Fostering the trustworthiness of researchers: SPECS and the role of ethical reflexivity in novel neurotechnology research

Abstract

The development of novel neurotechnologies, such as brain-computer interface (BCI) and deep-brain stimulation (DBS), are very promising in improving the welfare and life prospects many people. These include life-changing therapies for medical conditions and enhancements of cognitive, emotional, and moral capacities. Yet there are also numerous moral risks and uncertainties involved in developing novel neurotechnologies. For this reason, the progress of novel neurotechnology research requires that diverse publics place trust in researchers to develop neural interfaces in ways that are overall beneficial to society and responsive to ethical values and concerns. In this article, we argue that researchers and research institutions have a moral responsibility to foster and demonstrate trustworthiness with respect to broader publics whose lives will be affected by their research. Using Annette Baier’s conceptual analysis of trust, which takes competence and good will to be its central components, we propose that practices of ethical reflexivity could play a valuable role in fostering the trustworthiness of individual researchers and research institutions through building and exhibiting their moral competence and good will. By ethical reflexivity, we mean the reflective and discursive activity of articulating, analyzing, and assessing the assumptions and values that might be underlying their ethical actions and projects. Here, we share an ethics dialog tool—called the Scientific Perspectives and Ethics Commitments Survey (or SPECS)—developed by the University of Washington’s Center of Neurotechnology (CNT) Neuroethics Thrust. Ultimately, the aim is to show the promise of ethical reflexivity practices, like SPECS, as a method of enhancing trustworthiness in researchers and their institutions that seek to develop novel neurotechnologies for the overall benefit of society.

Approaches and Models for Teaching Digital Ethics in Information Systems Courses – A Review of the Literature

“…Tubig and McCusker also combined ethical reflexivity and discourse in their ethics dialogue tool -Scientific Perspectives and Ethics Commitments Survey (SPECS) (Tubig & McCusker, 2021). This involved reflection through discourse in which "discussants articulate and critically examine the values and beliefs that may be governing their group activities and the Models for Teaching Digital Ethics discretion of its members" (Tubig & McCusker, 2021, p. 150).…”

How to Publish Like Artificial Intelligence and Obey the Rules of the Game?

“…Therefore, it is common to see publications with certain authors explicitly designated as having "contributed equally" to the manuscript (Akhabue & Lautenbach, 2010: p. 2). Preventing "add my name", unconsented acknowledgements and gifted authorship require that more than one individual or one institution take responsibility for ensuring its regulation and prevention (Koljatic, 2021;Tubig & McCusker, 2021).…”