In a roundtable discussion to conclude its Atlanta meeting, members of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) and the day’s invited speakers delved deeper into how to respond to President Obama’s charge to review the ethical issues associated with the conduct of neuroscience research and implications of its findings.
Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair of the Bioethics Commission, kicked off the discussion by asking for “input on what you think is the single most important issue we need to deal with, whether it be a finding or recommendation in our report.” The following are highlights from the discussion that ensued:
“One of the most important things is consent, given all of the people with a vested interest in getting on with the work and the temptation to be perfunctory about consent and voluntariness. It has to be rigorous and maybe it should be done by third parties. The other issue is the notion of harm (in neuroscience research). It should not be simply physiological harm. We should also think seriously about the potential for psychic harm.” — Robert McGinn, Ph.D., Professor of Management Science and Engineering and Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Stanford University.
“Most scientists see consideration of ethical issues in some formal sense as an impediment to their work. If you could find a way of turning that around where ethics can support their work, that is really an important thing to do. The incentives right now are misaligned.” — Herbert S. Lin, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.