1. Catherine Rhodes, Sarah Chan

2.  How workshop 2 fits into aims of the network.  To present a suggested core curriculum for neuroscience ethics education as a stimulus for discussion.  Starting point rather than finished product  Expectation that there will be an emergent consensus from the workshop about what the core curriculum should be, including: Topics to be covered Modes of learning delivery Useful teaching tools

3.  We’ve chosen to start this process by beginning to design a course in ethics for neuroscientists, which can be developed through the workshops  Chosen modular style because: Allows selection and adaptation by end users of most relevant materials for their purposes Users can also change order of lectures to suit own needs A good way of allowing other groups to develop complementary lectures and other teaching materials that can be combined with / supplement this course Easier to adapt to different teaching formats – e.g. to develop a seminar or workshop based on a particular theme  End product a comprehensive course that can be used in various ways

4.  To: Expand knowledge, awareness, and understanding of relevant issues and analytical approaches Encourage appropriate application to practice Provide tools to consider, assess and evaluate context and implications of research Promote considered and timely responses to ethical issues and social concerns raised by advances in neuroscience Train to describe, analyse and communicate ethical and social dimensions of research, which go beyond the remit of procedural ethical reviews

5. 1. Introduction – Science Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research 2. Neuroscience of Morality and Moral Enhancement 3. Uses and Interpretation of Brain Imaging 4. Cognitive Enhancement 5. Clinical and Experimental Practice 6. Bridging Lecture – the ‘do no harm’ principle

6. Topics covered in lectures 2-5  Neuroscience of morality and moral enhancement Incorporating such issues as: what it means to be ‘moral’; whether this can be located in neurology; and, if so, whether it can be ‘improved’.  Uses and interpretation of brain imaging Covering issues related to: consciousness; privacy; use in the criminal justice system; risk of neurological reductionism; and interpretation of findings (by scientists, by policy makers, by the public / jurors).  Cognitive enhancement Covering issues relating to: definitions of normality and pathology / mental illness; unfair advantage; non-voluntary / coerced use e.g. in military and in children (link to informed consent); and gatekeeper issues e.g. who grants access and on what basis.  Clinical and experimental practice Including coverage of issues relating to: research involving human participants; use of animal models (binge-drinking in mice example); the handling of incidental findings and the right not to know; and the blurred boundary between clinicians and researchers.

7.  What is science ethics?  Elements of responsible conduct of research  Responsibilities: Individual and collective Reciprocal responsibilities of society and science Global dimensions of scientific responsibility  Codes of Ethics and Conduct Exercise analysing an existing code of ethics

8.  What science ethics involves: “As a field of inquiry, Science Ethics is concerned with the study and understanding of scientifically sound responses to matters of social and ethical importance and concern, and imperatives to direct scientific inquiry to specific research or analysis.” (iSEI working paper – Science Ethics)  Why study science ethics: Teaching ethics as ethics should enable neuroscientists to understand the issues, formulate ethical problems in a way that allows appropriate analysis and ultimately to use those to come up with consistent and justified reasons for action.

9.  Responsibilities to the scientific community in the internal conduct of research  Responsibilities to research subjects  Responsibilities to the scientific community and society in the communication and dissemination of research  Responsibilities for the external impacts of research  Responsibilities for understanding and addressing external factors that impede the ethical application of research

10.  What responsibilities does society have to science? Facilitation; funding; literacy; policy advisory role. Duty to participate?  What responsibilities does science have to society? Addressing social concerns and implications; communication and dialogue; acceptance of some limitations.  The impact of intermediaries (such as the media and policy groups) Is neuroscience being effectively communicated and accurately reported to the public? Do they have realistic views of its potential, limitations, implications and risks? And what role should scientists have in these processes?

11.  Science as a global endeavour  Implications for conceptions of the scientific community  Extent to which scientific responsibility extends to prioritising work which addresses global challenges  Issues of scientific justice and the need for cooperation and capacity-building

12.  Sources of guidance and materials: Institutional – guidance and procedures produced by your department and university Professional – standards and codes set by professional bodies for specific disciplines National non-governmental – standards and guidance produced by groups broadly representative of the scientific community National governmental guidance and rules International sources  Exercising analysing an existing code and identifying areas for improvement

13.  iSEI Working Paper – Science Ethics http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/documents/Scien ce%20Ethics_working%20paper%2026.3.12.pdf http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/documents/Scien ce%20Ethics_working%20paper%2026.3.12.pdf  On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct of Research  Verhoog, H. “The Responsibilities of Scientists”, Minerva, 19(4): 582-604.  The Royal Society’s Brainwaves Reports  Nuffield Council on Bioethics - Novel Neurotechnologies

14.  Society for Neuroscience’s Policy on Ethics  British Psychological Society’s Code of Human Research Ethics  BPS Discussion Paper – Neuroethics and the British Psychological Society Research Ethics Code  American Psychological Association – Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct  World Health Organisation’s Biorisk Management: Laboratory Biosecurity Guidance

15.  Hastings Center Report “Can research and care be ethically integrated?”, Vol.41 July-Aug 2011. “Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: In whose interests?”, Vol. 41 Mar-Apr 2011. “Brain imaging and courtroom deception”, Vol.40 Nov-Dec 2010. “In the blink of the mind’s eye”, Vol. 40 May-June 2010. “Moral distress: a growing problem in the health professions?”, Vol. 40 Jan-Feb 2010. “Medicalized weapons and modern war”, Vol. 40 Jan-Feb 2010. “Cryptic coercion”, Vol. 40 Jan-Feb 2010. “Behaviour control: from the brain to the mind”, Vol. 39 May-June 2009. “Neuroscience’s uncertain threat to criminal law”, Vol.38 Nov-Dec 2008. “Bench to bedside: mapping the moral terrain of clinical research”, Vol.38 Mar-Apr 2008. “Unscientific ethics: science and selective ethics”, Vol. 37 Jan-Feb 2007.

16. Background Materials  AJOB Neuroscience: 2012 Vol. 3 – “Neuroscience, choice and the free will debate” 2012 Vol.2 – “Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use” 2012 Vol. 1 – various articles on deep-brain stimulation 2011 Vol. 4 – target article on moral enhancement; “Brain branding: when neuroscience and commerce collide”; “Stop the blame game: scientists, journalists and neuroscience in the public realm”. 2011 Vol. 3 – special issue on free will and agency 2011 Vol. 2 – “Why neuroscience does not pose a threat to moral responsibility”; “Ethical use of neuroscience” 2011 Vol. 1 – various articles on deep-brain stimulation 2010 Vol. 4 – “To ELSI or not to ELSI: lessons for neuroethics from the HGP”; “Neuroscience and norms” 2010 Vol. 3 – “Human enhancement for the common good: using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory”; “Don’t forget memory’s costs”; “Imperfection: rights, duties and obligations”. 2010 Vol. 2 – target article “A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security” and various responses including “Misuse made plain: evaluating concerns about neuroscience in national security”; “National security neuroscience and the reverse dual-use dilemma”; “Critical perspective on dual-use technologies and a plea for responsibility in science” 2010 Vol. 1 – target articles on neuro-enhancement in young people and addiction, ethics and brain science.