Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field

Abstract

In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers. Our analysis exposes that there has been a demonstrative increase of neuroethics research while the issues addressed under this label had mostly been present before the establishment of the field. We show that the research on the ethical, legal and social aspects of neuroscience research is hardly related to neuroscience research on moral decision-making and that the academic backgrounds and affiliations of many neuroethics researchers speak for a very close entanglement of neuroscience and neuroethics. As our article suggests that after more than one decade there still is no dominant agenda for the future of neuroethics research, it calls for more reflection about the theoretical underpinnings and prospects to establish neuroethics as a marked-off research field distinct from neuroscience and the diverse branches of bioethics.

Brain Network Underlying Executive Functions in Gambling and Alcohol Use Disorders: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of fMRI Studies

“…A study used a card-guessing task [ 64 ] to observe the differences in coding on the expected value of winnings and losses, distinguishing the effects of probability and magnitude of the results: in individuals with AUD, a more pronounced neural response in the left caudate nucleus (CN) was present during the anticipation of winning and in the left CN and left putamen in relation to the magnitude of the results. A general imbalance in the conflict-monitoring brain circuitry underlying decision-making under risk has been described in AUD: specifically, patients with AUD showed enhanced anticipatory activity in neural circuitries of executive and motor control, encompassing the insula (INS), the ACC and the basal ganglia [ 58 , 65 , 66 ]. In addition, recent studies have demonstrated that the dorso lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may be particularly hyperactive in individuals with AUD during delayed and cognitively difficult decisions [ 67 ].…”

Beyond Research Ethics: Dialogues in Neuro-ICT Research

“…Neuroethics, a relatively new field of inquiry or sub-discipline (Marcus and Dana Foundation, 2002; Leefmann et al, 2016), can best be understood as an offshoot of biomedical ethics which focuses in particular on ethical issues related to the brain. It is sometimes described as consisting of two main strands: the ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics (Roskies, 2005, p. 18).…”

Neuroethik – Geschichte, Definition und Gegenstandsbereich eines neuen Wissenschaftsgebiets

“…Auch die 2013 gegründete Open Access-Online-Zeitschrift "Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics" hat noch keinen Impactfaktor. Möglicherweise ist diese Situation einer der Gründe, weshalb gemäß einer aktuellen bibliometrischen Studie Neuroethik-Aufsätze häufiger in biomedizinischen als in geistes-oder sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften erscheinen (Leefmann et al 2016). In Nordamerika existieren bereits spezielle Neuroethik-Forschungszentren oder größere Neuroethik-Forschungseinheiten, z.…”