Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:53:04.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Research Ethics in Conscious Subjects: Old Questions, New Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Independent Articles: Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Vrselja, Z., Daniele, S.G., Silbereis, J., et al., “Restoration of Brain Circulation and Cellular Functions Hours Post-Mortem,” Nature 568 no. 7752 (2019): 336343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, G., “‘Partly Alive’: Scientists Revive Cells in Brains From Dead Pigs,” The New York Times, April 17, 2019, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/science/brain-dead-pigs.html> (last visited November 18, 2019).Google Scholar
Declaration of Helsinki — Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (1964), available at <https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/> (last visited November 18, 2019); The Animal Welfare Act Public Law 89-544 Act of August 24, 1966, available at <https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act-public-law-89-544-act-august-24-1966> (last visited November 18, 2019); The Belmont Report (1979), available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html> (last visited November 18, 2019).+(last+visited+November+18,+2019);+The+Animal+Welfare+Act+Public+Law+89-544+Act+of+August+24,+1966,+available+at++(last+visited+November+18,+2019);+The+Belmont+Report+(1979),+available+at++(last+visited+November+18,+2019).>Google Scholar
Koplin, J.J. and Savulescu, J., “Moral Limits of Brain Organoid Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 4 (2019): 760767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simian, M. and Bissell, M.J., “Organoids: A Historical Perspective of Thinking in Three Dimensions,” The Journal of Cell Biology 216, no. 1 (2017): 3140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Lullo, E. and Kriegstein, A.R., “The Use of Brain Organ-oids to Investigate Neural Development and Disease,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18, no. 10 (2017): 573584.Google Scholar
Farahany, N. A, Greely, H.T., Hyman, S., Koch, C., Grady, C., Pa ca, S.P., Sestan, N., et al. “The Ethics of Experimenting with Human Brain Tissue,” Nature 556, no. 7702 (2018): 429432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farahany, supra note 7; Koplin, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Kant, I., Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moralsi (1785).Google Scholar
Russell, W.M.S. and Burch, R. L, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (London: Methuen, 1959).Google Scholar
Faden, R.R. and Beauchamp, T. L, A History and Theory of Informed Consent (Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L and DeGrazia, D., Principles of Animal Research Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Owen, A.M., et al. “Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State,” Science 313, no. 5792 (2006): 14021402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Espejo, D. and Owen, A.M., “Detecting Awareness after Severe Brain Injury,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, no. 11 (2013): 801809.Google Scholar
Monti, M.M. et al., “Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness,” NEJM 362 (2010): 579589.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. et al., “Assessing Decision-Making Capacity in the Behaviorally Nonresponsive Patient With Residual Covert Awareness,” AJOB Neuroscience 4, no. 4 (2013): 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fins, J.J., Illes, J., Bernat, J. L, Hirsch, J., Laureys, S., and Murphy, E., “Neuroimaging and Disorders of Consciousness: Envisioning an Ethical Research Agenda,” The American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 9 (2008): 312; Weijer, C. et al., “Ethics of Neuroimaging after Serious Brain Injury,” BMC Medical Ethics 15 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fins, J.J., “Neuroethics and Disorders of Consciousness: Discerning Brain States in Clinical Practice and Research,” AMA Journal of Ethics 18, no. 12 (2016): 11821191.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R and Dennett, D.C., The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self & Soul (New York: Basic Books, 1981).Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., and Kouider, S., “What Is Consciousness, and Could Machines Have It?” Science 358, no. 6362 (2017): 486492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bancroft, T.D., “Ethical Aspects of Computational Neuroscience,” Neuroethics 6, no. 2 (2013): 415418.Google Scholar
Amadio, J. et al., “Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives,” Neuron 100, no. 1 (2018): 1936.Google Scholar
Gunkel, D. J, Robot Rights (MIT Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, supra note 20.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Charles, L., King, J.-R., and Marti, S., “Toward a Computational Theory of Conscious Processing,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 25 (2014): 7684; Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., and Koch, C., “Integrated Information Theory: From Consciousness to Its Physical Substrate,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17, no. 7 (2016): 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavazza, A. and Massimini, M., “Cerebral Organoids: Ethical Issues and Consciousness Assessment,” Journal of Medical Ethics 44, no. 9 (2018): 606610.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.J., “Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200219.Google Scholar