Potential for Bias in the Context of Neuroethics

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.

[1]  Marilyn J. Field,et al.  Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice , 2009 .

[2]  Chase E. Thiel,et al.  Strategies in Forecasting Outcomes in Ethical Decision-Making: Identifying and Analyzing the Causes of the Problem , 2010, Ethics & behavior.

[3]  R. P. Guertin Commentary on: “How are scientific corrections made?” (N. Kiang) , 1995 .

[4]  Carl Mitcham,et al.  Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics , 2005 .

[5]  H. Longino Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , 1990 .

[6]  A. Roskies Neuroethics for the New Millenium , 2002, Neuron.

[7]  Helen E. Longino,et al.  Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science , 1983, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[8]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1963 .

[9]  David Venet,et al.  Most Random Gene Expression Signatures Are Significantly Associated with Breast Cancer Outcome , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[10]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Creativity , 2011 .

[11]  C. Don Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain , 2004 .

[12]  S. Bird,et al.  Of mice and men (and women and children): Scientific and ethical implications of animal models , 2000, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry.

[13]  H. Birx,et al.  The Mismeasure of Man , 1981 .

[14]  George Adelman,et al.  Encyclopedia of neuroscience , 2004 .

[15]  Stuart Henry,et al.  Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI , 2012, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[16]  C. Smith-Rosenberg,et al.  The female animal: medical and biological views of woman and her role in nineteenth century America. , 1973, Journal of American history.

[17]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  A. Caplan,et al.  Concepts of Health and Disease: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , 1983 .

[19]  Monya Baker,et al.  Independent labs to verify high-profile papers , 2012, Nature.

[20]  D. Altman,et al.  Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[21]  Gonzalez Marta,et al.  The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. , 2003 .

[22]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Diane Hoffman-Kim,et al.  On being a scientist , 1995 .

[24]  Charles Taylor Modern Social Imaginaries , 2002 .

[25]  Marc Lampe,et al.  Science, Human Nature, and a New Paradigm for Ethics Education , 2012, Sci. Eng. Ethics.