“Trust in Neuroethics”

Dubljević and colleagues (2021) argue that neuroethics has a socio-political role that can “1) serve to clarify and resolve conflicts, 2) orient the public with regards to the moral status of neurotechnology, 3) reconcile the public with the reasonable neurotechnological changes (for the public benefit), and 4) probe the limits of practical social and neurotechnological possibilities” (1–2). The authors argue that “[n]euroethics should serve as a ‘reality check’ in public discussion and be able to provide criteria for policy makers and the public to discriminate between technologies that produce ethical challenges within research itself from those that might entail subsequent (mis)use in society at large” (8). Our discussion will focus on how the neuroethics community can work to contribute responsible ethical analyses for public discussion, while also gaining the public’s trust.

Expertise & Distrust

In order for neuroethicists to effectively and responsibly contribute to public discussion and policy, they would first need to accurately assess the capacities, limitations, and potential of the neuroscientific developments in question. However, many neuroethicists do not have the relevant scientific background to make first-hand assessments about new or novel neuroscientific findings. Ordinarily, when lay people defer to experts, they are dependent on them regarding matters they did not research themselves. Many neuroethicists though do not conduct lab research, so public communities could not be dependent on them for technical understanding. When there is a development in neuroscience or neurotechnology, the media may call upon neuroethicists to talk about the potential ethical and societal implications, but they also reach out to scientists and clinicians that were not related to the study on which they are reporting to discuss feasibility. This makes sense because scientists and clinicians are in a better position to assess the “technical feasibility” of developments because they have the relevant technical training. However, as we (Zuk and Lázaro-Muñoz 2019) and others (Parens and Johnson 2007) have argued, neuroethicists sometimes do not do a very good job of accurately assessing the neuroscientific developments from a technical standpoint. This can lead to ungrounded ethical analysis, over-hyped public discussion, and potentially harmful policy solutions, all of which can breed public mistrust in neuroethics. Why then should public communities rely on neuroethicists to conduct this ‘reality check’ for neuroscientific findings, many of whom are not scientific experts?

In addition, neuroethicists need to earn the trust of diverse lay public communities (henceforth, public communities). It is an empirical question whether public communities trust neuroethicists, but if we look to some prominent public controversies involving science and public policy, there is evidence suggesting that experts and academics alike are not trusted by some public communities. For example, even though MMR vaccines are safe, the false claim that it causes autism in children continues to circulate (Hotez 2018). And more recently, despite there being strong evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, conspiracy theories such as the claim that they are used to inject tracking chips into recipients’ arms or that they are wholly unsafe still surface frequently (Goodman and Carmichael 2020). In short, misinformation about scientific research that impacts public policy proliferates. Without earning trustworthy relationships with public communities, it’s unclear whether and how much these communities would take up analyses offered by neuroethicists. This is not to say that they won’t, but rather to suggest that it may be a challenge given the spread of misinformation, as well as evidence of distrust between lay public and expert communities.

Promoting Trust Through Engaged Research

Given some of the challenges related to technical expertise and trust for neuroethicists to carry out the socio-political role, in the remainder of this discussion we would like to discuss how some current work in neuroethics can be used to help allay these challenges. There has been a emerging body of research that pays attention to the perspectives of relevant stakeholders, including researchers (Muñoz et al 2020), research participants (Wexler et al 2021), end users (Lázaro-Muñoz et al 2017), and the general public (Sample et al 2019). Much of this work is highly collaborative, incorporating a diverse set of skills and expertise, including relevant scientists and clinicians, offering more informed and nuanced analyses. One way to build trustworthy relations with public communities is perhaps to highlight the strengths of this engaged research by neuroethicists. More specifically, this work demonstrates good-faith efforts by neuroethicists to engage and collaborate not only with relevant technical experts but also historically underrepresented or marginalized communities who are the potential beneficiaries or current end users of this research. Under this approach, neuroethicists conduct informed ethical analyses of neuroscientific developments in part by giving uptake to relevant stakeholder perspectives. Moreover, any contributions to policy solutions will more effectively address, or at least minimize, the relevant ethical concerns of stakeholders (e.g., potential beneficiaries or end users).

As this this type of engaged research grows, it can serve as a track record indicating that the community values diverse perspectives, including underrepresented communities, beyond mere displays of tokenism. Neuroethicists are not only actively considering a diversity of relevant perspectives but also incorporating them into research design and practice. Public communities might then be inclined to rely on neuroethicists to provide a ‘reality check’ regarding ethical issues related to neuroscientific findings because of their collaborative, inclusive, and informed approach to neuroethics.

Relatedly, neuroethicists might work to mitigate concerns about misinformation by conducting more studies that better understand the different perspectives of public communities (see MacDuffie et al 2021). Going forward, neuroethicists ought to consider approaches that go beyond consultative engagement models and directly partner with leaders of public communities, especially underrepresented communities, to better understand and more robustly incorporate their perspectives into research.

Concluding Remarks

Dubljević et al’s proposal of the socio-political role offers a unique take on the responsibility neuroethicists ought to have to diverse public communities, a topic that has received relatively little attention. Ideally, scientists and neuroethicists should work together to ensure accuracy when discussing the science, as well as credible examination of ethical and social implications of research. Reaching out to relevant scientists or developers, as well as the communities that will be impacted by neuroscience developments is one optimal way to build public trust in neuroethics. Our message, in short, is that we need to find ways to build trustworthy relations with the public to have any sort of meaningful impact on public discourse. In addition, when we are asked about or write about ethical and social implications of a neuroscience development or neurotechnology, there is, or should be, an implicit ‘reality check’ based on an accurate assessment of the capacities and limitations of findings or technology. Unfortunately, that is not always what we do, and collectively we should do a better job of managing this.