Promoting diversity and inclusion in neuroscience and neuroethics.
Promoting diversity and inclusion in neuroscience and neuroethics.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103359
复制
发表时间：
2021-05
期刊：
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Matshabane OP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matshabane OP
神经科学正以惊人的速度向了解神经系统和人脑如何运作的方向发展，以便为神经、神经发育和精神疾病开发新的治疗方法。从事负责任的神经科学研究需要解决一系列潜在的伦理、法律和社会影响(ELSI)。神经伦理学试图解决这些伦理问题。与其他生物科学一样，神经科学和神经伦理学与多样性作斗争，但有令人信服的理由在这些学科中促进多样性。我认为，至少出于两个原因，这些领域需要致力于纳入不同的个人。首先，作为一个社会正义问题，受到系统压迫和边缘化的个人可以(也应该)受益于与背景相关的研究，这些研究包括他们的优先事项和观点。第二，对于科学的进步，越来越明显的是，多样化的群体产生了最具创新性和最具影响力的科学解决方案。一些群体在研究人员和患者队列中的代表性不足迫使我们反思谁可能从神经科学中受益，并考虑在研究议程、问题、方法和由此产生的神经技术方面是否存在潜在的差距，包括可能被忽视的偏见。例如，神经伦理学议程似乎越来越多地关注神经技术进步、设备商业化和大脑数据隐私。主要问题与昂贵的新技术的使用有关，如脑深部刺激、响应性神经刺激、神经可穿戴设备以及脑机接口。虽然调查这些主题的伦理影响当然很重要，但结果可能不会立即与来自边缘社区的人相关[特别是来自非洲和其他大陆的低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的人]，因为它们几乎只提供给高收入国家(HIC)的特定个人。具有讽刺意味的是，大多数与神经、精神和物质使用障碍相关的残疾调整寿命年(DALY)的人生活在LMICs[2]、[3]。此外，在LMICs中，神经科学研究还有其他优先事项，例如为脑膜炎和脑炎等高度流行的中枢神经系统传染病寻找具有成本效益的创新疗法[1]。此外，中风是世界上第二大死亡原因，80%以上的负担由LMICs的人承担，也是一种优先考虑的神经疾病。例如，在撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)，中风发病率正在上升，与欧洲血统的人相比，更多的年轻人受到影响，并发生导致更糟糕结果的事件[3]。除了非洲精确卒中医学神经生物库：ELSI项目(人类遗传与健康[H3非洲]财团的一部分)[3]和非洲伦理工作组(神经精神伦理学全球倡议[神经基因]的一部分)之外，非洲大陆的神经科学研究的伦理影响几乎没有得到调查。将来自非洲和其他LMIC的研究人员和研究参与者纳入国际神经科学和神经伦理研究的概念和设计，将是培养机会批判性地重新思考伦理问题和优先事项的一种方式。
Neuroscience is moving at breakneck speed towards understanding how the nervous system and the human brain function in order to develop novel treatments for neurological, neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. Pursuing responsible neuroscience research requires a range of potential ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) to be addressed. Neuroethics seeks to address these ethical considerations. Like other biological sciences, neuroscience and neuroethics struggle with diversity yet there are compelling reasons to foster diversity in these disciplines. I argue that these fields need to commit to the inclusion of diverse individuals for at least two reasons. First, as a matter of social justice, individuals who have been systemically oppressed and marginalised could (and should) benefit from contextually relevant research which includes their priorities and views. Second, for the advancement of science, it is increasingly clear that diverse groups yield the most innovative and impactful scientific solutions. The underrepresentation of some groups among researchers and patient cohorts forces us to reflect on who will likely benefit from the neuroscience and to consider whether there are potential gaps¿ including possibly overlooked bias¿ in the research agendas, questions, methodologies, and resultant neurotechnologies. For example, increasingly the neuroethics agenda seems to focus on neurotechnological advancements, commercialisation of devices and brain data privacy. Dominating questions relate to the use of expensive novel technologies, such as deep brain stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, neuro-wearables, as well as brain-computer interfaces. While investigating ethical implications of these topics is certainly important, the results may not be immediately relevant to people from marginalised communities¿ particularly those from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Africa and other continents¿ given that they are almost exclusively available to select individuals in high income countries (HICs). Ironically, the majority of people with disabilityadjusted life years (DALYs) related to neurological, psychiatric, and substance-use disorders live in LMICs [2],[3].Furthermore, in LMICs, there are other priorities for neuroscience research, like identifying cost-effective innovative therapies for the highly prevalent neuroinfectious diseases of the central nervous system¿ such as meningitis and encephalitis [1]. Additionally, stroke¿ which is the second largest cause of death in the world and has more than 80% of its burden accounted for by people in LMICs¿ is also a neurological illness of priority. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for instance, stroke incidence rates are increasing, with more younger people being affected as compared to people from European descent and occurrences leading to worse outcomes [3]. With the exception of the African Neurobiobank for Precision Stroke Medicine: ELSI Project (part of the Human Heredity and Health [H3Africa] consortia)[3], and the Africa Ethics Working Group (part of the Global Initiative in Neuropsychiatric Ethics [NeuroGene])¿ ethical implications of neuroscience research on the African continent have hardly been investigated. Including researchers and research participants from Africa and other LMICs in the conceptualisation and design of international neuroscience and neuroethics research would be one way of fostering opportunities to critically re-consider ethical questions and priorities.
DOI：
10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30403-4
发表时间：
2019-01
期刊：
The Lancet. Neurology
影响因子：
--
作者：
GBD 2016 Dementia Collaborators
通讯作者：
GBD 2016 Dementia Collaborators
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Akinyemi RO;Jenkins C;Nichols M;Singh A;Wahab K;Akpalu A;Sarfo FS;Owolabi LF;Obiako R;Akinyemi J;Ojebuyi B;Adigun M;Musbahu R;Bello A;Titiloye M;Calys-Tagoe B;Ogunronbi M;Uvere E;Laryea R;Fakunle A;Adeleye O;Olorunsogbon O;Ojo A;Adesina D;Mensah N;Oguike W;Coleman N;Mande A;Uthman M;Kalaria RN;Jegede A;Owolabi M;Ovbiagele B;Arulogun O
通讯作者：
Arulogun O