A Neuroethics Framework for the Australian Brain Initiative

Abstract

Neuroethics is central to the Australian Brain Initiative's aim to sustain a thriving and responsible neurotechnology industry. Diverse and inclusive community and stakeholder engagement and a trans-disciplinary approach to neuroethics will be key to the success of the Australian Brain Initiative. Australia has a strong history of neuroscience discovery and neurotechnology translation, which led to the launch of medical device companies including in hearing (Cochlear), vision (Bionic Eye), pain (Saluda Medical), epilepsy management (IBM Research Australia), cognitive assessment (Cogstate), and brain-computer interfaces (EMOTIV). The Australian Brain Alliance (ABA) aims to further catalyze technological and scientific advances to sustain a thriving neurotechnology environment in Australia and engage global collaboration across industry and science. Major investment in an Australian Brain Initiative is needed to coordinate and build capacity in basic neuroscience and provide discovery pipelines that will translate discovery into tangible therapeutic applications. The ABA brings together diverse strengths in Australian brain science across cellular and molecular neuroscience; neurophysiology; clinical, cognitive, and behavioral neuroscience; psychology; computational neuroscience; and neuroengineering to work with industry partners and end-users. The goals are to develop more accurate methods of brain recording and stimulation, wearable devices that capitalize on recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, and new methods for cognitive assessment and behavioral adaptation to better prevent, predict, and treat mental and neurological disorders and maximize learning across the lifespan.

Mapping out the Trajectory of Islamic Perspectives on Neuroethics

“…The emphasis on neuroethics by the Korea Brain Initiative comes alongside its priority in advancing neuroscientific research (Jeong et al 2019 ). Similar to this, in line with its developmental objectives for the neurotechnological industry, the Australian Brain Initiative regards neuroethics as vital in ensuring its success (Carter et al 2019 ).…”

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses—a systematic review

“…Several authors mentioned that neuroprostheses require proper security with regard to information privacy, encryption, and data protection (Jebari andHansson 2013, Klein 2016 ). Yet, the use of privacy protection measures should be balanced against the possible benefits of neuroprostheses (Carter et al 2019, Hendriks et al 2019.…”

“…From a more general perspective, widespread uptake of a particular neurotechnology may make it difficult for individuals to opt out (Sample et al 2019). Neuroprostheses may also undermine the user's agency (Goering and Yuste 2016, Kellmeyer et al 2016, Carter et al 2019, Jeong et al 2019, Chari et al 2021. Fifth, identity in the context of autonomy was mentioned.…”

International Regulatory Standards for the Qualitative Measurement of Deep Brain Stimulation in Clinical Research

“…There has been significant financial support by the Australian National Fabrication Facility and National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy in personalized medicine (Carter et al, 2019). While understandings of personalized medicine tend to favor oncological applications, the investment demonstrates governmental support for patient orientated and small sample medicine.…”