AJOB Neuroscience最新文献

The recent emergence of reprogramming technologies to convert brain cell types or epigenetically alter neurons and neural progenitors in vivo and in situ hold significant promises in brain repair and neuronal aging reversal. However, given the significant epigenetic and transcriptomic changes to components of the existing neuronal cells and network, we question if these reprogramming technology might inadvertently alter or erase memory engrams, conceivably resulting in changes in narrative identity or personality. We suggest that the nature of these alterations might be less predictable compared to memory and personality changes known to be associated with diseases, drugs or brain stimulation therapies. While research in applying reprogramming technologies to neurological ailments and aging should continue, more targeted analyses should be put in place in animal experiments to gauge the severity and degree of memory alterations, and appropriate risk and benefit analyses should be conducted before these technologies move into human trials.

The potential to collect brain data more directly, with higher resolution, and in greater amounts has heightened worries about mental and brain privacy. In order to manage the risks to individuals posed by these privacy challenges, some have suggested codifying new privacy rights, including a right to "mental privacy." In this paper, we consider these arguments and conclude that while neurotechnologies do raise significant privacy concerns, such concerns are-at least for now-no different from those raised by other well-understood data collection technologies, such as gene sequencing tools and online surveillance. To better understand the privacy stakes of brain data, we suggest the use of a conceptual framework from information ethics, Helen Nissenbaum's "contextual integrity" theory. To illustrate the importance of context, we examine neurotechnologies and the information flows they produce in three familiar contexts-healthcare and medical research, criminal justice, and consumer marketing. We argue that by emphasizing what is distinct about brain privacy issues, rather than what they share with other data privacy concerns, risks weakening broader efforts to enact more robust privacy law and policy.

International institutions such as UNESCO are deliberating on a new standard setting instrument for neurotechnologies. This will likely lead to the adoption of a soft law document which will be the first global document specifically tailored to neurotechnologies, setting the tone for further international or domestic regulations. While some stakeholders have been consulted, these developments have so far evaded the broader attention of the neuroscience, neurotech, and neuroethics communities. To initiate a broader debate, this target article puts to discussion twenty-five considerations and desiderata for recognition by a future instrument. They are formulated at different levels of abstraction, from the big picture to technical details, seek to widen the perspective of preparatory reports and transcend the narrow debate about "neurorights" which overshadows many richer and more relevant aspects. These desiderata are not an exhaustive enumeration but a starting point for discussions about what deserves and what requires protection by an international instrument.

Given the past two decades of over 40 failed trials of amyloid-lowering therapies in Alzheimer's Disease (AD), many of which succeeded in lowering amyloid as designed, we present an ethical argument for emptying the drug pipeline of tests of amyloid-lowering agents so as to end the historical dominance of the amyloid-reducing therapeutic approach in AD.