Scientists call for ethics guidance in portable neuroimaging development

Imagine gathering brain data in classrooms as students take a test or traveling to remote communities across the globe to study brain structure. Such possibilities are becoming more realistic as smaller, cheaper and more portable neuroimaging technologies allow researchers to acquire brain data in the field in real-world conditions.

A new study by the University of Minnesota, published in NMR in Biomedicine, found ethical and legal guidance is not keeping up with the fast pace of development for highly portable and accessible neuroimaging.

The authors include faculty and two trainees from the U of M: Frances Daniels, Efrain Torres, Frances Lawrenz and Susan Wolf. They found that developers of the emerging technology have failed to formally address ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) as they designed and deployed portable magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems.

The study was based on interviews with developers and scientists on the front lines of the portable brain scanner revolution, and covered a range of technologies: portable magnetoencephalography, electroencephalography, positron emission tomography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, high-density diffuse optical tomography, and MRI.

Developers of these technologies were not aware of guidance for how to effectively address the ELSI challenges emerging in their work.

“It’s important to highlight the lack of specific ELSI guidance and engagement at the portable neuroimaging technology product development stage, where stakeholders have the opportunity to make choices that could prevent or address future harms or concerns specific to their imaging modality,” said Daniels.

“Discussions with scientists and engineers made it clear that it’s easy to miss the societal implications of engineering decisions,” said Torres. “This work highlights the need for researchers, engineers and companies developing highly impactful technology to engage directly with the stakeholders they will one day impact.”

To address the gap, the authors recommend developers of these technologies work with ethics and legal experts to formulate guidelines. One base for such guidance could come from an article in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences.