The field of neuroethics took on a more explicit form in 2006 with the establishment of the Neuroethics Society. Founded by eminent scientists, lawyers, and ethicists, the society hosts a Web site, www.neuroethicssociety.org, and two “partner” publications, the American Journal of Bioethics and the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

The year also saw significant advances (accompanied, of course, by much debate) in four main areas of neuroethics: intervening in emotional and behavioral disorders, brain privacy, the impact of emerging technologies, and subtle changes in our understanding of nonconscious brain states such as the persistent vegetative state.

Placebos in Clinical Trials

An area of ethical concern is the use of placebos in clinical trials. A debate was recently spurred by a study by Sumant Khanna in the British Journal of Psychiatry in which some 12 dozen patients with mania received a placebo instead of treatment with the conventional antipsychotic drug risperidone.¹ Some doctors have questioned the validity of the informed consent given by the study participants, says Ganapati Mudur, writing in the British Medical Journal.² These studies raise the issue of the ability of those with mood disorders to give informed consent.

Brain Privacy

The push for ever-more-sophisticated brain imaging techniques continues to challenge old notions about the mind, such as the inviolability of an individual’s unspoken thoughts. Entrepreneurial scientists have developed lie-detecting devices based on functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, that they claim will offer greater accuracy than the traditional polygraph, which measures the responses of the sympathetic nervous system.

1. Khanna S, Vieta E, Lyons B, Grossman F, Eerdekens M, and Kramer M. Risperidone in the treatment of acute mania: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. British Journal of Psychiatry 2005 187(3):229–234.

2. Mudur G. Indian study sparks debate on the use of placebo in psychiatry trials. British Medical Journal 2006 332(754):566.

3. Mohamed FB, Faro SH, Gordon NJ, Platek SM, Ahmad H, and Williams JM. Brain mapping of deception and truth telling about an ecologically valid situation: Functional MR imaging and polygraph investigation—initial experience. Radiology 2006 238(2):679–688.

4. Editorial. Neuroethics needed. Nature 2006 441(7096):907.

5. Editorial. What’s on your mind? Nature Neuroscience 2006 9(8):981.

6. Eastman N and Campbell C. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2006 7(4):311–318.

7. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, Branner A, Chen D, Penn, RD, and Donoghue JP. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 2006 442(7099):164–171.

8. Scott S. Converting thoughts into action. Nature 2006 442(7099):141–142.

9. Illes J, Kirschen MP, Edwards E, Stanford LR, Bandettini P, Cho MK, Ford PJ, Glover GH, Kulynych J, Macklin R, Michael DB, Wolf SM, and members of the Working Group on Incidental Findings in Brain Research. Incidental findings in brain imaging research. Science 311(5762):783–784.

10. Voss HU, Ulug AM, Dyke JP, Watts R, Kobylarz EJ, McCandliss BD, Heier LA, Beattie BJ, Hamacher KA, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ, Ballon D, Giacino JT, and Schiff ND. Possible axonal regrowth in late recovery from the minimally conscious state. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2006 116(7):2005–2011.

11. Owen AM, Coleman MR, Boly M, Davis MH, Laureys S, and Pickard JD. Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313(5792):1402.