[1]
In general, applied metascience is not limited to NE, but can be performed with any kind of scientific discipline.
[2]
A bottom-up approach to NE is data-driven, whereas a top-down approach to NE is definition-seeking.
[3]
I would like to thank my colleagues in the Mainz Research Group on Neuroethics/Neurophilosophy for providing me the opportunity to use the bottom-up approach to NE for the purpose of this commentary.
[4]
The degrees of relevance of publications to neuroethical research, as measured by the connection strengths between the subject categories or topic prototypes, indicate the probabilities that publications will prove fruitful for neuroethical research.
[5]
NE is neither another branch of applied ethics (Levy 2011, p. 3) nor reducible to medicine ethics, bioethics, or a subfield thereof. Nevertheless, there is much overlap (Hildt 2012, pp. 11–12) between these fields.
[6]
Neurophilosophy is a naturalistic and reductive approach towards a unified theory of the mind–brain that requires detailed knowledge about neuroscience (Walter 2013, p. 133).
[7]
Farah characterizes NE as “a broad range of ethical, legal, and social issues raised by progress in neuroscience” (2012, p. 572).
[8]
Gazzaniga understands NE as “the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living, informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms” (2005, p. xv).
[9]
Giordano identifies NE with “(1) the study of neurological bases of moral cognition, sense and action[,] (2) the field of study that addresses the moral issues that arise in and from neuroscientific research and the clinical practices and social effects/implications that evolve from these investigations[, and] (3) the reciprocal interaction(s) between neurological research/clinical practices and other ethically relevant areas of biomedical sciences” (Giordano n.d.).
[10]
Moreno argues that NE “is in some ways old wine in a new bottle” (2003, p. 153).
[11]
Safire defines NE as “the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, and welcome invasion or worrisome manipulation of the human brain” (2007, p. 8).
[12]
Buniak et al. “provide an iterative, four-part document that affords a repository of international papers, books, and chapters that address the field in overview, and present discussion(s) of more particular aspects and topics of neuroethics” (2014, p. 3).
[13]
For example, facts that are necessary for an adequate mapping of the field may have been (un-)intentionally overlooked.
[14]
In Hildt et al. (forthcoming), the developed subject categories or topic prototypes form the basis for further scientometric analysis of the data. For example, the subject categories or topic prototypes allow us to examine the development and institutionalization of NE (e.g., temporal development, structure and disciplinary institutionalization, and reciprocal shaping of NE and related disciplines).
[15]
For example, Gooray & Ferguson’s (2013) database contains about 205 entries dating from 2000 to 2012. The database is based on books and articles from the following twelve journals: Neuroethics, American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Annual Review of Neuroscience, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Molecular Psychiatry, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, Trends in Neurosciences, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, Annals of Neurology, and Progress in Neurobiology. In contrast, Hildt et al.’s (forthcoming) database contains about 2296 entries dating from 1995 to 2012. It is based on books and articles from more than 700 journals.
[16]
https://teamweb.uni-mainz.de/fb05/Neuroethics/SitePages/Home.aspx
[17]
http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb05philosophieengl/further-institutions/research-group-on-neuroethics-and-neurophilosophy/
[18]
The aforementioned selection of twenty-nine journals comprises those journals that had added at least twenty publications to the Mainz NE bibliography before mid-2014. The number of publications ranges from (at least) 352 publications (American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience), 298 publications (American Journal of Bioethics), 211 publications (Neuroethics), 91 publications (Nature Reviews Neuroscience), 68 publications (Der Nervenarzt), 61 publications (Nature Neuroscience), 58 publications (Journal of Medical Ethics), 57 publications (Journal of Neurology), 54 publications (Nature and Neurology), 46 publications (Bioethics), 40 publications (NeuroImage and Science and Engineering Ethics), 37 publications (Trends in Cognitive Sciences), 35 publications (Hastings Center Report), 31 publications (Journal of the American Medical Association, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, and Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology), 28 publications (Science), 26 publications (Cortex and EMBO Reports), 23 publications (Neurocritical Care and Neuropsychology Review), 22 publications (Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Journal of Applied Philosophy, and Psychopharmacology), 21 publications (The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics) to 20 publications (Consciousness and Cognition and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). This selection of twenty-nine journals could be a fruitful starting point for future scientometric research related to NE. Besides this, the Mainz NE bibliography comprises journals that have added less than twenty publications (e.g., Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Philosophical Psychology).
[19]
http://www.webofknowledge.com
[20]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
[21]
http://www.scopus.com
[22]
http://www.ircm.qc.ca/LARECHERCHE/AXES/NEURO/NEUROETHIQUE/PAGES/GROUPE.ASPX?PFLG=1033&lan=1033
[23]
For example, a publication in medicine on the effects of neuroleptics, antidepressants, stimulants, or tranquilizers is selected if it could offer a contribution to the interdisciplinary debate on psychopharmacological cognitive enhancement.
[24]
Combinations of the subject categories or topic prototypes are able to represent almost every issue discussed in NE.
[25]
Bottom-up approaches to NE attempt to provide maximally parsimonious bottom-up descriptions of their target phenomenon (e.g., NE as a dynamical publication state-space). If the top-down descriptions of NE, provided by the top-down approaches to NE, are neither identical with nor reducible to the bottom-up descriptions of NE, then, using a superficial analogy to Churchland’s eliminative materialism (1981), an interesting question is whether or not (and, if so, which of) the top-down descriptions of NE can be eliminated.
[26]
The connection strength between two subject categories or topic prototypes depends upon the number of shared publications, that is, the number of publications that can be assimilated to both subject categories or topic prototypes.
[27]
A publication can be assimilated to a subject category or topic prototype if its abstract and title contain (at least) one of the keywords that define the subject category or topic prototype. As such, less than ten percent of the total publications could not be assimilated to a subject category or topic prototype. An interesting questions is whether or not (and, if so, how) those publications can still be regarded as belonging to NE.
[28]
Accordingly, publications that can be assimilated to the subject category or topic prototype Moral Theory, Neuroimaging, Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness, or Social and Economic Neuroscience are highly relevant to the subject of Churchland’s publication.
[29]
According to Kahane, the general form of a genealogical debunking argument is the following: S’s belief that p is explained by x. But, x is an off-track process, that is, not a truth-tracking process, with respect to p. Therefore, S’s belief that p is unjustified (Kahane 2011, p. 106).
[30]
Of course, this theoretical consideration is not meant to be a serious criticism of Churchland’s publication, because the bottom-up approach to NE was not available to him at the time of writing. It rather shows that applied metascience of NE can help us discover new pathways and directions for future neuroethical research.