Search

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty – often framed as “neurorights” in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.

Despite extensive research, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) remains a progressive and invariably fatal neurodegenerative disease. Limited knowledge of the underlying causes of ALS has made it difficult to target upstream biological mechanisms of disease, and therapeutic interventions are usually administered relatively late in the course of disease. Genetic forms of ALS offer a unique opportunity for therapeutic development, as genetic associations may reveal potential insights into disease etiology. Genetic ALS may also be amenable to investigating earlier intervention given the possibility of identifying clinically presymptomatic, at-risk individuals with causative genetic variants. There is increasing evidence for a presymptomatic phase of ALS, with biomarker data from the Pre-Symptomatic Familial ALS (Pre-fALS) study showing that an elevation in blood neurofilament light chain (NfL) precedes phenoconversion to clinically manifest disease. Tofersen is an investigational antisense oligonucleotide designed to reduce synthesis of superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) protein through degradation of SOD1 mRNA. Informed by Pre-fALS and the tofersen clinical development program, the ATLAS study (NCT04856982) is designed to evaluate the impact of initiating tofersen in presymptomatic carriers of SOD1 variants associated with high or complete penetrance and rapid disease progression who also have biomarker evidence of disease activity (elevated plasma NfL). The ATLAS study will investigate whether tofersen can delay the emergence of clinically manifest ALS. To our knowledge, ATLAS is the first interventional trial in presymptomatic ALS and has the potential to yield important insights into the design and conduct of presymptomatic trials, identification, and monitoring of at-risk individuals, and future treatment paradigms in ALS., Errata: Benatar, M., Wuu, J., Andersen, P.M. et al. Correction to: Design of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial of Tofersen Initiated in Clinically Presymptomatic SOD1 Variant Carriers: the ATLAS Study. Neurotherapeutics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-022-01286-9

The NIH Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to transform our understanding of the brain, and neuroethics is an essential component of this research effort. Coordination with other brain projects around the world will help maximize success.

ObjectiveSome have argued that physicians should not presume to make thrombolysis decisions for incapacitated patients with acute ischemic stroke because the risks and benefits of thrombolysis involve deeply personal values. We evaluated the influence of the inability to consent and of personal health-related values on older adults' emergency treatment preferences for both ischemic stroke and cardiac arrest.MethodsA total of 2,154 US adults age ≥50 years read vignettes in which they had either suffered an acute ischemic stroke and could be treated with thrombolysis, or had suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and could be treated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Participants were then asked (1) whether they would want the intervention, or (2) whether they would want to be given the intervention even if their informed consent could not be obtained. We elicited health-related values as predictors of these judgments.ResultsOlder adults were as likely to want stroke thrombolysis when unable to consent (78.1%) as when asked directly (76.2%), whereas older adults were more likely to want cardiopulmonary resuscitation when unable to consent (83.6% compared to 75.9%). Greater confidence in the medical system and reliance on statistical information in decision making were both associated with desiring thrombolysis.InterpretationOlder adults regard thrombolysis no less favorably when considering a situation in which they are unable to consent. These findings provide empirical support for recent professional society recommendations to treat ischemic stroke with thrombolysis in appropriate emergency circumstances under a presumption of consent.

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty - often framed as "neurorights" in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.