The blog of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

Deliberation and Bioethics Education: A Case Study of Public Health Emergency Response

This morning, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) turned its attention to its next report topic: deliberation and bioethics education.  The Bioethics Commission advises President Obama and his administration on issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology and, in so doing, educates the nation on bioethical issues.  This new project will focus on the symbiotic relationship between deliberation and education as twin pillars of public bioethics.  Education is required for informed deliberation, and deliberation enhances education at all levels.

The Bioethics Commission dove into its new project this morning with back-to-back sessions examining a case study in public health emergency response. Guest speakers Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), andLawrence O. Gostin, J.D., LL.D., university professor and director of Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law and director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights,  brought up compelling ethical topics related to the timely debate of restriction of movement provisions in response to an epidemic.

“There are very few examples that are stronger than a global public health crisis to focus our minds and drive home the importance of public education and proactive deliberation,” explained Bioethics Commission Chair Amy Gutmann, Ph.D.

Gostin launched the discussion by describing the various sets of ethical standards that should come into play as issues like quarantine and restriction of movement are considered.  Quarantine and restriction of movement is just one of the difficult ethical issues that have been brought up by the current Ebola virus disease outbreak in several western African countries.

In particular, Gostin cautioned against blanket quarantines. “When we think carefully, we should use good science and good constitutional law, both of which would require an individualized assessment of risk before limiting individual liberty,” he said.

Gostin also stressed the importance of public trust to effective public health enforcement.  “Whatever decisions policymakers make, they need to be made in partnership and shared understanding with those who are most affected,” Gostin said. “If AIDS taught us anything, it taught us that the first response is social mobilization.”

Next, Fauci discussed how science should inform ethical guidance for public health decision-makers managing Ebola in the United States.  Fauci has played a leading role in the national response to Ebola. He has testified before Congress and has been interviewed by national news media on the importance of a science-based approach to containing the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and minimizing risk in the United States.

Fauci also helped care for a Dallas area nurse who was infected with Ebola while caring for a patient with Ebola.  This involvement, he said, puts him at low risk for infection, and, in some states, would mean that he would be quarantined. He cited a recent public health conference in New Orleans that banned participation of health care workers who had traveled to West Africa – “and those are the very people you want there.”

Blanket quarantines, he said, are not based on scientific evidence, but arise from a desire to assuage public fear.  The real danger, he added, is that blanket quarantines and restrictions can undermine efforts needed to contain outbreaks such as Ebola because they discourage health care workers from providing care to those who are infected.

What’s most needed, Fauci said, is public education.  He contrasted the public response to the early days of the AIDS epidemic with the current reaction to Ebola.  In AIDS, “we had a growing, insidious epidemic and very few people were paying attention to it.  Here we have two cases, and we have mobilized everyone, including the President of the United States.”  He added, “The lesson learned is you’ve got to keep educating the public over and over again.”

Following the case study discussions, the Bioethics Commission went on to broaden its discussion to the goals and contributions of deliberation and bioethics education generally.

Share this article

Live from Salt Lake City

Welcome back to live blog coverage of the nineteenth public meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission).  The Bioethics Commission is meeting in Salt Lake City today, November 6, 2014, from 9 a.m. to noon MT.

Yesterday, the Bioethics Commission continued its review of ethical issues associated with neuroscience research and application and began deliberating on recommendations in response to President Obama’s request regarding the BRAIN Initiative.  Today the Bioethics Commission will begin discussing its new project – deliberation and bioethics education.

The Bioethics Commission will hear from two panels this morning.  For the first panel, guest speakers Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., of the National lnstitutes of Health and Lawrence O. Gostin of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights will present on a case study of public health emergency response.  The second panel will provide an overview of deliberation and bioethics education, with remarks by Daniel Levin, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at the University of Utah; Diane E. Hess, Ph.D., professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Lisa Lehmann, M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc., director of the Center for Bioethics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

You can follow the proceedings of the Bioethics Commission’s meeting here at this blog, and on the live webcast of the Bioethics Commission’s website.  The webcast and meeting transcripts will be archived and available following the meeting at www.bioethics.gov.

Share this article

Bioethics Commission Discusses Law and Neuroscience

This afternoon, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) turned its attention to law and neuroscience as part of its deliberations on potential recommendations related to neuroscience that it may offer to the President.

Bioethics Commission Chair Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., began by focusing discussion questions around whether and how to use neuroscience technologies in the courtroom.

“What can neuroscience in its current capacity tell us about whether any individual is legally blameworthy for his or her actions?” Gutmann asked. “What is the potential for neuroscience to answer this question? What can it tell us about moral responsibility and blameworthiness, as distinct from legal responsibility and blameworthiness?”

Commission Member Nita A. Farahany, J.D., Ph.D., framed the discussion by noting the different legal contexts in which neuroscience research is being cited. For example, lawyers are bringing neuroscience research into the courtroom to substantiate claims about defendants’ competency to stand trial, as well as to challenge traditional notions about what a mental state is and how it should be measured. Neuroscience has also come up in sentencing as a way of determining the degree to which a person is morally responsible because of diminished capacity, and whether sentencing for such an individual should be weighted more toward retribution or toward rehabilitation. Finally, criminal courts have also looked to neuroscience as a predictor of a defendant’s future dangerousness.

Farahany said she has also seen neuroscience research cited in in certain civil cases. In the past, it has been difficult to prove whether a person is suffering pain from exposure to a toxic substance. Now, some civil plaintiffs are using neuroscience to do just that. In the arena of constitutional law, the U.S. Supreme Court has cited neuroscience research with regard to the culpability of juvenile defendants accused of capital crimes. Farahany noted that neuroscience is also beginning to highlight gaps in certain constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and new technologies that reveal the brain’s visual imagery.

Farahany cautioned about overstating the capacity of neuroscience to inform law. “When we start using a science like neuroscience to predict behavior before it can do so, it can derail the credibility of science as a whole,” she said, citing “a duty to tread carefully in an area of nascent science.”

Commission Member John D. Arras, Ph.D., observed that some legal experts have questioned whether neuroscience upends the legal notion of people as ‘agents of action’ capable of making decisions in accordance with society’s rules and laws. This argument, he said, “strips people of their personhood and views them as things to be moved around and not responsible for their actions. That is something to worry about.”

Tomorrow the Bioethics Commission will shift its focus from neuroscience and related ethical issues to deliberation and bioethics education. The discussion will include a panel examining a case study of public health emergency response featuring Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., of the National lnstitutes of Health and Lawrence O. Gostin of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights.

Share this article

Bioethics Commission Deliberates Consent Capacity

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) is devoting the majority of today’s public meeting in Salt Lake City to discussing potential neuroscience-related recommendations that it could offer to President Obama.

This morning, Bioethics Commission Chair Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., noted that three areas have emerged throughout the public meetings at which the Bioethics Commission has discussed ethical issues related to neuroscience. They are cognitive enhancement, consent capacity, and law and neuroscience. A list of Commission meetings relevant to neuroscience can be found here on bioethics.gov.

After spending the second half its morning discussing cognitive enhancement, the Bioethics Commission moved on to discuss consent capacity, specifically research with participants whose capacity is potentially diminished or absent. Many of the conditions that neuroscientists study can affect a person’s capacity to consent to research.

“To generate knowledge about and treatments for these conditions, affected individuals must be included in research – critically, with ethical safeguards in place,” said James W. Wagner, Ph.D., Bioethics Commission Vice Chair. “Several ethical considerations arise. For example, how do we ensure adequate protections for research participants with impaired capacity? What procedures should be in place to assess consent capacity? And how might we address stigma associated with impaired consent capacity?” Wagner asked.

Wagner asked Commission Members Daniel P. Sulmasy, M.D., Ph.D., FACP, and Christine Grady, R.N., Ph.D, to help frame the discussion.

Sulmasy suggested that the Bioethics Commission consider diminished capacity not only in the research setting but in the clinical setting as well. He noted that research on clinical capacity is largely based on clinical exams of patients. Instead of viewing capacity solely as an issue in neuroscience research, it could be treated as a topic of neuroscience research. Such research, he said, could “help us better understand what capacity is from a scientific point of view, how to assess it, and how to assess it again along a very complicated continuum…and, if there are ways, how to improve or restore capacity.”

Grady addressed some of the legal issues around capacity. She observed that capacity is not a static condition; it changes. Therefore researchers need to keep in mind that even after a person with diminished capacity gives consent, there needs to be ongoing capacity assessment as additional decision points arise.

She also noted that, in practice, laws regarding capacity and decision-making are made at the state level, so there is little uniformity. Furthermore, very few state laws explicitly address capacity to make decisions regarding research participation; most are geared toward medical decisions.

Grady also noted that surrogates are frequently viewed as a solution for decision-making issues, but that there is a need for greater clarity around the appointment of legally authorized surrogates to act on behalf of persons with diminished capacity. “Who should be able to serve as a legally authorized representative for the purposes of enrolling people in research?” she said.

The Bioethics Commission will spend its last session today discussing law and neuroscience.

Share this article

Bioethics Commission Deliberates Neuroscience-Related Recommendations

Following this morning’s presentations and discussion about the ethical responsibilities of direct-to-consumer neuroscience companies, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) launched into the next phase of its neuroscience project – deliberating its recommendations for the President. As part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, President Obama asked the Bioethics Commission to “identify proactively a set of core ethical standards – both to guide neuroscience research and to address some of the ethical dilemmas that may be raised by the application of neuroscience research findings.”
The Commission provided its initial recommendations earlier this year in volume one of its Gray Matters report, in which it stressed the importance of ethics integration early and throughout neuroscience research. Today’s deliberations will inform the Commission’s recommendations for Gray Matters, volume 2. Bioethics Commission Chair, Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., said the rest of the day’s discussion would center on three topics: cognitive enhancement, consent capacity in neuroscience research, and law and neuroscience.

The Bioethics Commission addressed the topic of cognitive enhancement in depth during its August 2014 meeting in Washington, D.C. During this morning’s discussion, Gutmann noted that cognitive enhancement can include the on-label, off-label, and direct-to-consumer use of neuroscience drugs and technologies. She turned to Commission Member Stephen L. Hauser, M.D. to kick off the session.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of cognitive enhancement,” Hauser said. “But … are there limits and, if so, what are they?

He identified three types of products that fall under the category of cognitive enhancement: pharmaceuticals, including stimulants such as Adderall and Ritalin, off-label use of drugs that work on multiple neural transmitter systems, and other drugs that work to enhance memory; electrical adjuncts that stimulate or modulate the brain; and learning tools enhanced by neuroscience such as video games.

Hauser also suggested that the Commission consider broadening the concept of cognitive enhancement “to think about the range of ways that the human nervous system may be enhanced. This involves, importantly, motor behavior as well as cognitive enhancements.” In addition, he emphasized the importance of “promoting an informed public” through education, communications, and fact-checking mechanisms.
Next, Commission Member Anita L. Allen, J.D., Ph.D., outlined other areas that the Commission might explore, including additional research on the prevalence of cognitive enhancement tools and products and with what populations; the importance of self-help and self-care for people who want to enhance their cognition; ensuring equitable access to cognitive enhancement products and programs; as well as questions around coercion.

“We need to be recommending that ethicists spend a great deal of time as we move forward assessing whether or not we want to go far ahead in the area of enhancements. Do we want to get to normal or do we want to get to superhuman?” Allen said. “If science makes that possible, should we go that way? … What’s wrong with that? Is anything wrong with wanting to be better than we are?”
When the Commission reconvenes later this afternoon, it will turn the focus of its deliberations to consent capacity for neuroscience research.

Share this article

Ethical Responsibilities of Direct-to-Consumer Neuroscience Companies

As part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, President Obama asked the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) to “identify proactively a set of core ethical standards – both to guide neuroscience research and to address some of the ethical dilemmas that may be raised by the application of neuroscience research findings.”

This morning, the Bioethics Commission resumed its consideration of ethical issues related to direct-to-consumer (DTC) neuroscience, including products like dietary supplements, neurofeedback devices, and even memory games.  At its last meeting, the Bioethics Commission heard from experts representing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the neurotechnology sector.  Today, another regulatory expert from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) kicked off the discussion.

Serena  Viswanathan, J.D., assistant director of the Division of Advertising Practices in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, addressed what companies that produce, advertise, and market DTC neuroscience products must do to meet the FTC’s regulatory requirements.

“The basic principles of FTC advertising law are that advertising must be truthful and not be misleading and that advertisers of products must have a meaningful basis for their advertising claims,” said Viswanathan.  “Neuroscience is a complicated area but the basic evaluation we would do is similar to any other health case.”

Margaret Eaton, Pharm, D., J.D., former research scholar at the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and former lecturer at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business and School of Medicine, gave a presentation entitled “Ethical Responsibilities of DTC Neuroscience Companies.”  Eaton focused on the potential ethical responsibilities of DTC neuroscience companies to customers around concerns such as validity and safety requirements, protection of consumer privacy, and transparency of conflicts of interest.

As an example of problematic advertisements for neuroscience-based products, Eaton described how some manufacturers of psychotropic drugs have sought to create a perceived need for their products by encouraging consumers to take self-assessment tests developed by or for the company.  Eaton said she took one such test, which included 20 questions such as did she ever feel “down-hearted, blue, or sad.”  The available answers were “not often,” “sometimes,” “often” or “all the time.”  To every question, she answered “sometimes.”

“Most people sometimes have felt these symptoms; in other words, I think it’s normal,” Eaton said.  “However, my answers resulted in a recommendation to see my doctor for an evaluation of depression.”

Eaton also acknowledged that when it comes to the issue of conflict of interest, the main focus has been financial gain.  However, she agreed that in academia the conflicts could be stronger when it comes to what she called “reputational perks.”  Such perks, she said, “lead to promotion, recognition, grants, and they are intricately linked.  We do a disservice when we exclude these from conflicts of interest.”

The Bioethics Commission will use this discussion to transition into sessions it has scheduled for the rest of the day during which it will deliberate and formulate its recommendations related to neuroscience research for the President.

Share this article

Live from Salt Lake City

Welcome to the live blog of the nineteenth public meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). The Bioethics Commission is meeting in Salt Lake City today, November 5, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. MT, and tomorrow, November 6, from 9 a.m. to noon MT.

During this meeting, the Bioethics Commission will continue its review of the ethical issues associated with neuroscience research and the application of neuroscience research findings, as requested by President Obama. This morning, the Bioethics Commission will hear from two speakers who will address the ethical responsibilities of companies that market neuroscience products directly to consumers: Serena Viswanathan, J.D., of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission; and Margaret Eaton, Pharm.D., J.D., of Stanford University.

The Bioethics Commission will spend the remainder of the day deliberating its recommendations to the President.

You can follow the proceedings of the Bioethics Commission’s meeting here at this blog, and on the live webcast. The webcast and transcripts from the meeting will be archived and available following the meeting at www.bioethics.gov.

Share this article

Bioethics Commission FAQs from ASBH

Last week the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) attended the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) annual meeting, held in San Diego, California October 16-19. Along with leading multiple presentations, the Bioethics Commission was pleased to host a booth in the conference’s exhibition hall. The exhibit featured Commission reports as well as new communications materials. Several hundred copies of “Ethically Impossible” STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, Safeguarding Children: Pediatric Medical Countermeasure Research, Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings, and Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society flew off the table so quickly that we ran out of copies before the end of the conference’s second day. If you were not able to get a hard copy of your favorite report, all materials are available for free download on our website.

ASBH 2014 Booth

ASBH provided an opportunity to interact with many colleagues from across the bioethics community; many attendees reported using our educational resources in their classrooms. The Bioethics Commission welcomes feedback and likes to hear how its materials are being used, so if you have used our materials and are interested in sharing your experience, please email education@bioethics.gov!

The Bioethics Commission received many great questions at our exhibit. Here are some of the most commonly asked questions:

What is the Bioethics Commission currently working on?
The Commission is continuing its work on neuroscience. At its next public meeting on Nov. 5-6 in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Commission will be deliberating recommendations on neuroscience and related ethical issues. Gray Matters, Vol. 2, thefollow up to the May 2014 report Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society, is expected to be released in spring 2015 and will address important ethical issues related to applications and implications of neuroscience research.

In addition to neuroscience research and related ethical issues, the Bioethics Commission will begin discussions on its next topic – a self-directed topic – the role of deliberation and education in bioethics– at the November meeting. The Commission will focus on their symbiotic relationship as twin pillars of public bioethics: Education is required for informed deliberation, and deliberation enhances education at all levels.

How does the Bioethics Commission choose the topics that it works on?
The Executive Office of the President may ask the Bioethics Commission to study a particular topic or answer a particular question and report back; Gray Matters and “Ethically Impossible” are examples of two reports that came at the request of the President. In addition, the Commission may accept suggestions of issues for consideration from executive departments and agencies and the public, as it deems appropriate in support of its mission.

How does the Bioethics Commission promote public bioethics?
All Commission deliberations occur in public during its quarterly meetings. Anyone who is interested may attend these public meetings, or watch the meeting via live webcast. These meetings allow for the unique opportunity to witness the live deliberations of a national bioethics commission—public bioethics in action. The Commission welcomes input from anyone wishing to provide public comment on any issue before it, and is particularly interested in receiving comments and questions during meetings that are responsive to specific sessions. Written comments are accepted in advance of each meeting; please address written comments by email to info@bioethics.gov. In addition, the Commission posts regular updates to its blog—blog.bioethics.gov—and to Twitter.

How do you get to be on the Bioethics Commission?
Each Commission member is selected by the Executive Office of the President and serves for the term of the Commission.

Are there any staff employment opportunities available?
Currently there are no openings for staff positions. When opportunities come up, we post all of our vacancies on our website under Employment Opportunities.

How do I get in touch with the Bioethics Commission?
The best way to contact the Commission is via email. All correspondence is reviewed and logged. For public comments and questions please email info@bioethics.gov; for comments on or questions about educational materials please email education@bioethics.gov.

What happens to the commission after President Obama’s term is over?
Like all federal advisory bodies, the Bioethics Commission must be renewed every two years. The Executive Order under which the Commission currently operates expires in September 2015. Even if President Obama again extends his order and issues an additional continuance for the Commission, it is expected that this Commission, in its current form, will complete its work at the close of President Obama’s term in January 2017. At that time, it is also expected – though not guaranteed – that the next president will establish his or her own bioethics commission.

Where can I access reports published by previous bioethics commissions?
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues is a separate commission from those established by previous presidents, and therefore does not maintain archives for previous commissions. Our website provides links to various archived material from past commissions, including some links to previous commissions’ reports. Most of these archives are maintained by either Georgetown University or George Washington University.

Thanks to all who stopped by our booth this year!

 

 

Share this article

The “Brains” Behind the Bioethics Commission and Why a Multidisciplinary Approach is the Smartest Approach

Last month the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) was excited to take part in the first-ever White House BRAIN Conference. As a part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, President Obama asked the Bioethics Commission to review the ethical issues associated with neuroscience research. In May, the Commission released Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society, the first of two volumes the Commission will produce in response to the President’s request. Vol. 2 is slated for release in spring 2015. The Bioethics Commission is pleased to play a key role in ensuring the incorporation of ethical considerations into neuroscience research, but just who are the brains behind those who advise about BRAIN?

“Our Commission is as multidisciplinary as a commission could be,” said Commission Chair Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., in a video from the Bioethics Commission. The newly posted video highlights the multidisciplinary nature of the group, and why it is critical that its members hail from a variety of fields.

“Bioethics touches so many aspects of medicine, of science, and of society, and I think it’s magnificent the way that our Commission is so diverse in terms of the backgrounds and perspectives of the people who are on the Commission,” says Commission Member Stephen Hauser, M.D.

“We have many different perspectives on very complex problems,” says Gutmann, “and if you put them all together and deliberate together, and you deliberate in public, I think we maximize the information, knowledge, and understanding that we can bring to bear on any bioethical issue.”

To view the video “Who is the Bioethics Commission” and to learn more about the Bioethics Commission, please to visit our YouTube page.

Share this article

Bioethics Commission to Offer Presentations at ASBH This Week

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) is pleased to offer multiple presentations at the American Society for Bioethics and the Humanities (ASBH) Annual Meeting, scheduled for October 16-19 in San Diego, Calif. Over the course of the four day conference Bioethics Commission staff will highlight a number of bioethical issues, including bioethics literacy, incidental findings, and the integration of ethics into neuroscience research.

Executive Director Lisa M. Lee, along with Mildred Solomon, President and CEO of the Hastings Center, will present “Bioethics Literacy across the Lifespan” on October 17 at 10:45 a.m. According to Lee, the talk will focus on more than just ethics education. “Just like bioethics is multidisciplinary, bioethics education is also multidisciplinary. It is not just about a bioethicist teaching a scientist,” said Lee. “Everyone, from organizational leaders to primary school teachers, has a role in ethics education.” The talk comes on the heels of the recent release of the Sept.-Oct. issue of The Hastings Report. The issue, themed “Teaching Bioethics,” is co-sponsored by the Commission and highlights a collection of papers on bioethics education, the Commission’s newly announced project.

On October 16 at 4 p.m., Bioethics Commission Associate Director Michelle Groman, along with representatives of the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, will lead the panel “Take it or Leave it: the Role of Bioethics Advisory Bodies in Effecting Policy Change.” The panel will use several case studies in order to examine how the features and structure of a bioethics commission, along with the political and social climate, can impact a commission’s influence on changes to policy and law. Jason Schwartz, a former Commission staff member and current research associate and lecturer in bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values, will moderate.

In addition to Lee’s presentation, October 17 will feature a second presentation by Bioethics Commission staff. At 8 a.m., Research Analyst Nicolle K. Strand will present her paper “The Cost of Misinformation: Consumer Remedies for Misleading Genetic Test Results,” examining the potential legal solutions for consumers to respond to misleading genetic test results, and considering questions of compensation.

On October 18 at 11 a.m., Bioethics Commission Associate Director Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Senior Policy and Research Analyst Karen Meagher, and Executive Director Lisa M. Lee will lead the panel “Applying the Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in Context,” moderated by Research Analyst Nicolle Strand. The panel will build on the Commission’s recommendations on the management of incidental and secondary findings, discussing staff work from philosophical, public health, and legal perspectives.

Finally, on October 19 at 8 a.m., Michelle Groman, Bioethics Commission Associate Director; Debra Matthews, former Bioethics Commission staff member and current Assistant Director for Science Programs at the Berman Institute of Bioethics; and William Casebeer, formerly of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), will lead the panel “Integrating Ethics and Neuroscience Research: Recommendations from the Presidential Bioethics Commission and Integration in Practice.” The panel will focus on the Commission’s recommendations for ethics integration throughout neuroscience research, as presented in its most recent report Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society. DARPA’s efforts to integrate ethics into neuroscience research, as well as the integration of ethics and science through all levels of education will be discussed.

With a busy schedule, the Bioethics Commission looks forward to an educational and informative meeting. Be sure to stop by our booth in the exhibit hall. See you at ASBH!

Share this article

About blog.Bioethics.gov

This is a space for the members and staff of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to communicate with the public about the work of the commission and to discuss important issues in bioethics.

Learn more about the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

Subscribe

You can receive blog.Bioethics.gov posts via our RSS feed, or via email subscription.