Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:59:07.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsabilités Neuroéthiques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Eric Racine  and
Judy Illes
Eric Racine*
Affiliation:
Du The Neuroethics Imaging Group, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Palo Alto, California, USA
Judy Illes
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Palo Alto, California, USA
*
Neuroethics Research Unit, Institute de recherches cliniques de Montreal (IRCM), Office 1535, 110, Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1R7.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Neuroscience represents a dynamic area of biomedical research where neuroethical responsibilities for researchers are emerging. This paper is the companion piece to the English-language one also published in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. It serves as a review of recent advances in neuroethics through the lens of three cases: (1) incidental finding of anomalies in neuroimaging research; (2) creation of neurotechnologies that can lead to cognitive enhancement, and (3) responsible communication of research results. We propose and discuss a multidimensional framework of neuroethical responsibilities to help tackle these issues. The framework reiterates the fundamental role of scientific integrity, puts in the foreground social responsibilities pertaining to the eventual use of neuroscience knowledge, and highlights self-reflection in research and training of researchers.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:

Les neurosciences représentent un secteur dynamique de la recherche biomédicale où des responsabilités neuroéthiques pour les chercheurs émergent. Cet article accompagne la version anglaise publiée dans ce numéro du Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. Nous présentons des avancées récentes en neuroéthique à l’aide de trois cas: (1) la découverte fortuite d’anomalies en neuroimagerie; (2) la création de neurotechnologies pouvant conduire à l’amélioration de la cognition humaine et (3) la communication responsable des résultats de recherche. Nous présentons et discutons ensuite d’un cadre multidimensionnel de responsabilités neuroéthiques pouvant aider à aborder de front ces enjeux. Ce cadre réitère le caractère fondamental de l’intégrité scientifique, met de l’avant les responsabilités sociales à l’égard de l’usage éventuel des connaissances scientifiques et met à l’avant-plan la réflexion autocritique dans la recherche et la formation des chercheurs.

Type
Review Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 260 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2006

References

1. Illes, J, Racine, E. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. Am J of Bioeth. 2005; 5(2):5–18.Google Scholar
2. Abbott, A. Deep in thought. Nature 2005; 436:18–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ausman, JI. I told you it was going to happen. Surg Neurol. 2004; 61:313–4.Google Scholar
4. Garland, B. Neuroscience and the law: Brain, mind and the scales of justice. Washington, DC: The American Association for the Advancement of Science and The Dana Foundation; 2004.Google Scholar
5. Gura, T. Big plans for little brains. Nature. 2005; 435:1156–8.Google Scholar
6. Editorial. Open your mind. The Economist; May 23, 2002.Google Scholar
7. Editorial. Sex, race and brain-scanning. The Economist; July 28, 2001.Google Scholar
8. Editorial. Brain scam? Nat Neurosci. 2004; 77:683.Google Scholar
9. Desmond, JE, Chen, SHA. Ethical issues in the clinical application of fMRI: factors affecting the validity and interpretation of activations. Brain Cogn. 2002; 50:482–97.Google Scholar
10. Illes, J, Racine, E, Kirschen, MP. A picture is worth a thousand words, but which one thousand? In: Illes, J, editor. Neuroethics: defining the issues in research, practice and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p.149–68.Google Scholar
11. Katzman, GL, Dagher, AP, Patronas, NJ. Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers. JAMA. 1999; 281:36–9.Google Scholar
12. Kim, BS, Illes, J, Kaplan, RT, Reiss, A, Atlas, SW. Incidental findings on pediatric MR images of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002; 23:1674–7.Google Scholar
13. Weber, F, Knopf, H. Incidental findings in magnetic resonance imaging of the brains of healthy young men. J Neurol Sci. 2006; 210:81–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States. Statistical report: Primary brain tumors in the United States, 1997-2001. Hinsdale, Il: Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States; 2004.Google Scholar
15. Illes, J, Desmond, JE, Huang, LF, Raffin, TA, Atlas, SW. Ethical and practical considerations in managing incidental findings in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Cogn. 2002; 50:358–65.Google Scholar
16. Mazziotta, JC. Window on the brain. Archives of Neurology 2000; 57:1413–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Toga, AW. Imaging databases and neuroscience. The Neuroscientist. 2002; 85:423–36.Google Scholar
18. Olson, S. Brain scans raise privacy concerns. Science. 2005; 307:1548–50.Google Scholar
19. Editorial. Scanning the social brain. Nat Neurosci. 2003; 6:1239.Google Scholar
20. Pezawas, L, Meyer-Lindenberg, A, Drabant, EM, Verchinski, BA, Munoz, KE, Kolachana, BS, et al. 5-HTTLPR polymorphism impacts human cingulate-amygdala interactions: a genetic susceptibility mechanism for depression. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8:828–34.Google Scholar
21. Hyman, SE. Diagnosing disorders. Sci Am. 2003; Sep: 96–103.Google Scholar
22. Rosen, AC, Bodke, ALW, Pearl, A, Yesavage, JA. Ethical, and practical issues in applying functional imaging to the clinical management of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Cogn. 2002; 50:498–519.Google Scholar
23. Illes, J, Kann, D, Karetsky, K, Letourneau, P, Raffin, TA, Schraedley-Desmond, P, et al. Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:2415–9.Google Scholar
24. Illes, J, Fan, E, Koenig, B, Raffin, TA, Kann, D, Atlas, SW. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: current implications for health care consumers. Radiology. 2003; 228:346–51.Google Scholar
25. Health Canada. Whole body screening using MRI or CT technology; http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/med/mri-irm_e.html, accessed April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
26. US Food and Drug Administration. Whole body scanning using computer tomography (CT); http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/, accessed April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
27. Cho, MK. Conflicts of interest in magnetic resonance imaging: issues in clinical practice and research. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 13:73–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Medical Imaging in Canada 2004. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2004.Google Scholar
29. Racine, E, Bar-Ilan, O, Illes, J. fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005; 6:159–64.Google Scholar
30. Check, E. Ethicists urge caution over emotive power of brain scans. Nature. 2005; 435:254–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Bruer, JT. The brain and child development: time for some critical thinking. Public Health Rep. 1998; 113:388–98.Google Scholar
32. Illes, J. Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24:1739–41.Google Scholar
33. Hilgenberg, S. Formation, malformation, and transformation: my experience as medical student and patient. Stanford Med Student Clin J. 2005; 9:22–5.Google Scholar
34. Anonymous. How volunteering for an MRI scan changed my life. Nature. 2005; 434:17.Google Scholar
35. Greely, H. Human genomics research: new challenges for research ethics. Perspect Biol and Med. 2001;44:221–9.Google Scholar
36. Philips, M. Coping with unsuspected findings in volunteers. Nature. 2005; 434:17.Google Scholar
37. Wendler, D. Risk standards for pediatric research: rethinking the Grimes ruling. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2004;14:187–98.Google Scholar
38. Illes, J, Kirschen, MP, Edwards, E, Stanford, LR, Bandettini, P, Cho, MK, et al. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science. 2006; 311:783–4.Google Scholar
39. Elliott, C. Pursued by happiness and beaten senseless: Prozac and the American dream. Hastings Cent Rep. 2000; 30(2):7–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Chatterjee, A. Cosmetic neurology: the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology. 2004; 63:968–74.Google Scholar
41. Farah, MJ, Illes, J, Cook-Deegan, R, Gardner, H, Kandel, E, King, P, et al. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004;5:421–5.Google Scholar
42. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug Expanditure in Canada 1985 to 2004. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2005.Google Scholar
43. >Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. Portrait quotidien de la consommation médicamenteuse des personnes de 64 ans ou moins. Québec: Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec; 2002.Régie+de+l’assurance+maladie+du+Québec.+Portrait+quotidien+de+la+consommation+médicamenteuse+des+personnes+de+64+ans+ou+moins.+Québec:+Régie+de+l’assurance+maladie+du+Québec;+2002.>Google Scholar
44. Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec. Portrait quotidien de la consommation médicamenteuse des personnes âgées non hébergées. Québec: Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec; 2001.Google Scholar
45. Diller, LH. The run on Ritalin: attention deficit disorder and stimulant treatment in the 1990s. Hastings Cent Rep. 1996; 26(2):12–8.Google Scholar
46. Elliott, R, Sahakian, BJ, Matthews, K, Bannerjea, A, Rimmer, J, Robbins, TW. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology. 1997; 131:196–206.Google Scholar
47. Mehta, MA, Owen, AM, Sahakian, BJ, Mavaddat, N, Pickard, JD, Robbins, TW. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. J Neurosci. 2000; 20:RC65.Google Scholar
48. Babcock, Q, Byrne, T. Student perceptions of methylphenidate abuse at a public liberal arts college. J Am Coll Health. 2000; 49(3):143–5.Google Scholar
49. Lynch, G. Memory enhancement: the search for mechanism-based drugs. Nat Neurosci Supplement. 2002; 5:1035–8.Google Scholar
50. Rose, SP. ’Smart drugs’: Do they work? Are they ethical? Will they be legal? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3:975–9.Google Scholar
51. Yesavage, JA, Mumenthaler, MS, Taylor, JL, Friedman, L, O’Hara, R, Sheikh, J, et al. Donepezil and flight simulator performance: effects on retention of complex skills. Neurology. 2003; 59(1 of 2):123–5.Google Scholar
52. Pitman, RK, Sanders, KM, Zusman, RM, Healy, AR, Cheema, F, Lasko, NB, et al. Pilot study of secondary prevention of posttraumatic stress disorder with propranolol. Biol Psychiatry. 2002; 51:189–92.Google Scholar
53. Vastag, B. Poised to challenge need for sleep, ’wakefulness enhancer’ rouses concerns. JAMA. 2004; 291:167–70.Google Scholar
54. Foster, RG, Wulff, K. The rhythm of rest and excess. Nature Rev Neurosci. 2005; 6:407–44.Google Scholar
55. Blank, RH. Brain policy: How the new neuroscience will change our lives and our politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
56. Racine, E. Thérapie ou amélioration? Philosophie des neurosciences et éthique des neurotechnologies. Ethica. 2002; 14(1):70–100.Google Scholar
57. Nicolelis, MA. Actions from thoughts. Nature 2001; 409:403–7.Google Scholar
58. Schwartz, AB. Cortical neural prosthetics. Annu Review Neurosci. 2004; 27:487–507.Google Scholar
59. Nicolelis, MA. Brain-machine interfaces to restore motor function and probe neural circuits. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003; 4:417–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60. Hetling, JR, Baig-Silva, MS. Neural prostheses for vision: designing a functional interface with retinal neurons. Neurol Res. 2004; 26:21–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Walter, B, Vitek, JL. Surgical treatment for Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2004; 3:719–28.Google Scholar
62. Mayberg, HS, Lozano, AM, Voon, V, McNeely, HE, Seminowicz, D, Hamani, C, et al. Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron. 2005; 45:651–60.Google Scholar
63. Maguire, GQ, McGee, EM. Implantable brain chips? Time for debate. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999; 29(1):7–13.Google Scholar
64. Hoag, H. Neuroengineering: remote control. Nature. 2003; 423: 796–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. Wickelgren, I. Neuroscience. Tapping the mind. Science. 2003; 299:496–9.Google Scholar
66. Snyder, AW, Mulcahy, E, Taylor, JL, Micthell, JD, Sachdev, P, Gandevia, SC. Savant like skills exposed in normal people by suppressing the left fronto-temporal lobe. J Integr Neurosci. 2003; 22:149–58.Google Scholar
67. Carey, B. Implantable device for depression. The New York Times, May 21, 2005:A1.Google Scholar
68. Hauser, SL. The shape of things to come. Neurology. 2004; 63:948–50.Google Scholar
69. Flower, R. Lifestyle drugs: pharmacology and the social agenda. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2004; 25:182–5.Google Scholar
70. Allen, DB, Fost, N. hGH for short stature: ethical issues raised by expanded access. The J Pediatr. 2004; 144:648–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71. Gostin, LO. Ethical considerations of psychosurgery: the unhappy legacy of the prefrontal lobotomy. J Med Ethics. 1980; 6:149–56.Google Scholar
72. Diefenbach, GJ, Diefenbach, D, Baumeister, A, West, M. Portrayal of lobotomy in the popular press: 1935-1960. J Hist Neurosci. 1999; 8:60–9.Google Scholar
73. Hagner, M, Borck, C. Mindful practices: on the neurosciences in the twenthieth century. Sci Context. 2001; 14:507–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. Lanteri-Laura, G. Examen historique et critique de l’éthique en neuropsychiatrie, dans le domaine de la recherche sur le cerveau et les thérapies. In: Huber, G, editor. Cerveau et psychisme humains: quelle éthique? Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 1996: p. 63–82.Google Scholar
75. Borck, C. Electricity as a medium of psychic life: Electro-technological adventures into psychodiagnosis in Weimar Germany. Sci Context. 2001; 14:565–90.Google Scholar
76. Rauscher, FH, Shaw, GL, Ky, KN. Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: towards a neurophysiological basis. Neurosci Lett. 1995; 185:44–7.Google Scholar
77. Herculano-Houzel, S. Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscientist. 2002; 82:98–110.Google Scholar
78. Racine, E. éthique de la discussion et génomique des populations. éthique publique 2002; 41:77–90.Google Scholar
79. Tyers, M, Brown, E, Andrews, DW, Bergeron, JJ, Boone, C, Bremner, R, et al. Problems with co-funding in Canada. Science. 2005; 308:1867.Google Scholar
80. Young, SN. Universities, governments and industry: can the essential nature of universities survive the drive to commercialize? J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2005; 30:160–3.Google Scholar
81. Martinson, BC, Anderson, MS, de Vries, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005; 435:737–8.Google Scholar
82. Cho, MK, McGee, G, Magnus, D. Lessons of the stem cell scandal. Science. 2006; 311:614–5.Google Scholar
83. Merali, Z, Giles, J. Databases in peril. Nature. 2005; 435:1010–1.Google Scholar
84. Illes, J, Blakemore, C, Hansson, MG, Hensch, TK, Leshner, A, Maestro, G, et al. International perspectives on engaging the public in neuroscience. Nature Rev Neurosci. 2005; 6:977–82.Google Scholar
85. Zardetto-Smith, A, Mu, K, Phelps, CL, Houtz, LE, Royeen, CB. Brains rule! Fun = learning = neuroscience literacy. The Neuroscientist. 2002; 8:396–404.Google Scholar
86. People v. Weinstein. (591 N.Y.S. 2d 715). (Sup. Ct. 1992).Google Scholar
87. President’s Council on Bioethics. Staff working paper: an overview of the impact of neuroscience evidence in criminal law; http://www.bioethics.gov/background/neuroscience_evidence.ht ml, accessed August 18, 2005.Google Scholar
88. Shevell, MI. Neurosciences in the Third Reich: from ivory tower to death camps. Can J Neurol Sci. 1999; 26:132–8.Google Scholar
89. Smith, R. Representations of mind: C.S. Sherrington and scientific opinion, c. 1930-1950. Sci Context. 2001; 14:511–29.Google Scholar
90. Doucet, H. Le développement des morales, des législations et des codes, garder le dialogue ouvert et la conscience inquiéte. In: Office des personnes handicappées du Québec, editor. élargir les horizons: Perspectives scientifiques sur l’intégration sociale. Sainte Foy, Québec: éditions Multimondes; 1994. p.135–41.Google Scholar