Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials
We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called “moral entanglement.” Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intim...
| Autores principales: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2024
|
| En: |
The Hastings Center report
Año: 2024, Volumen: 54, Número: 1, Páginas: 24-33 |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
neurotechnology
B moral entanglement B post-trial obligation B Dependence B Risk B Vulnerability B neural device B research ethics |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Sumario: | We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called “moral entanglement.” Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context through exploration of participants’ vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1552-146X |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Hastings Center, The Hastings Center report
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1002/hast.1566 |