DOCSLIB.ORG

Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative 10586 • The Journal of Neuroscience, December 12, 2018 • 38(50):10586–10588 Commentary Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative X Henry T. Greely,1 X Christine Grady,2 XKhara M. Ramos3, XWinston Chiong,4 XJames Eberwine,5 X Nita A. Farahany,6 XL. Syd M Johnson,7 Bradley T. Hyman,8 XSteven E. Hyman,9 Karen S. Rommelfanger,10 and Elba E. Serrano11 1Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, 2National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 3National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 4Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158, 5Department of Pharmacology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, 6Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, 7Department of Humanities, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931, 8Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02129, 9Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02141, 10Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, and 11Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003 Introduction posing the following Neuroethics Guid- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2091-18.2018) and Neuroscience presents important neuro- ing Principles (Table 1). likely to people and groups beyond the ethical considerations. Human neurosci- Two general points frame these princi- NIH BRAIN Initiative. ence demands focused application of the ples. First, pursuing neuroscience re- core research ethics guidelines set out in search is an ethical imperative. Brain Neuroethics Guiding Principles diseases and disorders cause immense suf- documents such as the Belmont Report. 1. Make assessing safety paramount fering and have a major economic impact Various mechanisms, including institu- Human subjects protections place the worldwide. Our ability to intervene med- tional review boards (IRBs), privacy rules, highest priority on research participant and the Food and Drug Administration, ically is hampered by limited understand- safety, including physical, psychological, regulate many aspects of neuroscience ing of brain function and of how brain and emotional consequences of research research and many articles, books, work- circuits go awry in disorders such as participation, in the short, intermediate, shops, and conferences address neuroeth- dementia, chronic pain, depression, ad- and long term. This is particularly impor- ics. (Farah, 2010; https://bioethicsarchive. diction, and autism. The NIH BRAIN Ini- tant in neuroscience research because the georgetown.edu/pcsbi/studies.html; http:// tiative focuses on developing new tools complexity of the human brain lends un- www.neuroethicssociety.org/annual- and neurotechnologies to transform un- predictability to outcomes of intervention meeting). However, responsible neurosci- derstanding of brain function in health and may heighten the likelihood and ence research requires continual dialogue and disease. That knowledge is critical to potential severity of unexpected conse- among neuroscience researchers, ethicists, enabling novel therapies for brain disor- quences, including those emerging at later philosophers, lawyers, and other stakehold- ders and thus is ethically compelled. times because of the brain’s plasticity. ers to help assess its ethical, legal, and Second, neuroethics is vital to neuro- Safety also is crucial when implementing societal implications. The Neuroethics science research. The consideration of interventions for widespread clinical use Working Group of the National Institutes ethical, legal, and societal implications of in treating brain diseases and disorders. of Health (NIH) Brain Research through neuroscience research facilitates prog- Safety can never be guaranteed, but risks Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies ress in neuroscience and helps to ensure must be rigorously assessed and carefully (BRAIN) Initiative, a group of experts pro- that neuroscientific advancements sup- weighed against likely benefits in both re- viding neuroethics input to the NIH BRAIN port human well-being. Integrating neu- search and treatment. The development Initiative Multi-Council Working Group, roethics into the NIH BRAIN Initiative of safe interventions depends on robust seeks to promote this dialogue by pro- serves the interests of all involved stake- experimental design throughout the re- holders. Success requires collaborative in- search pipeline, including adherence to put from many disciplines, including the highest standards for rigor and repro- neuroscience, medicine, bioethics, philos- ducibility. Early-stage research with non- Received Aug. 13, 2018; revised Oct. 5, 2018; accepted Oct. 16, 2018. ophy, law, and others. human model systems must be carefully We thank Dr. Walter Koroshetz and Dr. Joshua Gordon for their support of this effort and the many BRAIN Initiative-affiliated investigators and We intend these principles to serve designed to identify potential limitations staff who provided helpful input as these principles were developed. as points to consider for researchers, during translational phases of research. The authors declare no competing financial interests. IRBs, and others involved in the con- For example, new methods of neuro- Correspondence should be addressed to: Henry T. Greely; Stanford Law duct of BRAIN-funded research. They modulation (invasive or otherwise) may School, Stanford University, Neukom Building, Room N361, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: [email protected]. also may be useful to NIH leadership create unanticipated interactions and re- https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2077-18.2018 and advisory groups when considering fu- verberating consequences. New gene- Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/3810586-03$15.00/0 ture research directions (http://doi.org/ editing technologies such as CRISPR/ Greely et al. •Neuroethics Guiding Principles J. Neurosci., December 12, 2018 • 38(50):10586–10588 • 10587 Table 1. Neuroethics Guiding Principles conditions may actively seek such altera- MRI, might be able to determine whether 1. Make assessing safety paramount tions to enhance their agency or restore the individual was in the database and, if 2. Anticipate special issues related to capacity, autonomy, capacities. Researchers may find them- so, obtain personal information about and agency selves in the paradoxical position of seek- him or her from the “de-identified” 3. Protect the privacy and confidentiality of neural data ing informed consent from participants database. 4. Attend to possible malign uses of neuroscience tools and while at the same time manipulating neu- It is important that researchers and neurotechnologies ral processes necessary for consent capac- policymakers find ways to manage these 5. Move neuroscience tools and neurotechnologies into ity and autonomous choice. For example, problems. Research participants’ confi- medical or nonmedical uses with caution brain stimulation paradigms may target dentiality cannot be guaranteed both be- 6. Identify and address specific concerns of the public circuits involved in reward processing and cause of the risks of unauthorized release about the brain 7. Encourage public education and dialogue motivation. Given our limited under- of identified data through hacking and the 8. Behave justly and share the benefits of neuroscience standing of whether excessive stimulation possibilities of re-identification. Research research and resulting technologies might undermine patient participants’ fu- participants must be given clear informa- ture decision making, how much control tion about these issues and an honest regarding stimulation parameters should chance to decide whether to accept the CAS, while offering hope for mitigating or go to participants in alignment with their risks. eliminating brain disorders, are still in autonomy interests rather than to re- their infancy and carry potential for off- searchers? Researchers should be particu- 4. Attend to possible malign uses of target effects. It is essential to attend to larly cautious to preserve and monitor neuroscience tools safety data from preclinical studies and to research participants’ ability to consent, and neurotechnologies monitor safety throughout research when including consent to continued participa- Novel tools and technologies, including evaluating such innovative approaches for tion in research. neurotechnologies, can be used both for potential efficacy in humans. Research Providing participants with accurate, good ends and bad. Researchers should be participants must be thoroughly informed easy to understand, and evidence-based mindful of possible misuses that might of potential risks and benefits, as well as the information about potential risks and range from intrusive surveillance of brain possibility of unexpected safety issues. benefits will promote well informed deci- states to efforts to incapacitate or imper- sions about participation in neuroscience missibly alter a person’s behavior. Re- 2. Anticipate special issues related to research (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ searchers have a responsibility to try to capacity, autonomy, and agency scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch. predict plausible misuses and ensure that Contemporary neuroscience research may cfm?frϭ50.25). Care must be taken to foreseeable risks are understood,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Creation of Neuroscience
    The Creation of Neuroscience The Society for Neuroscience and the Quest for Disciplinary Unity 1969-1995 Introduction rom the molecular biology of a single neuron to the breathtakingly complex circuitry of the entire human nervous system, our understanding of the brain and how it works has undergone radical F changes over the past century. These advances have brought us tantalizingly closer to genu- inely mechanistic and scientifically rigorous explanations of how the brain’s roughly 100 billion neurons, interacting through trillions of synaptic connections, function both as single units and as larger ensem- bles. The professional field of neuroscience, in keeping pace with these important scientific develop- ments, has dramatically reshaped the organization of biological sciences across the globe over the last 50 years. Much like physics during its dominant era in the 1950s and 1960s, neuroscience has become the leading scientific discipline with regard to funding, numbers of scientists, and numbers of trainees. Furthermore, neuroscience as fact, explanation, and myth has just as dramatically redrawn our cultural landscape and redefined how Western popular culture understands who we are as individuals. In the 1950s, especially in the United States, Freud and his successors stood at the center of all cultural expla- nations for psychological suffering. In the new millennium, we perceive such suffering as erupting no longer from a repressed unconscious but, instead, from a pathophysiology rooted in and caused by brain abnormalities and dysfunctions. Indeed, the normal as well as the pathological have become thoroughly neurobiological in the last several decades. In the process, entirely new vistas have opened up in fields ranging from neuroeconomics and neurophilosophy to consumer products, as exemplified by an entire line of soft drinks advertised as offering “neuro” benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • BRAIN Neuroethics Working Group Meeting
    Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Neuroethics Working Group (NEWG) Meeting January 26th, 2021 On January 26th, 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative Neuroethics Working Group (NEWG) met virtually to discuss emerging ethics themes in the BRAIN portfolio and potential future workshop topics, and revisited neuroethics themes in the BRAIN 2.0 reports. In opening remarks, John Ngai, PhD, Director of the NIH BRAIN Initiative, emphasized the importance of continuing to work towards equity, in general and in the neuroethics space. He also reminded participants of the joint session with the Multi-Council Working Group (MCWG) and NEWG, which took place the following day. Next, Saskia Hendriks, MD, PhD, Faculty in the NIH Bioethics Department and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Neuroethics Consultant, presented key findings from an analysis on emerging neuroethical considerations in BRAIN grants awarded during fiscal year 2020. Dr. Hendriks summarized 12 themes identified by the analysis, which fell into two broad groups of potential ethical challenges: conducting research ethically; and the implications of research, tools, and technologies on individuals, groups, and society. The NEWG valued these findings, recognizing that the themes were consistent with concurrent discussions of neuroethics priorities for BRAIN. Participants also considered increasing funding opportunity outreach efforts to neuroscientists interested in partnering with neuroethicists. Further, the group acknowledged the need to raise awareness about the value of integrating neuroethics into neuroscience research, potentially by hosting a workshop on identifying ways to facilitate this integration. Henry (Hank) T. Greely, JD, Director of Law and Biosciences at Stanford University and co-chair of the NEWG, led a discussion on potential future NEWG workshop topics for the next phase of the NIH BRAIN Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Neuroethics? Empirical and Theoretical Neuroethics Georg Northoff
    CE: Namrta; YCO/200430; Total nos of Pages: 5; YCO 200430 What is neuroethics? Empirical and theoretical neuroethics Georg Northoff Canada Research Chair for Mind, Brain and Purpose of review Neuroethics, Michael Smith Chair for Neuroscience and Mental Health, Institute of Mental Health Neuroethics is a recently emerging field that deals with predominantly empirical Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, and practical issues of ethics in neuroscience. In contrast, theoretical and Canada methodological considerations have rather been neglected and thus what may be Correspondence to Georg Northoff, Institute of Mental called theoretical neuroethics. Health Research University of Ottawa, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1Z 7K4, Canada Recent findings Tel: +1 613 722 6521; fax: +1 613 798 2982; The review focuses on informed consent and moral judgment as examples of empirical e-mail: [email protected] neuroethics and norm–fact circularity and method-based neuroethics as issues Current Opinion in Psychiatry 2009, 22:000–000 of a theoretical neuroethics. Summary It is argued that we need to consider theoretical and methodological issues in order to develop neuroethics as a distinct discipline, which as such can be distinguished from both philosophy/ethics and neuroscience. Keywords informed consent, method-based neuroethics, moral judgment, norm–fact circularity Curr Opin Psychiatry 22:000–000 ß 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 0951-7367 about moral judgment. What is a moral judgment and Introduction how does it affect our ethical decisions in the current Therecentprogressinneurosciencehasledtoethical neuroscience? The question about the nature of moral questions concerning the emergence of a novel field, judgment has triggered many neuroscientific investi- neuroethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Obama Administration Proposes Over $434 Million in Funding for the BRAIN Initiative
    Obama Administration Proposes Over $434 Million in Funding for the BRAIN Initiative “Last year, I launched the BRAIN Initiative to help unlock the mysteries of the brain, to improve our treatment of conditions like Alzheimer’s and autism and to deepen our understanding of how we think, learn and remember. I’m pleased to announce new steps that my Administration is taking to support this critical research, and I’m heartened to see so many private, philanthropic, and academic institutions joining this effort.” - President Barack Obama September 2014 Since its launch in April 2013, the President’s BRAIN Initiative® - Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies – has grown to include investments from five Federal agencies: the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Federal agencies are supporting the initiative by investing in promising research projects aimed at revolutionizing our understanding of the human brain, developing novel technologies, and supporting further research and development in neurotechnology. The President’s 2017 Budget also proposes funding for the Department of Energy (DOE) to join DARPA, NIH, NSF, IARPA, and FDA in advancing the goals of the BRAIN Initiative. Major foundations, private research institutions, and companies including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Kavli Foundation, the Simons Foundation, GE, GlaxoSmithKline, as well as patient advocacy organizations and universities, have committed over $500 million to the BRAIN Initiative. There are many opportunities for others across sectors to play a role in this historic initiative through new and expanded commitments to advance the BRAIN Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • One Page BRAIN Initiative Overview 2018
    ® The BRAIN Initiative Over the past 25 years, the burden of At a glance... neurological disorders has increased sub- stantially. This increase, combined with the Launched in 2013, the NIH BRAIN Initia- growing burden of mental and substance tive is revealing how the brain works, by use disorders, reinforces the need for new developing and applying tools to precise- ways to intervene and deepen our ly map and observe brain circuits. st knowledge of the brain. The 21 Century Cures Act provides NIH Not enough is known about the billions of BRAIN Initiative funding through 2026. brain cells—that communicate via trillions NIH has invested over $950 million in the of synapses to make up the circuitry—that BRAIN Initiative, supporting over 550 enable us to perceive, think, feel, and act. new awards. The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN)® Ten NIH Institutes and Centers partici- Initiativewww.braininitiative.org ( ) sup- pate in the NIH BRAIN Initiative. ports research to develop and use extra- The BRAIN Initiative Alliance communi- ordinary new technologies that will revolu- cates BRAIN Initiative activities of Federal tionize our understanding of the brain. agencies and private organizations. 12-Year Scientific Vision • Seven priority areas outline the Initiative: • The BRAIN Multi-Council Working Group (MCWG) helps NIH to track the Initiative and assists with Discovering diversity: Identify different brain informing Advisory Councils of the Institutes and cell types and determine their roles in health Centers that contribute to the NIH BRAIN Initiative. and disease. • The BRAIN Neuroethics Working Group (NEWG) Maps at multiple scales: Generate circuit considers ethical implications arising from the diagrams that vary in resolution from synapses development and use of BRAIN neurotechnologies to the whole brain.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDERSTANDING the BRAIN (Utb) $143,930,000 +$37,490,000 / 35.2%
    UNDERSTANDING THE BRAIN (UtB) $143,930,000 +$37,490,000 / 35.2% Overview Understanding the Brain (UtB) is a multi-year effort that continues the previously titled “Cognitive Science and Neuroscience” activity and that includes NSF’s participation in the Administration’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. For over three decades, NSF has supported fundamental brain research from molecules to cognition and behavior, and enabled technology development, through many disciplinary programs spread across the Foundation. In 2012, Congress encouraged NSF to create a cross-foundation activity in Cognitive Science and Neuroscience, and also encouraged the White House to form an Interagency Working Group on Neuroscience (IWGN) under the National Science and Technology Council, which is co-chaired by NSF. In FY 2013, the President announced the multi-agency BRAIN Initiative, with NSF as one of the lead participating agencies. The Understanding the Brain activity draws together and consolidates NSF’s ongoing activities in Cognitive Science and Neuroscience and the BRAIN Initiative. With UtB, NSF aims to leverage its existing investments and foster greater collaboration among these research and technology disciplines to accelerate fundamental discoveries in neuroscience, cognitive science, and neuroengineering. Understanding the brain is one of the grand scientific challenges at the intersection of the physical, life, behavioral, and engineering sciences. The National Research Council report, “Research at the Intersection of the Physical and Life Sciences” (2010), identified “Understanding the Brain” as one of the top five grand challenges for research that will significantly benefit society. The National Academy of Engineering has also recognized “Reverse-Engineering the Brain” as a Grand Challenge for Engineering (2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Neuroethics: an Overview
    1 Neuroethics: An Overview Chemists can tell us how molecules interact and change according to general principles rooted in physics. No surprise there—the relation be- tween chemistry and physics is a textbook example of intertheoretic re- duction in the philosophy of science. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, biologists began to explain the functions of cells in terms of the molecules that make them up. This has been worked out in detail for many cellular functions and in gist for the rest. Even those special cells called neurons, with their special tricks of signaling and changing con- nections to one another, are being explained in terms of more fundamen- tal physical and chemical processes. While cellular neuroscientists are steadily filling in our understanding of what neurons do and the molecular machinery by which they do it, systems neuroscientists armed with computational models are showing us how groups of these cells in combinations can do even more tricks. The behavior of large ensembles of neurons can, in turn, be studied by neuroscientists and psychologists by putting people in scanners, stimulat- ing specific brain areas, or observing the effects of brain lesions. Percep- tion, memory, decision making, and many other mental functions have been associated with the activity of specific sets of localized populations of neurons. At this relatively molar level of description, the brain’s oper- ations can be linked upwards to psychology as well as downwards to biology. It is here, at this juncture between psychology and the natural sciences, that neuroethics comes in. In principle, and increasingly in practice, we can understand the human mind as part of the material world.
    [Show full text]
  • Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Kevin J. Rutherford Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Director (Jason Palmeri) Reader (Michele Simmons) Reader (Heidi McKee) Reader (Kate Ronald) Graduate School Representative (Bo Brinkman) ABSTRACT PACK YOUR THINGS AND GO: BRINGING OBJECTS TO THE FORE IN RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION by Kevin J. Rutherford This dissertation project focuses on object-oriented rhetoric (OOR), a perspective that questions the traditional notions of rhetorical action as solely a human province. The project makes three major, interrelated claims: that OOR provides a unique and productive methodology to examine the inclusion of the non-human in rhetorical study; that to some extent, rhetoric has always been interested in the way nonhuman objects interact with humans; and that these claims have profound implications for our activities as teachers and scholars. Chapter one situates OOR within current scholarship in composition and rhetoric, arguing that it can serve as a useful methodology for the field despite rhetoric’s traditional focus on epistemology and human symbolic action. Chapter two examines rhetorical history to demonstrate that a view of rhetoric that includes nonhuman actors is not new, but has often been marginalized. Chapter three examines two videogames as sites of theory and practice for object-oriented rhetoric, specifically focusing on a sense of metaphor to understand the experience of nonhuman rhetors. Chapter four interrogates the network surrounding a review aggregation website to argue that, while some nonhumans may be unhelpful rhetorical collaborators, OOR can assist us in improving relationships with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience. Nature
    commentary Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience Martha J. Farah There is growing public awareness of the ethical issues raised by progress in many areas of neuroscience. This commentary reviews the issues, which are triaged in terms of their novelty and their imminence, with an exploration of the relevant ethical principles in each case. In less than a year, “neuroethics” has ical issues raised are similarly varied, and the possibility of safe mood enhancement. joined the vocabulary of most neurosci- include the rights to equal opportunity, The growth in sales of SSRIs clearly indi- entists. Exactly what the word signifies privacy and freedom. cates that more people, with less severe may not be clear to most of us, however. depression, are using them. Has the Both the word and the field to which it Enhancement of normal function threshold for SSRI use dropped below the refers come largely from individuals out- If drugs and other forms of central ner- line separating the healthy from the sick? side neuroscience. Newspaper columnist vous system intervention can be used to This question is hard to answer for sever- William Safire gave the field its name, and improve the mood, cognition or behavior al reasons. First, the line between healthy http://www.nature.com/natureneuroscience defining statements of the issues are found of people with problems in these areas, and sick is a fuzzy and perhaps arbitrary in such sources as Brain Policy1 by bioethi- what might they do for normal individu- one. There is no simple discontinuity cist Robert Blank, Our Posthuman Future2 als? Some treatments can be viewed as between the characteristic mood of by historian Francis Fukuyama and a ‘normalizers’, which have little or no effect patients with diagnosable mood disorders cover story in The Economist magazine on systems that are already normal (for and the range of moods found in the gen- (May 23, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Program for Neuroethics & Clinical Consciousness
    John J. Lynch, MD Center for Ethics MedStar Washington Hospital Center Program for Neuroethics & Clinical Consciousness The John J. Lynch, MD Center for Ethics at MedStar Washington Hospital Center introduces a research program devoted to the intersections of philosophy, neuroscience, empirical psychology, and clinical neurology. The Program for Neuroethics and Clinical Consciousness (PNCC) serves as a special research unit of the Lynch Center, contributing to relevant policy and practice, such as institutional criteria for brain death, improved evaluations of decision-making capacity in disorders of consciousness, and specialized analyses of clinical cases involving neurointensive care. In addition, the PNCC invites scholars of relevant disciplinary backgrounds and at various degrees of study, to collaborate in investigating the ontological and normative clinical implications of ongoing advances within these fields. Examples of questions and subjects involving PNCC research: • How cognitive scientific (computational-representational) views of consciousness and empirical psychology can contribute to our understanding of morality and ethical decision-making • The determination of death via clinical criteria for total brain failure and the conceptual/physiological distinction between higher- and lower-level neurologic function • The use of fMRI and EEG technologies in the clinical confirmation and subsequent treatment of disorders of consciousness • Improving the timely diagnosis, capacity assessment, and quality of life of patients experiencing
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Report BRAIN INITIATIVE
    Mission-oriented R&I policies: In-depth case studies Case Study Report BRAIN INITIATIVE (US) Eva Arrilucea, Hanna Kuittinen February 2018 Case Study Report: Brain Initiative (United States) European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination Unit A.6 — Open Data Policy and Science Cloud Contact Arnold Weiszenbacher E-mail [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Manuscript completed in February 2018. This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 PDF ISBN 978-92-79-80162-4 doi:10.2777/1986 KI-01-18-153-EN-N © European Union, 2018. Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Brain Initiative 2 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Mission-oriented R&I policies: In-depth case studies Case Study Report Brain Initiative (United States) Eva Arrilucea Hanna Kuittinen A Study coordinated by the Joint Institute for Innovation Policy February 2018 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Table of Contents 1 Summary of the case study ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Announcements | Annonces Annonces
    Prepared by the Neuroethics research unit at the IRCM Préparé par l’unité de recherche en neuroéthique Literature Update - April 15th 2016/15 avril 2016 de l’IRCM B r a i n s t o r m Vol. 9 No. 7 Inside this i s s u e : Announcements 1 Announcements | Annonces Annonces Competition – Visiting Scholar in Neuroethics 2016-2017 Neuroethics 2 literature Neuroethics Research Unit – Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, IRCM Littérature en neuroéthique This program aims to provide early-career and established researchers from any disciplinary background with the opportunity to engage in neuroethics research within a dynamic environ- Resources 4 ment. Applicants will submit proposals for a research project to be completed during a one- to Ressources two-month stay with the Neuroethics Research Unit of the IRCM in Montréal, Canada. Competition Details We are seeking applications from both national and international scholars (advanced graduate students or those with a professional or doctoral degree) who have a strong interest in under- taking research in neuroethics. While no formal neuroethics experience is required, applicants must propose a research project that can make an original contribution to the field. All visiting scholars must be able to work on their research with minimal supervision and priority will be given to candidates who demonstrate an interest in building a collaborative project with mem- bers of the Neuroethics Research Unit. Visiting scholars will have their return travel to Montreal covered (up to $1500 CAD) and will receive a taxable stipend of $750-1500 CAD. Scholars are asked to propose an appropriate E d i t o r i a l length of stay (1 to 2 months).
    [Show full text]