FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2897055438> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2897055438 endingPage "36" @default.
• W2897055438 startingPage "19" @default.
• W2897055438 abstract "Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to understanding of the nature of the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives. Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to understanding of the nature of the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives. Neuroscience has become a national priority for governments across the globe as evidenced by seven active or emerging national-level brain research initiatives (Grillner et al., 2016Grillner S. Ip N. Koch C. Koroshetz W. Okano H. Polachek M. Poo M.M. Sejnowski T.J. Worldwide initiatives to advance brain research.Nat. Neurosci. 2016; 19: 1118-1122Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar, Huang and Luo, 2015Huang Z.J. Luo L. Neuroscience. It takes the world to understand the brain.Science. 2015; 350: 42-44Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar): Australia (Richards and Committee, 2016Richards L.J. Committee A.B.A.S. Australian Brain Alliance Steering Committee. Electronic address: [email protected]; Australian Brain Alliance Steering CommitteeAustralian Brain Alliance.Neuron. 2016; 92: 597-600Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar), Canada (https://www.canadianbrain.ca/), China (Poo et al., 2016Poo M.M. Du J.L. Ip N.Y. Xiong Z.Q. Xu B. Tan T. China Brain Project: basic neuroscience, brain diseases, and brain-inspired computing.Neuron. 2016; 92: 591-596Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar), the EU (Amunts et al., 2016Amunts K. Ebell C. Muller J. Telefont M. Knoll A. Lippert T. The Human Brain Project: creating a European research infrastructure to decode the human brain.Neuron. 2016; 92: 574-581Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar), Japan (Okano et al., 2016Okano H. Sasaki E. Yamamori T. Iriki A. Shimogori T. Yamaguchi Y. Kasai K. Miyawaki A. Brain/MINDS: a Japanese national brain project for marmoset neuroscience.Neuron. 2016; 92: 582-590Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar), Korea (Jeong et al., 2016Jeong S.J. Lee H. Hur E.M. Choe Y. Koo J.W. Rah J.C. Lee K.J. Lim H.H. Sun W. Moon C. Kim K. Korea Brain Initiative: integration and control of brain functions.Neuron. 2016; 92: 607-611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar), and the US (Jorgenson et al., 2015Jorgenson L.A. Newsome W.T. Anderson D.J. Bargmann C.I. Brown E.N. Deisseroth K. Donoghue J.P. Hudson K.L. Ling G.S. MacLeish P.R. et al.The BRAIN Initiative: developing technology to catalyse neuroscience discovery.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015; 370https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0164Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar) (Table 1; Figure 1). These initiatives collectively represent a proposed investment of over $US 7 billion. Such an investment reflects the importance of the potential afforded by a deeper understanding of the brain and recognition that neuroscience can dramatically shift the landscape of our lives.Table 1The International Brain InitiativesProjectGoals and Potential ImpactNeuroethics ComponentTotal Budget for Duration of Project (US Dollars)DurationAustralian Brain Initiative (https://www.brainalliance.org.au/)Goals: “…optimizing and restoring brain function, developing advanced neural interfaces, understanding the neural basis of learning across the lifespan, and developing new insights for brain-inspired computing” (Richards and Committee, 2016Richards L.J. Committee A.B.A.S. Australian Brain Alliance Steering Committee. Electronic address: [email protected]; Australian Brain Alliance Steering CommitteeAustralian Brain Alliance.Neuron. 2016; 92: 597-600Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar, p. 599).neuroethics committee part of initial ABI design500 million over 5 yearsproject is in development, estimated 5 yearsPotential Impact: create advanced industries in neurotechnology; develop treatments for debilitating brain disorders; produce high-impact interdisciplinary collaborations that will increase understanding of the brain.Canadian Brain Research Strategy (https://www.canadianbrain.ca/)Goal: understanding how the brain learns, remembers, and adapts.neuroethicist on committeeTBDproject is in developmentPotential Impact: develop and maintain a large-scale Canadian network in Open Science and Data Sharing.China Brain ProjectGoal: understanding cognitive disorders with a focus on autism, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease; child and adolescent development of intelligence; brain inspired machine intelligence and intelligent socially interactive robots.TBDTBD; estimated 1 billionProject is in development. Estimated 15 years, including 5 year startup period (Normile, 2018Normile D. China’s ambitious brain science project inches forward.Science. 2018; 360: 840-841Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar).Potential Impact: basic understanding of neural circuit mechanism underlying higher cognitive functions; molecular, imaging, and functional markers for early diagnosis of brain disorders; physiological and physical approaches for early intervention; new generation of brain-inspired artificial neural networks, computing devices, and intelligent robots (Poo et al., 2016Poo M.M. Du J.L. Ip N.Y. Xiong Z.Q. Xu B. Tan T. China Brain Project: basic neuroscience, brain diseases, and brain-inspired computing.Neuron. 2016; 92: 591-596Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar).EU Human Brain Project (https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/about/overview/)Goal: “creating a research infrastructure to advance neuroinformatics, brain simulation, high performance analytics and computing, medical informatics, neuromorphic computing, and neurorobotics” (Amunts et al., 2016Amunts K. Ebell C. Muller J. Telefont M. Knoll A. Lippert T. The Human Brain Project: creating a European research infrastructure to decode the human brain.Neuron. 2016; 92: 574-581Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar).Research Project (SP12) dedicated to neuroethics from 2013; includes Ethics Management as part of the directorate, an Ethics and Society Subproject (SP12), an Ethics Rapporteur Program, and an external Ethics Advisory Board and Ombudsperson1.2 billion; 4% of budget for ethics2013–2023Potential Impact: neuromorphic and neurorobotic technologies; supercomputing technologies for brain simulation, robot, and autonomous systems control and other data intensive applications; personalized medicine for neurology and psychiatry.Japan Brain/MINDS (https://brainminds.jp/en/central/mission)Goals: “…developing the common marmoset as a model animal for neuroscience, the project aims to build a multiscale marmoset brain map, develop new technologies for experimentalists, create transgenic lines for brain disease modeling, and integrate translational findings from the clinical biomarker landscape” (Okano et al., 2016Okano H. Sasaki E. Yamamori T. Iriki A. Shimogori T. Yamaguchi Y. Kasai K. Miyawaki A. Brain/MINDS: a Japanese national brain project for marmoset neuroscience.Neuron. 2016; 92: 582-590Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar, p. 582).a neuroethics group in Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences (SRPBS) has supported neuroethics issues on Brain/MINDS300 million2014–2023Potential Impact: high-resolution, wide-field, deep, fast, and long imaging techniques for brain structures and functions; techniques for controlling neural activity; determine causal relationships between the structural/functional damage of neuronal circuits and disease phenotypes; eventually develop innovative therapeutic interventions.Korea Brain InitiativeGoal: “mapping of a functional connectome with searchable, multi-dimensional, and information-integrated features. The project also includes the development of novel technologies and neuro-tools for integrated brain mapping. Beyond the scientific goals this grand endeavor will ultimately have socioeconomic ramifications that not only facilitate global collaboration in the neuroscience community, but also develop various brain science-related industrial and medical innovations” (Jeong et al., 2016Jeong S.J. Lee H. Hur E.M. Choe Y. Koo J.W. Rah J.C. Lee K.J. Lim H.H. Sun W. Moon C. Kim K. Korea Brain Initiative: integration and control of brain functions.Neuron. 2016; 92: 607-611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, p. 607).neuroethics committee part of initial KBI design350 million2016–2026Potential Impact: brain mapping platforms and high-throughput technologies to unravel the structural and the mechanistic bases of higher brain functions, such as decision-making, attention, and memory to develop brain-inspired artificial intelligence systems; precision medicine-based approaches to develop therapeutic interventions of neurological disorders (Jeong et al., 2016Jeong S.J. Lee H. Hur E.M. Choe Y. Koo J.W. Rah J.C. Lee K.J. Lim H.H. Sun W. Moon C. Kim K. Korea Brain Initiative: integration and control of brain functions.Neuron. 2016; 92: 607-611Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar).US BRAIN Initiative (http://www.braininitiative.org/alliance/)Goals: accelerate the development and application of new technologies that will enable researchers to produce dynamic pictures of how individual brain cells and complex neural circuits interact at the speed of thought.President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues focus on neuroscience in 2013–2015; Neuroethics Working Group formed in 2016; Neuroethics Research Grants available in 2017 and 2018; Neuroethics Subgroup of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director, 2018–2019budget projected to be 6 billion; neuroethics grants in 2017–2018, 2 million/year2013–2025Potential Impact: complete cell census of mouse and, later, human brain; technologies to precisely modulate activity of specific neural circuits; devices for in vivo high-density intracellular recording; technologies that expand our ability to monitor activity non-invasively in the human brain; link brain activity to behavior; data analysis tools to help understand the biological basis of mental processes.Adapted from OECD, 2017OECDNeurotechnology and society.in: OECD: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017Google Scholar Table 2.1. Open table in a new tab Adapted from OECD, 2017OECDNeurotechnology and society.in: OECD: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017Google Scholar Table 2.1. Advances in neuroscience continue to reveal and pose unprecedented ethical issues. These issues range from general concerns about societal goals and values to more specific questions about desirable outcomes for neuroscience research (PCSBI, 2014PCSBIIntegrated approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society.Gray Matters. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2014Google Scholar, Rose, 2014Rose N. The Human Brain Project: social and ethical challenges.Neuron. 2014; 82: 1212-1215Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar), to perennial philosophical questions related to the nature of understanding the self and identity, whether or not free will exists, the nature of emotion, the role of reason in human behavior, and memory (Evers et al., 2017Evers K. Salles A. Farisco M. Theoretical framing of neuroethics: the need for a conceptual approach.in: Debates About Neuroethics. Springer, 2017: 89-107Crossref Google Scholar). The expansive implications of neuroscience in defining humanity have contributed to the status of neuroscience as a national-level funding priority across the globe. Neuroethics complements the discipline of neuroscience by providing a robust set of tools for informing the design and conduct of biomedical research as well as analyzing how neuroscience findings impact society and may transform social institutions. Neuroethics can be understood as a mutually informing collaborator that can advance the field of neuroscience by anticipating the near-term to far-reaching—often unexpected–implications of new technologies, findings about the brain that result from examining the brain, and the implementation of these technologies. To the neuroscience community, neuroethics provides a critical lens for reimagining, framing, and often focusing the questions and potential impact of specific research projects (Box 1).Box 1Scholarly Traditions for Analyzing the Social and Ethical Implications of NeuroscienceOver the past few years, a number of approaches have focused on the social and ethical implications raised by neuroscientific research (Eric and Matthew, 2017Eric R. Matthew S. The competing identities of neuroethics.The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. Routledge, 2017Google Scholar). One approach, critical neuroscience, calls for a more reflective neuroscientific practice that calls largely upon the social sciences to examine the potential and limitations of the questions and methodologies of neuroscience (Choudhury et al., 2009Choudhury S. Nagel S.K. Slaby J. Critical neuroscience: linking neuroscience and society through critical practice.Biosocieties. 2009; 4: 61-77Crossref Scopus (147) Google Scholar). A second approach is neuroethics that attempts to complement the discipline of neuroscience by providing a robust set of ethical and philosophical tools for analyzing how research is designed and conducted as well as how neuroscience findings impact individuals and the societies they live in. Thus, neuroethics can be understood as a mutually informing collaborator that advances the field of neuroscience by identifying, critically addressing, and illustrating the near-term to far-reaching—often unexpected—implications of the new technologies, findings about the brain that result from examining the brain, and the implementation of new technologies (Salles and Evers, 2017Salles A. Evers K. Social neuroscience and neuroethics: a fruitful synergy.in: Ibáñez A. Sedeño L. García A.M. Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Springer International Publishing, Cham2017: 531-546Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar).This relatively new field of neuroethics, focused on neuroscience and its design, methods, conduct, and the impact of its products on society, has sometimes been accused of not offering much from a critical perspective and of overstating the positive impact of neuroscientific findings (Brosnan, 2011Brosnan C. The sociology of neuroethics: expectational discourses and the rise of a new discipline.Sociol. Compass. 2011; 5: 287-297Crossref Scopus (18) Google Scholar, De Vries, 2005De Vries R. Framing neuroethics: a sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination.Am. J. Bioeth. 2005; 5 (discussion W3-4): 25-27Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar, Racine, 2010Racine E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press, 2010Google Scholar). At its best, far from being an uncritical advocate of neuroscience, neuroethics can remain constructively critically aware, providing a lens for reimagining the questions and potential impact of specific research projects.Still, such critique has prompted some neuroethics scholars to argue for a “fundamental neuroethics,” a term employed by the philosophy research group of the HBP, which aims to delve into deep conceptual philosophy, to explore how scientific inquiry can be used to address a number of fundamental philosophical questions (Evers et al., 2017Evers K. Salles A. Farisco M. Theoretical framing of neuroethics: the need for a conceptual approach.in: Debates About Neuroethics. Springer, 2017: 89-107Crossref Google Scholar) and how such questions might be explored in the context of responsible research innovation (RRI) (Salles et al., 2018Salles A. Evers K. Farisco M. Neuroethics and philosophy in responsible research and innovation: the case of the human brain project.Neuroethics. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9372-9Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar). RRI is a normative framework that has dominated EU policy and governance that generally encourages stakeholder involvement to collectively discuss how best to advance societal goals through technology innovation. For additional explanation of normative frameworks on evaluating neurotechnology and society, including RRI, please see section 5, p. 27 of the 2017 OECD report (OECD, 2017OECDNeurotechnology and society.in: OECD: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017Google Scholar). Over the past few years, a number of approaches have focused on the social and ethical implications raised by neuroscientific research (Eric and Matthew, 2017Eric R. Matthew S. The competing identities of neuroethics.The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. Routledge, 2017Google Scholar). One approach, critical neuroscience, calls for a more reflective neuroscientific practice that calls largely upon the social sciences to examine the potential and limitations of the questions and methodologies of neuroscience (Choudhury et al., 2009Choudhury S. Nagel S.K. Slaby J. Critical neuroscience: linking neuroscience and society through critical practice.Biosocieties. 2009; 4: 61-77Crossref Scopus (147) Google Scholar). A second approach is neuroethics that attempts to complement the discipline of neuroscience by providing a robust set of ethical and philosophical tools for analyzing how research is designed and conducted as well as how neuroscience findings impact individuals and the societies they live in. Thus, neuroethics can be understood as a mutually informing collaborator that advances the field of neuroscience by identifying, critically addressing, and illustrating the near-term to far-reaching—often unexpected—implications of the new technologies, findings about the brain that result from examining the brain, and the implementation of new technologies (Salles and Evers, 2017Salles A. Evers K. Social neuroscience and neuroethics: a fruitful synergy.in: Ibáñez A. Sedeño L. García A.M. Neuroscience and Social Science: The Missing Link. Springer International Publishing, Cham2017: 531-546Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar). This relatively new field of neuroethics, focused on neuroscience and its design, methods, conduct, and the impact of its products on society, has sometimes been accused of not offering much from a critical perspective and of overstating the positive impact of neuroscientific findings (Brosnan, 2011Brosnan C. The sociology of neuroethics: expectational discourses and the rise of a new discipline.Sociol. Compass. 2011; 5: 287-297Crossref Scopus (18) Google Scholar, De Vries, 2005De Vries R. Framing neuroethics: a sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination.Am. J. Bioeth. 2005; 5 (discussion W3-4): 25-27Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar, Racine, 2010Racine E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press, 2010Google Scholar). At its best, far from being an uncritical advocate of neuroscience, neuroethics can remain constructively critically aware, providing a lens for reimagining the questions and potential impact of specific research projects. Still, such critique has prompted some neuroethics scholars to argue for a “fundamental neuroethics,” a term employed by the philosophy research group of the HBP, which aims to delve into deep conceptual philosophy, to explore how scientific inquiry can be used to address a number of fundamental philosophical questions (Evers et al., 2017Evers K. Salles A. Farisco M. Theoretical framing of neuroethics: the need for a conceptual approach.in: Debates About Neuroethics. Springer, 2017: 89-107Crossref Google Scholar) and how such questions might be explored in the context of responsible research innovation (RRI) (Salles et al., 2018Salles A. Evers K. Farisco M. Neuroethics and philosophy in responsible research and innovation: the case of the human brain project.Neuroethics. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9372-9Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar). RRI is a normative framework that has dominated EU policy and governance that generally encourages stakeholder involvement to collectively discuss how best to advance societal goals through technology innovation. For additional explanation of normative frameworks on evaluating neurotechnology and society, including RRI, please see section 5, p. 27 of the 2017 OECD report (OECD, 2017OECDNeurotechnology and society.in: OECD: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017Google Scholar). Thus, the priority of making neuroethics an integral part of the neuroscientific enterprise has moved beyond the academy and has registered at the highest levels of governments (Table 1). For example, the European Union’s Human Brain Project (HBP) from its inception has had structural and financial resources dedicated to projects on the attendant philosophical and ethical issues of neuroscience research (Amunts et al., 2016Amunts K. Ebell C. Muller J. Telefont M. Knoll A. Lippert T. The Human Brain Project: creating a European research infrastructure to decode the human brain.Neuron. 2016; 92: 574-581Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar, Evers, 2016Evers K. The contribution of neuroethics to international brain initiatives.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2016; 18: 1-2Crossref Scopus (11) Google Scholar). The Ethics and Society subproject of the HBP research core publishes opinions about relevant HBP-related ethical issues and one of the research groups under this subproject is dedicated to neuroethical and philosophical questions (https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/social-ethical-reflective/neuroethics-and-philosophy/). The HBP also has an Ethics Rapporteur system wherein researchers from each of the twelve research subprojects routinely discuss ethical issues with the HBP Ethics Advisory Board and with Ethics Support. The Australian Brain Alliance (Richards and Committee, 2016Richards L.J. Committee A.B.A.S. Australian Brain Alliance Steering Committee. Electronic address: [email protected]; Australian Brain Alliance Steering CommitteeAustralian Brain Alliance.Neuron. 2016; 92: 597-600Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar), Canadian Brain Research Strategy, and Korea Brain Initiative (J. Illes and S.-J.J., personal communication) have incorporated neuroethics and neuroethicists into the design of their emerging and recently launched national brain research programs. In China, scientists are working with the Chinese government to incorporate a neuroethics committee into the China Brain Project. The United States Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative (https://braininitiative.nih.gov/index.htm), included tasking the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues with exploring the attendant ethical issues of neuroscience research writ large. Recognizing that the rapid pace of technology often supersedes the ways scientists and engineers understand the social implications of their work (Check, 2007Check E. Cloning special: Dolly: a hard act to follow.Nature. 2007; 445: 802Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar, Heffernan, 2010Heffernan O. ‘Climategate’ scientist speaks out.Nature. 2010; 463: 860Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar), the team created two reports emphasizing that neuroethics should be a requisite part of all neuroscience research (PCSBI, 2014PCSBIIntegrated approaches for neuroscience, ethics, and society.Gray Matters. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2014Google Scholar, PCSBI, 2015PCSBITopics at the intersection of neuroscience, ethics, and society.Gray Matters. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2015Google Scholar) and an integral part of training the next generation of neuroscientists. These reports shaped the implementation of the BRAIN Initiative neuroethics program, including offering large-scale grants for neuroethics research (https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/about/neuroethics.htm). The BRAIN Initiative has established a Neuroethics Working Group and has program officers managing a neuroethics grant portfolio. A recently formed BRAIN Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director, tasked with evaluating the blueprint for BRAIN (BRAIN 2025: https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov/2025/), also has included a Neuroethics Subgroup to develop a Neuroethics Roadmap for the Initiative. Good neuroethical practice should also lead to engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultures and continents. Ultimately, cultural values influence not only how science is done, but also how the science might be adopted and integrated in societal practice. The consequences of cultural misunderstandings are far from trivial for the scientific enterprise. Gaps in understanding lead to missed opportunities for collaboration and advancement toward future discoveries, limit the ability to broadly share results and thereby reap the benefits of neuroscience findings, and ultimately result in a failure to recognize the short- and long-term potential and risks of neuroscience research. These cultural differences exist between national entities, within defined societies, and also among individual researchers and practitioners. And yet in the 15-year history of the field of neuroethics, there has been little work engaging cultural perspectives, and when different cultural perspectives are presented, they are done so in isolation without comparison and analysis across cultures. Culturally informed and aware neuroethical inquiry, understood as a process of intentional perspective-taking, can be useful in generating novel questions and thereby driving more fruitful and ethical global science. However, particular care is needed in assessing cultural perspectives as one risks reinforcing ill-informed stereotypes rather than thoughtful engagement. Our emphasis on perspective-taking here encourages reflection and inquiry of the values and philosophical traditions within and across national settings. Beyond a cursory mention in reports and guidelines by independent groups (Goldschmidt and Renn, 2006Goldschmidt R. Renn O. Meeting of Minds – European Citizens’ Deliberation on Brain Sciences: Final Report of the External Evaluation. Universitat Stuttgart, 2006Google Scholar, Yuste et al., 2017Yuste R. Goering S. Arcas B.A.Y. Bi G. Carmena J.M. Carter A. Fins J.J. Friesen P. Gallant J. Huggins J.E. et al.Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI.Nature. 2017; 551: 159-163Crossref PubMed Scopus (146) Google Scholar), no national project has explicitly discussed cultural perspectives when engaging these neuroethics and neuroscience questions. Furthermore, no report has addressed what engaging neuroscience with a cross-cultural lens might look like, although recent reports from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) make special note of the need for cross-cultural evaluations in technology development (Garden and Winickoff, 2018Garden, H., and Winickoff, D. (2018). Issues in neurotechnology governance. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3256cc6-en.Google Scholar, OECD, 2017OECDNeurotechnology and society.in: OECD: Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017Google Scholar). A culturally informed analysis is urgently needed given the global collaborative nature of neuroscience research and the recent commitment to the formation of the International Brain Initiative, a collaborative entity comprised of all existing national-level brain projects (https://www.brainalliance.org.au/learn/media-releases/worlds-brain-ini" @default.
• W2897055438 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5000265578 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5003246745 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5004513238 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5004615822 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5010009874 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5065062074 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5072673151 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5074051127 @default.
• W2897055438 creator A5078472719 @default.
• W2897055438 date "2018-10-01" @default.
• W2897055438 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2897055438 title "Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives" @default.
• W2897055438 cites W138035747 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1517366294 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1863394635 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1903331294 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1931411512 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1964722435 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1966877859 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1974826026 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1978591658 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1993492026 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1993582641 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1994964794 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W1998656070 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2006744517 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2006944148 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2008905841 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2009060047 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2012027725 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2025220807 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2026783672 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2033376922 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2038730216 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2038770130 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2044719021 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2067553056 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2069817860 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2081164888 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2088472886 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2092184926 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2094524895 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2096361178 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2096396867 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2110180331 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2115483559 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2121600794 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2126810579 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2130559519 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2133583145 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2135647421 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2136148435 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2136392185 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2141825721 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2143624605 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2147132534 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2152446013 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2152603218 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2155063410 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2155260956 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2155890608 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2158903307 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2159494371 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2165296831 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2166176614 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2220753843 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2242861054 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2261151942 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2415156765 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2418890844 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2498824394 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2499378714 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2509170652 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2539850208 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2541494107 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2546748477 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2547568088 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2547794763 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2548021123 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2548266803 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2548417676 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2593288389 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2736485942 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2744102673 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2750556205 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2752646605 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2760097171 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2766099988 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2767945620 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2774691529 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2788344808 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2793444251 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2804618854 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W2804712341 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W3125960716 @default.
• W2897055438 cites W4250451153 @default.

• next