Noninvasive neuromodulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are well-established neuroscience research tools. Because both rely on scalp contact, some have speculated that they may not work effectively across all hair types and textures. The present study investigated the presence of phenotypic bias in these technologies by interviewing TMS (n = 22) and tDCS (n = 16) researchers about their experiences administering them. The majority (71.1%) reported encountering difficulties administering neurostimulation due to research subjects' physical features, most frequently hairstyles common among Black research subjects. Half agreed that it is more difficult to administer TMS or tDCS to individuals from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds. Among participants who did not report difficulty, advance communication and screening was the most common strategy for avoiding challenges. Our findings provide empirical support for concerns about phenotypic bias in noninvasive neuromodulation; future efforts should identify and address factors underlying these difficulties.
According to the World Health Organization, over 700,000 people die by suicide each year, accounting for 1.3% of global deaths. As neuroscience and neurotechnology increasingly shape suicide research and prevention, East Asian societies such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan-historically more permissive toward suicide-have enacted laws emphasizing multi-level psychosocial interventions. Despite advances in neuroscientific inquiry, neuroethical reflection on suicide prevention remains limited. This paper proposes a culturally grounded neuroethical framework that integrates neurorights, disability rights, and cultural perspectives. Rejecting reductionist views of suicide as mere brain dysfunction, it examines how direct and indirect brain interventions, cognitive liberty, and cultural mediation interact in shaping moral and policy responses. It argues that the suicidal brain and culture are co-produced phenomena, dynamically evolving within complex neuroethical structures that shape contemporary suicide prevention.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has increasingly been pursued as a treatment for obesity over the past couple of decades. This has occurred despite limited scientific justification or a serious ethical analysis of the concerns it raises. These interventions have relied on an "obese brain" model, which treats fatness as a neurological defect that can and should be corrected-reflecting and reinforcing stigmatizing, racialized assumptions about self-control, deviance, and bodily normalcy. To show this, we situate DBS for obesity within the broader and ethically troubling history of psychosurgery. We critique the scientific basis of the obese brain model and argue that its moral justification ultimately collapses. In this narrative framing, we argue that DBS for obesity is not a therapeutic innovation; instead it is a continuation of medicine's role in pathologizing nonconformity.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
AI chatbots are rapidly being considered and increasingly used for mental health support by professionals, patients, and others. As the utility, advantages, as well ask ethical risks of AI chatbots vary per stakeholder, we sought to explore attitudes toward the applications, benefits, concerns of, and requirements for AI chatbots use for mental health support among different key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-stakeholder qualitative survey with three groups: mental health patients (n=40), potential users (n=48), and mental health professionals (n=32). The different groups listed very similar benefits and concerns of AI chatbots use. The survey revealed unique themes such as the value of maintaining human-human interaction in therapy. Autonomy, often highlighted as a core ethical principle in AI, was not strongly emphasized by respondents. Future research should examine how users engage with AI chatbots in practice, and how guidance should be developed in response to this rapidly changing technology.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Closed-loop neurotechnologies bring great promise for treating neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in their application raises ethical concerns, since AI-driven closed-loop devices may cause unforeseen mental interference that might, absent consent, infringe the user's mental rights. Whether such worries are warranted, however, may depend on whether closed-loop neurotechnologies qualify as moral agents, and on whether they are distinct from the moral agent on whose brain they act. If they are not moral agents, or are not separate moral agents, they will arguably be incapable of infringing the user's mental rights. In this article, we explore different possible agential relationships between the human user and closed-loop neurotechnologies and consider the implications for the protection that our mental rights provide.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Neurotechnology is a rapidly growing area in medicine. New neurotechnologies are often developed through partnerships between industry and academia (i.e., "IA partnerships"). These partnerships face ethical challenges due to differing goals and priorities among stakeholders (e.g. scientific vs. fiduciary obligations). We interviewed neuroethicists (N = 15) to understand their perspectives on prominent ethical issues and potential solutions. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed 12 themes. These themes included the potential for industry to unduly influence research, increasing communication among stakeholders, needing clearer and more transparent data management practices, prioritizing patients and involving them in device development, protecting scientific integrity and institutional reputation, enhancing informed consent, recognizing the unique challenges posed by neurotechnology, considering both short- and long-term impacts of neurotechnology, and increasing oversight of IA partnerships. Future research should explore how best to address these challenges through new policies, practices, regulations, and patient education.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）