Advances in neuroscience are increasingly intersecting with issues of ethical, legal, and social interest. This study is an analysis of press coverage of an advanced technology for brain imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, that has gained significant public visibility over the past ten years. Discussion of issues of scientific validity and interpretation dominated over ethical content in both the popular and specialized press. Coverage of research on higher order cognitive phenomena specifically attributed broad personal and societal meaning to neuroimages. The authors conclude that neuroscience provides an ideal model for exploring science communication and ethics in a multicultural context.
Adam, D.2003. I feel as if I’ve been entombed: Getting your head examined. The GuardianNovember 20:5-5.
2.
Anderson, M. C., K. N. Ochsner, B. Kuhl, J. Cooper, E. Robertson, S. W. Gabrieli, G. H. Glover, and J. D. E. Gabrieli. 2004. Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science303 (5655): 232-235.
3.
Blakeslee, S.2000. Just what’s going on inside that head of yours? The New York TimesMarch 14:6-6.
Bruer, J. T.1998. The brain and child development: Time for some critical thinking. Public Health Reports113 (5): 388-398.
6.
Cacioppo, J. T., G. G. Berntson, J. F. Sheridan, and M. K. McClintock. 2000. Multi-level integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin126 (6): 829-843.
7.
Cardinal, G., M. Deschênes, B. M. Knoppers, T. Hudson, D. Labuda, G. Bouchard, E. Racine, C. Fecteau, S. Truong, and C. Laberge. 2003. Statement of principles on the ethical conduct of human genetic research involving populations. http://www.rmga.qc.ca/doc/pop/statement_ANG_.pdf.
8.
Churchland, P. S.2002. Brain-wise: Studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Condit, C. M.2001. What is “public opinion” about genetics? Nature Reviews Genetics2:811-815.
10.
Condit, C. M., R. L. Parrott, and B. O’Grady. 2000. Principles and practices of communication processes for genetics in public health. In Genetics and public health in the 21st century: Using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease, edited by M. J. Koury, W. Burke, and E. J. Thomson. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Conrad, P.2001. Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry25 (2): 225-247.
12.
Conrad, P., and J. Gabe. 1999. Introduction: Sociological perspectives on the new genetics: An overview. Sociology of Health & Illness21 (5): 505-516.
13.
Craig, D. A.2000. Ethical language and themes in news coverage of genetic testing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77 (1): 160-174.
14.
Dalgleish, T.2004. The emotional brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience5 (7): 582-589.
15.
Desmond, J. E., and S. H. A. Chen. 2002. Ethical issues in the clinical application of fMRI: Factors affecting the validity and interpretation of activations. Brain and Cognition50 (3): 482-497.
16.
DiPietro, J. A.2000. Baby and the brain: Advances in child development. Annual Review of Public Health21:455-471.
17.
Does neuroscience threaten human values?1998. Nature Neuroscience1 (7): 535-536.
18.
Farah, M. J., and P. R. Wolpe. 2004. Monitoring and manipulating brain function: New neuro-science technologies and their ethical implications. Hastings Center Report34 (3): 35-45.
19.
Farwell, L. A., and S. S. Smith. 2001. Using brain MERMER testing to detect concealed knowledge despite efforts to conceal. Journal of Forensic Sciences46 (1): 1-9.
20.
Feinstein, A. R., and D. Cicchetti. 1990. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology43 (6): 543-549.
21.
Gardner, H., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and W. Damon. 2001. Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Geller, G., B. A. Bernhardt, and N. A. Holtzman. 2002. The media and the public reaction to genetic research. JAMA287:773-773.
23.
Greely, H. T. 2002. Neuroethics and ELSI: Some comparisons and considerations. Presented at Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, San Francisco, CA.
24.
Gura, T.2005. Big plans for little brains. Nature435 (7046): 1156-1158.
25.
Hall, S. S.1998. The scientific method: Test-tube moms. The New York TimesApril 5:22-22.
26.
Hall, W., L. Carter, and K. I. Morley. 2004. Neuroscience research on the addictions: A prospectus for future ethical and policy analysis. Addictive Behaviors29 (7): 1481-1495.
27.
Hamilton, J. O.2004. Journey to the center of the mind. BusinessWeekApril 19:78-78.
28.
Herculano-Houzel, S.2002. Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscientist8 (2): 98-110.
29.
Hinton, V. J.2002. Ethics of neuroimaging in pediatric development. Brain and Cognition50 (3): 455-468.
Illes, J., M. P. Kirschen, and J. D. Gabrieli. 2003. From neuroimaging to neuroethics. Nature Neuroscience6 (3): 205-205.
32.
Illes, J., and E. Racine. 2005. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics5 (2): 5-18.
33.
Illes, J., E. Racine, and M. Kirschen. 2005. A picture is worth 1000 words, but which 1000? In Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice and policy, edited by J. Illes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
Illes, J., and T. A. Raffin. 2002. Neuroethics: An emerging new discipline in the study of brain and cognition. Brain and Cognition50 (3): 341-344.
35.
Izzetoglu, K., S. Bunce, M. Izzetoglu, B. Onaral, and K. Pourrezaei. 2004. Functional near-infrared neuroimaging. Presented at the 26th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, San Francisco, CA.
36.
Jaffe, S.2004. Fake method for research impartiality (fMRI). The ScientistJuly 19:64-64.
37.
Kennedy, D. 2003. Neuroethics: An uncertain future. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans, LA, November 10.
38.
Kohring, M., and J. Matthes. 2002. The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11 (2): 143-154.
39.
Kulynych, J.2002. Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research: Human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public communication of research results. Brain and Cognition50 (3): 345-357.
40.
Langleben, D. D., L. Schroeder, J. A. Maldjian, R. C. Gur, S. McDonald, J. D. Ragland, C. P. O’Brien, and A. R. Childress. 2002. Brain activity during simulated deception: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study. NeuroImage15 (3): 727-732.
41.
Lentle, B., and J. Aldrich. 1997. Radiological sciences, past and present. The Lancet350 (9073): 280-285.
42.
Lippman, A.1991. Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs and reinforcing inequalities. American Journal of Law and Medicine17 (1/2): 15-50.
43.
Lippman, A.1992. Led (astray) by genetic maps: The cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science and Medicine35 (12): 1469-1476.
44.
Mauron, A.2003. Renovating the house of being. Annals of the New York Academy of Science1001:240-252.
45.
Mazziotta, J. C.2000. Window on the brain. Archives of Neurology57 (10): 1413-1421.
46.
Monasterky, R.2001. Land mines in the world of mental maps. Chronicle of Higher EducationNovember 2:20-20.
47.
Moreno, C., J. Lujan, and L. Moreno. 1996. La ingeniera genética humana en la prensa: Analísis de contenido de ABC, El Pais y La Vanguardia (1988-1993). Madrid, Spain: Instituto de Estudios Avanzados (CSIC).
48.
Moreno, J. D.2003. Neuroethics: An agenda for neuroscience and society. Nature Reviews Neuroscience4 (2): 149-153.
49.
Mulkay, M.1994. Embryos in the news. Public Understanding of Science3 (1): 33-51.
50.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: W. H. Freeman.
51.
Neuendorf, K. A.2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
Open your mind. 2002. The EconomistMay 25. People v. Weinstein (591 NYS 2d 715) (Sup. Ct. 1992).
53.
Persaud, R.2001. Who’s telling porkies about racism? Refinements in brain-scanning could soon make the thought police a reality. The Daily TelegraphApril 25:21-21.
54.
Petersen, A.2001. Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine52 (8): 1255-1268.
55.
Priest, S. H., and J. Talbert. 1994. Mass media and the ultimate technological fix: Newspaper coverage of biotechnology. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal10 (1): 76-85.
56.
Racine, E.2003. Discourse ethics as an ethics of responsibility: Comparison and evaluation of citizen involvement in population genomics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics31 (3): 390-397.
57.
Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes. 2005. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience6 (2): 159-164.
58.
Racine, E., I. Gareau, H. Doucet, G. Jobin, D. Laudy, G. Jobin, and P. Schraedley-Desmond. 2006. Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992-2001) in Québec. Social Science & Medicine62 (5): 1278-1290.
59.
Raichle, M. 2004. Neuroethics: Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA, October 27.
60.
Rose, S. P. R.2003. How to (or not to) communicate science. Biochemical Society Transactions31 (2): 307-312.
61.
Rosen, A. C., A. L. W. Bodke, A. Pearl, and J. A. Yesavage. 2002. Ethical and practical issues in applying functional imaging to the clinical management of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Cognition50 (3): 498-519.
62.
Roskies, A.2002. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron35 (1): 21-23.
63.
Ross, P.2003. Mind readers. Scientific AmericanSeptember: 74-77.
64.
Sample, I., and D. Adam. 2003. The brain can’t lie: Brain scans reveal how you think and feel and even how you might behave. The GuardianNovember 20:4-4.
65.
Schacter D. L., R. L. Buckner, and W. Koutstaal. 1998. Memory, consciousness and neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B353:1861-1978.
66.
Sellars, W.1963. Science, perception, and reality. New York: Humanities Press.
67.
Silence of the neuroengineers. 2003. Nature423:787-787.
68.
Spinney, L.2002. The mind readers. New ScientistSeptember 21:38-38.
69.
Study may have found test to scientifically diagnose ADHD. 1999. LRP Publications, February.
70.
Stufflebaum, R. S., and W. Bechtel. 1997. PET: Exploring the myth and the method. Philosophy of Science64 (Suppl.): S95-S106.
71.
Taylor, C.1989. Sources of the self: The making of modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
Thompson, R. A., and C. A. Nelson. 2001. Developmental science and the media. American Psychologist56 (1): 5-15.
73.
2003 Japan Prizes on fMRI, chaos, fractals. 2003. The Daily YomiuriJanuary 15:10-10.
74.
van Dijck, J.2003. After the “two cultures”: Toward a “(multi)cultural” practice of science communication. Science Communication25:177-190.
75.
Williams, C., J. Kitzinger, and L. Henderson. 2003. Envisaging the embryo in stem cell research: Rhetorical strategies and media reporting of the ethical debates. Sociology of Health & Illness25 (7): 793-814.
76.
Wolpe, P. R.2002. The neuroscience revolution. The Hastings Center Report32 (4): 8-8.
