Transcript Visit to the US: East Coast Anna Pacholczyk, iSEI, University of Manchester.

Visit to the US: East Coast
Anna Pacholczyk, iSEI, University of Manchester

To assess the current state of teaching neuroethics for
neuroscientists at different levels of teaching

To learn from other experience

To assess need, potential for development

To be mindful of obstacles

To talk about the methods currently used

To hear a variety of perspectives

To facilitate future collaboration, create lasting links






Semi-structured interviews with five different people at
different top-tier US universities on the East Coast
Semi-structured interviews chosen as they allow for
focused, conversational, two-way communication. They
can be used both to give and receive information.
Part I: give information about the network, workshops,
emphasise openness to a variety of opinions, give a
glimpse of what questions are there to come
Part II: talking about the programmes hosted at the
visited centre, the current ethics teaching for
neuroscientists
Part III: a more in depth conversation: perceived needs,
materials, obstacles, topics, etc.
Prior email contact, interviews between 1 and 2.5 hours,
in some cases follow-up.



Top tier universities
neuroethics professor, head of a graduate
neuroscience course; bioethics faculty
member; assistant director of undergraduate
studies
Significant differences in perspectives,
content of the courses, methods, obstacles
emphasised, perceived need for neuroethics
teaching





Dr Martha Farah, Director of the Center for Neuroscience & Society,
Penn. Walter H. Annenberg Professor in the Natural Sciences:
neuroethics teaching and scholarship
Dr Charles Greer, Professor of Neurosurgery and of Neurobiology; Vice
Chair of Research, Neurosurgery; Director of the Interdepartmental
Neuroscience Graduate Program: neuroscience and clinical practice,
neuroscience graduate teaching
Lori Bruce, Assistant Director, Summer Institute in Bioethics, Yale
University; Research Associate, Harvard University: bioethics research
and teaching
Dr Tom Fox, Harvard Medical School and Visiting Professor, National
University of Singapore. Research includes: biochemical genetics and
developmental neurobiology, teaching ethics in science and
engineering
Dr Ryan W. Draft, Assistant Director of Undergraduate Studies in
Neurobiology; Student Advisor, Lecturer on Molecular & Cellular
Biology, Harvard University; undergraduate teaching
‘Survival ethics’



Relatively well covered (how
well?)
research and professional
ethics - required or directly
applicable to solving
dilemmas arising in
everyday practice
E.g. ethics during the
ethical approval of
research, responsible
conduct of research,
publishing (authorship),
dealing with conflicts or
ambiguities arising when
collaborating in research
teams
The ‘nice to have’






Not that well covered
but interesting
public engagement
science
communication
philosophical
bioethics/neuroethics
ELSI of neuroscience
neuroscience in the
social context




Contacted 160 graduate programs in neuroscience listed
by the Association of Neuroscience Departments and
Programs. 68 responses.
All courses included exposure to research ethics and
professional ethics (‘the survival ethics’)
Two of the responding programmes offered content
related to broader issues in neuroethics: Princeton and
Wisconsin;
since then there is a growing number of neuroethics
courses, seminar series, but often offered to social
science an humanities students
There is interest in learning more about ELSI of
neurosciences BUT
Emphasised obstacles in teaching neuroethics
include:





time constraints: both faculty and students (student burden)
organisational constraints: organisational structure of a given
institutions shapes what can be done
economic constraints
The exact form of those obstacles specific to institutions,
level of teaching and location of the centers
(humanities/medical school and typical amount of teaching)
Lack of expertise also mentioned as an obstacle but after time
and organisational constraints
Professional identity important


For students
In implementing change in teaching
Great variability in how organisations function



How easy it is to co-teach a course
The take on teaching ethics for neuroscientists variable
At the moment, philosophical neuroethics teaching seems to be a
domain of individuals not institutions
Teaching the students or teaching the teachers?
Undergraduate




Considerable choice in courses: a number of free electives
Compulsory ethics teaching at the undergraduate level beyond what is already done seen as implausible
or impractical
Reasons: institutional inertia, the desire to have highly motivated students attending classes, curriculum
overload, graduates go on doing a variety of jobs after graduating (no obvious purpose in terms of
professional training), difficulty in curriculum change (months of effort and convincing), neuroethics seen
as a ‘nice to have’ but not a necessity, sometimes scientists in later stages of their career were perceived
(by those interested in teaching neuroethics) to be settled in the status quo which does not include
neuroethcis teaching, changing the fossilised structure very difficult and might be not worth the huge
effort that would have to go into it
A free elective, an online course, facilitating student organisations proposed as a solution
Graduate



A requirement for NSF, NIH funded graduate research to include ethics teaching
throughout the course (not a one-off) but the content not highly specified
Results in a variability of teaching practices
Openness to teaching neuroethics beyond professional and research ethics partly
depends on the institution-specific constraints (lack of expertise, time of the faculty,
organisational and economic constraints, e.g. how easy it is to co-teach a course)
Undergraduate neuroscience (Harvard)

Online short courses in research ethics available

A number of humanities courses (‘Ethical Reasoning’) available



Human Rights; Political Justice and Political Theories; Self, Freedom and Existence;
Issues in Ethics; Theism and Moral Reasoning; Comparative Religious Ethics; The
Ethics of Atheism: Marx, Nietzsche, Freud; Bioethics (Daniel I. Wikler), Ethics,
Biotechnology and the Future of Human Nature (Douglas A. Melton, Michael J.
Sandel)
There is a substantial interest among undergraduates
Harvard Bioethics Society –sponsored by the university but student led; organise
seminars and lectures in bioethics with invited speakers and student seminars, the
idea is that those who come from other institutions will give the same talk at their
institution after going back, supporting extracurricular activities might be a way to
consider. Advantages: bottom-up , much of the organisational burden is carried
by the organisers of the society, it allows exploration of topics that would not be
suitable for basic curriculum, allows for more in-depth exploration. Could the
network be of use here?
Graduate neuroscience: Yale



Background: an eclectic programme. Some students doing
research on single ion channels, while other have research
questions like ‘what constitute imagination?’ and use fMRI.
Topics: dual use, freedom of information, scientific integrity,
genetic engineering, invasive neurosurgery
Methods: bottom-up generation of topics: national and
international press, cases from instructor’s practice; each
week 2 faculty members acting as facilitators, 2 senior
graduate students leading the discussion; role playing; no
lectures; each week a short paper on the topic; assessment:
pass/fail, attendance, short papers and participation




Although there is considerable interest, the experience of the
faculty was identified as a significant barrier to teaching more
general and philosophical neuroethics. Lectures based on the
practical experience of the faculty (which in no case includes
ethics or philosophy training).
Funding structure is an obstacle to inviting external speakers and
professional development: 98% of neuroscience faculty is attached
to the Medical School, 95% funding for research, no dedicated
funding for teaching
Need for materials: e.g. a column in the newspaper, response,
counterarguments; easily obtainable updated case studies; a
compilation of other 10-15 papers that deals with major
problems; a compilation of a number of essays that provide a
good synthesis
Training needs: time constraints an issue, additional courses
might be seen as a distraction (e.g. required gender discrimination
course). An introductory ‘elevator speech’?
Penn: Learning collaborative, fellowship, online



Some undergraduate teaching: mainly electives for Behavioural
Basis of Behaviour students
Graduate teaching: Neuroethics Learning Collaborative. Set up
to address the lack of teaching about issues beyond the
‘survival ethics’; target population: neuroscience students from
around the country. [Password protected], offered in 2010 and
2011
Online resources: accessible online without registration.
Topics: brain imaging, enhancement, law and neuroscience

May 29th-June 8th: 12 places for graduate neuroscience students and postdocs
from around the country;

7 applications per place – considerable interest among both neuroscience
graduates, undergraduates and humanities students


methods: plenty of contact time, including one-to-one contact and lectures with
plenty of time for Q&A session, small group presentations on the basis of
independent research, discussions, talks by various professionals, visit to the
Franklin Institute;
topics: philosophical ethics and bioethics; ELSI issues in brain imaging, research
ethics: incidental findings, animal and human subjects, IRB stimulation, brain
imaging, neuromarketing, science communication, neuroscience and criminal
justice system, psychiatry (DBS, pharmacolofy, decision making in pharma, war
and the brain), enhancement (cosmetic neurology, cognitive enhancement and
military applications, oxytocin, ADHD, TMS and iDCS lab experiments, teaching
neuroethics); focus on developing transferable skills in ethics analysis which then
can be applied to other topics;



No one was aware of a network that allows sharing
experiences about teaching neuroethics. Even those
engage in teaching ethics sometimes were not aware of the
resources already available – e.g. on Martha Farah’s
website – there might be a need for awareness raising
activities
Some especially challenging topics: e.g. free will
Dr Tom Fox emphasised research pointing out to the
greater effectiveness of discussion-based seminars in
diverse student groups. What is the effectiveness,
advantages and disadvantages of a web-based learning
vis-a-vis seminar-based teaching








‘survival ethics’ teaching abundant, general topics similar although the exact approach varies greatly
broader neuroethics teaching is lead by individuals not institutions, still relatively rare and done in a
variety of formats
There is a general interest in developing materials for teaching: such as case studies, reading
materials, compilations
Obstacles to teaching ethics include practical issues such as time and organisational constraints
There seem to be a need to collect resources in one place for easy availability, improve information
about what already exists and provide a platform for those teaching ethics to exchange resources –
easy access
What format would be appropriate? Short workshops, neuroethics bootcamps, one-day training before
or after conferences, online resources, an online full course, facilitating teaching in small discussion
groups?
Teaching the students or teaching the teachers? Given the issues of professional identity ,who should
be teaching neuroethics – scientists or ethicists ? What would be an appropriate format for providing
methods training? (a booklet for distance learning, training before conferences, short TED-talk style
talks)
There is an interest in considering ELSI in neuroscience – plenty of interest from the student side, not
enough resources to address it at the moment – BUT LET US REMEMBER TO KEEP THE FUN IN!