Who does Neuroethics Scholarship Address, and What Does it Recommend? A Content Analysis of Selected Abstracts from the International Neuroethics Society Annual Meetings

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Nina Yichen Wei, Rebekah J. Choi, Laura Specker Sullivan, Anna Wexler
{"title":"Who does Neuroethics Scholarship Address, and What Does it Recommend? A Content Analysis of Selected Abstracts from the International Neuroethics Society Annual Meetings","authors":"Nina Yichen Wei, Rebekah J. Choi, Laura Specker Sullivan, Anna Wexler","doi":"10.1007/s12152-024-09554-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much neuroethics literature concludes with a set of normative recommendations. While these recommendations can be a helpful way of summarizing a proposal for a future direction, some have recently argued that ethics scholarship has devoted insufficient attention to considerations of audience and real-world applications. To date, however, while scholars have conducted topic analyses of neuroethics literature, to our knowledge no study has evaluated who neuroethics scholarship addresses and what it recommends. The objective of the present study therefore was to provide a preliminary characterization of recommendations offered in neuroethics scholarship and an assessment of their target audiences. Rather than attempting to demarcate what constitutes “neuroethics scholarship,” we analyzed text that authors’ had self-identified as being neuroethics-related: abstracts presented at the International Neuroethics Society (INS) annual meetings and published as top abstracts in <i>AJOB Neuroscience</i> in the last decade (2011–2020). We found that a majority of abstracts utilized conceptual methods (62.2%) and provided conceptual recommendations (68%). Roughly 77% of all abstracts did not explicitly address a target audience, yet nearly all of these were implicitly directed at other scholars. The remainder specified a target audience of scholars (12.2%), regulators (6.7%), healthcare providers (6.7%) and industry (2.6%). Only a subset of abstracts provided practical or policy recommendations (19.7%). Of those, the majority (61.5%) did not specify a target audience. Among the subset with actionable recommendations, a clarification of target audience may help increase the impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09554-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much neuroethics literature concludes with a set of normative recommendations. While these recommendations can be a helpful way of summarizing a proposal for a future direction, some have recently argued that ethics scholarship has devoted insufficient attention to considerations of audience and real-world applications. To date, however, while scholars have conducted topic analyses of neuroethics literature, to our knowledge no study has evaluated who neuroethics scholarship addresses and what it recommends. The objective of the present study therefore was to provide a preliminary characterization of recommendations offered in neuroethics scholarship and an assessment of their target audiences. Rather than attempting to demarcate what constitutes “neuroethics scholarship,” we analyzed text that authors’ had self-identified as being neuroethics-related: abstracts presented at the International Neuroethics Society (INS) annual meetings and published as top abstracts in AJOB Neuroscience in the last decade (2011–2020). We found that a majority of abstracts utilized conceptual methods (62.2%) and provided conceptual recommendations (68%). Roughly 77% of all abstracts did not explicitly address a target audience, yet nearly all of these were implicitly directed at other scholars. The remainder specified a target audience of scholars (12.2%), regulators (6.7%), healthcare providers (6.7%) and industry (2.6%). Only a subset of abstracts provided practical or policy recommendations (19.7%). Of those, the majority (61.5%) did not specify a target audience. Among the subset with actionable recommendations, a clarification of target audience may help increase the impact.

Abstract Image

神经伦理学学术研究的对象和建议?对国际神经伦理学会年会部分摘要的内容分析
许多神经伦理学文献最后都提出了一系列规范性建议。虽然这些建议有助于总结未来发展方向的建议,但最近有人认为,伦理学学术研究对受众和现实应用的考虑不够重视。然而,迄今为止,虽然学者们已经对神经伦理学文献进行了主题分析,但据我们所知,还没有任何研究对神经伦理学的研究对象和建议内容进行过评估。因此,本研究的目的是对神经伦理学学术研究中提出的建议进行初步描述,并对其目标受众进行评估。我们并没有试图界定什么是 "神经伦理学学术",而是分析了作者自我认定为与神经伦理学相关的文本:在过去十年(2011-2020 年)中,在国际神经伦理学会(INS)年会上发表的摘要,以及在《AJOB Neuroscience》上作为顶级摘要发表的文章。我们发现,大多数摘要使用了概念方法(62.2%),并提供了概念建议(68%)。大约 77% 的摘要没有明确针对目标读者,但几乎所有这些摘要都隐含地针对其他学者。其余的摘要明确指出了目标受众:学者(12.2%)、监管者(6.7%)、医疗保健提供者(6.7%)和行业(2.6%)。只有一小部分摘要提供了实用或政策建议(19.7%)。其中,大部分(61.5%)未指明目标受众。在提供可操作建议的子集中,明确目标受众可能有助于扩大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信