ABSTRACT
Neuroscience* research creates challenges for bioethics and policy making that build on the distinctive nature of the brain and the ethical implications of any major intervention to alter its functions (Blank 1999; Marcus 2002). Brain-machine interface (BMI) research, implanted functional devices that bridge neuronal and synthetic tissues, is providing hope for a relief of symptoms from a number of major neurological and psychiatric diseases. Such research has sparked neuroethical debate on the enhancement of normal human function (Maguire and McGee 1999) and consent in vulnerable populations (Abbott 2005; Fins 2000) in scientišc circles (Chatterjee 2004; Farah et al. 2004; Parens 1998; Wolpe 2002) and in media coverage of BMI research (Ahuja 2003, 14; Cook 2003, E1; Weiss 2004, A8). Neurotechnological human enhancement was also the subject of a report by the President’s Council on Bioethics (Kass et al. 2003). The current debate on BMIs has surfaced partially
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 175 Methods .................................................................................................................. 176 Results .................................................................................................................... 177 Media Translation Effects and Public Impact ........................................................ 182 Communication of Neuroscience and Neuroethics ................................................ 184 From Unidirectional to Multidirectional Communication of Neuroscience .......... 185 Conclusion: Using Multidirectional Strategies to Tackle Neuroethical Issues ...... 187 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................. 187 References .............................................................................................................. 188
under the impetus of BMI researchers, who have highlighted the ethical implications of their work (Donoghue 2002; Nicolelis 2001).
