and intractable pain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C., M. Hefferon, B. Kennedy, and C. Johnson. 2019. Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center, August 2. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/.
   Google Scholar
• Greely, H. T., C. Grady, K. M. Ramos, et al. 2018. Neuroethics guiding principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 38(50): 10586–10588. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2077-18.2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna, K. E., R. M. Cook-Deegan, and R. Y. Nishimi. 1993. Finding a forum for bioethics in U.S. public policy. Politics and the Life Sciences: The Journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 12(2): 205–219. doi: 10.1017/s0730938400024163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jonsen, A. R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsen, A. R. 2008. Any help from strangers at the benchside? The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3): 19–20. doi: 10.1080/15265160802112912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koroshetz, W., J. Gordon, A. Adams, et al. 2018. The state of the NIH brain Initiative. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 38(29): 6427–6438. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3174-17.2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, J. B., R. R. Sharp, A. L. Ottenberg, C. R. Reider, H. A. Taylor, and B. S. Wilfond. 2013. The establishment of research ethics consultation services (RECS): An emerging research resource. Clinical and Translational Science 6(1): 40–44. doi: 10.1111/cts.12008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald. P. J. 2019. It is time to expand the scope and reach of neuroethics. AJOB Neuroscience 10(3): 128–129. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2019.1632968.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller, F. G. 2012. Situating research ethics: Revisiting Beecher and Jonas. In The ethical challenges of clinical research: Selected essays, ed. Franklin G. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. 2019. BRAIN Initiative: Research on the ethical implications of advancements in neurotechnology and brain science (R01 Clinical Trial Optional) (RFA-MH-19-400). Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-mh-19-400.html (accessed November 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Naughton, J. 2019. Are big tech’s efforts to show it cares about data ethics another diversion? The Guardian, April 7. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/07/big-tech-data-ethics-diversion-google-advisory-council (accessed November 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Porter, K. M., M. Danis, H. A. Taylor, M. K. Cho, and B. S. Wilfond. 2018. The emergence of clinical research ethics consultation: Insights from a national collaborative. The American Journal of Bioethics 18(1): 39–45. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2014. Gray matters: Integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society. Vol. 1. Washington, DC. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2459987.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos, K. M., C. Grady, H. T. Greely, et al. 2019. The NIH BRAIN Initiative: Integrating neuroethics and neuroscience. Neuron 101(3): 394–398. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, D. J. 1991. Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ruddick, W. 1981. Can doctors and philosophers work together? The Hastings Center Report 11(2): 12–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, A. 2016. The ASBH code of ethics and the limits of professional healthcare ethics consultations. Journal of Medical Ethics 42(8): 504–509. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaby, J., and S. Choudhury. 2018. Proposal for a critical neuroscience. In The Palgrave handbook of biology and society, eds. Maurizio Meloni, John Cromby, Des Fitzgerald, and Stephanie Lloyd, 341–371. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Society for Neuroscience. 2017. Report of Neuroscience Departments & Programs Survey Academic Year 2016–2017. Available from https://www.sfn.org/sitecore/content/Home/SfN/News-and-Calendar/Neuroscience-Quarterly/Spring-2017/∼/link.aspx?_id=91E032D1E1D74141961215F890EE1459&_z=z (accessed November 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Tarzian, A. J., L. D. Wocial, and ASBH Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee. 2015. A code of ethics for health care ethics consultants: Journey to the present and implications for the field. The American Journal of Bioethics 15(5): 38–51. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1021966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terrier, L. M., M. Levêque, and A. Amelot. 2017. Brain surgery: Most lobotomies were done on women. Nature 548(7669): 523. doi: 10.1038/548523e.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations. 1968. Hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 145. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, J. 2019. The problem with AI ethics. The Verge, April 3. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/3/18293410/ai-artificial-intelligence-ethics-boards-charters-problem-big-tech (accessed November 11, 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, D. S., J. C. V. Taylor, and E. J. Hopkins. 2015. Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making 10(5): 429–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B. D., W. N. Shelton, and C. J. Rivais. 2018. Were the “pioneer” clinical ethics consultants “outsiders”? For them, was “critical distance” that critical? The American Journal of Bioethics 18(6): 34–44. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1459935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. 2014. The making of British bioethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar