A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: part 1: overview and reviews – defining and describing the field and its practices

Background Neuroethics entails investigations of neurocognitive mechanisms of morality and ethics; and studies and address of the ethical issues spawned by the use of neuroscience and its technologies to investigate cognition, emotion and actions. These two principal emphases, or what have been called “traditions” of neuroethics both mirror traditional bioethical discussions (such as debates about the safety of technological and pharmaceutical advances and ethical implications of new scientific and technological discoveries), and engage discourse about neuroscientific investigations of (proto-moral and moral) cognition, emotions and behaviors, and what such findings may mean for human beliefs and conduct - from the individual to the political levels. Given the growth, range, and rapid maturation of the field of neuroethics we 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. This first installment lists reviews and overviews of the discipline, and broad summaries of basic developments and issues of the field. Methods To systematically survey the neuroethics literature, searches were performed by accessing 11 databases, 8 additional literature depositories, and 4 individual journal searches using indexing language for National Library of Medicine (NLM) Medical Subject Heading databases. Searches and assurance against overlapping coverage were conducted using the RefWorks citation management program. Results Overview, review and reflections upon the history and multicultural perspectives of neuroethics were obtained and relevant listings from international journals, books, and book chapters are provided. Part I will be followed by three installments that will address a): the neuroscience of morality and ethics, including discussions of free will, and personal autonomy; b) “second tradition neuroethics”, to include specific ethical issues in neuroscience; clinical neuroethics; and c) neuroethics education/training; neuroethics and society; neuroethics and law; neuroethics and policy; and international neuroethics.


Introduction and background
Neuroscience has employed and built upon an existing body of research from the natural, physical and social sciences, as well as the humanities in attempts to establish a comprehensive understanding of the structure and function of nervous systems and the brain. Utilizing ever more sophisticated tools, the multi-disciplinary approaches of neuroscience have enabled a number of exciting discoveries, and concomitantly challenged extant ideas about the relationship of brain and mind, and what such constructs-as well as the direction and momentum of neuroscientific inquiry itself-might mean and incur for the philosophies, moral beliefs, attitudes and values, ethical standpoints, and laws that define the social sphere.
Addressing such difficult questions-and answers-is the basis of the discipline of neuroethics. The term, "neuroethics" was introduced by Anneliese Pontius in a paper entitled "Neuro-ethics of 'walking' in the newborn", which appeared in August 1973 in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills [1]. The concept of "a neuroethics" (to include both the "neuroscience of ethics", and the "ethics of neuroscience") was defined and advanced by Adina Roskies [2] and the termand fieldbecame broadly, if not publicly identified as a result of William Safire's opening lecture "Visions for a New Field of 'Neuroethics'" at the 2002 Dana Foundation conference Neuroethics: Mapping the Field [3]. Considered to be the discipline's "coming out conference" speakers called attention to neuroethical areas of inquiry, which encompass "…what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, or unwelcome invasion of and worrisome manipulation of the human brain" [4]. Yet, such a definition belied the richness of this newly emerging field.
Re-appropriating Roskies' definition, neuroethics entails investigations of neurocognitive mechanisms of morality and ethics; and studies and address of the ethical issues spawned by the use of neuroscience and its technologies to investigate cognition, emotion and actions. These two principal emphases, or what have been called "traditions" of neuroethics both mirror traditional bioethical discussions (such as debates about the safety of technological and pharmaceutical advances and ethical implications of new scientific and technological discoveries) and directly engage neuroscientific investigations of (protomoral and moral) cognition, emotions and behaviors, and philosophical, ethical and legal reflections upon what such findings may mean for human beliefs and conduct -from the individual to the political levels.
As a consequence of deepened interest and investments in the neurosciences, including for example, the United States' (US) congressionally-declared Decade of the Brain (1990Brain ( -1999, Decade of Pain Control andResearch (2000-2009), the newly declared Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative (http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/), and a number of international programs (such as the European Union's Human Brain Project, and the Asian Decade of the Mind), the importance of neuroethicsas a set of practices and a disciplineincreased, and research centers specifically dedicated to advancing neuroethics were established. Professional societies such as the Society of Neuroscience (SfN) and the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) further encouraged open discourse regarding implications of neuroscience research and its social utility. The Dana Foundation (US), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Neuroethics Society (INS) have all been important to opening international communication in and about neuroethics by encouraging the "cross-fertilization of ideas" at annual meetings and seminars. The continuing internationalization of the field will be essential as neuroscience research and its use become increasingly multinational, multi-cultural and multi-focal in scope and effect.
To accommodate this momentum, programs in neuroethics have been created within several universities, think tanks, and governmental agencies; these include: Many inter-disciplinary programs integrating biology, psychology, and cognitive science allow for students to study, and focus advanced scholarship, in neuroethics. In addition, numerous universities offer courses or workshops in neuroethics, as the medical, legal, and social issues of neuroethics tend to attract students from a variety of fields.
Other than a few exceptions, such as the University of British Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, and Georgetown University, there are no programs of study specifically dedicated to neuroethics. In response, the program at the University of Pennsylvania provides links to Open Educational Resources (https://sites. sas.upenn.edu/neuroethics) that afford course materials (such as syllabi and useful links on the website) that encourage and support teachers and professors (of all levels and disciplines) to embrace neuroethics.

Aims
Given the growth, inter-disciplinarity, and rapid maturation of the field of neuroethics since 2002 (see Figure 1), we posit the need for, and utility of a comprehensive bibliography of the neuroethics' literature. Toward this end, we 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. As shown in Table 1, this first installment lists reviews and overviews of the discipline, and broad summaries of basic developments and issues of the field. Also included are reflections upon the history and multicultural perspectives of neuroethics. Part I will be followed by three installments, to address specific topics in neuroethics.

Methods
Literature devoted to neuroethics can be found in books, journals, and web documents addressing medicine, biosciences, engineering, philosophy and other humanities, law, and the social sciences, as well as in general reference works and databases such as WorldCat (see below). To systematically survey the neuroethics literature, searches were performed in the following databases:  Open access repositories were another source of documents addressing topics in neuroethics that were utilized. These repositories included: Several open access bioethics journals were not contained in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and therefore were searched individually; these were: Citations obtained from open access journals were reviewed to determine if they have been published in journals abiding by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, or were indexed in one of the databases listed above. Only those that were published in COPE-referent journals and database indexed were included in the bibliography.

Search strategies
The indexing language for NLM's databases, MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ mesh/) provided the basic search strategy for each topic. In addition to clinical terminology, MeSH contains ethics-related terms developed for BIOETHICSLINE, a specialty database devoted to bioethical issues produced for NLM by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics from 1975-2000. BIOETHICSLINE records were incorporated into PubMed and NLM Catalog in 2000. In addition, PubMed includes significant coverage of journals such as Developing World Bioethics, Monash Bioethics Review, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. The percentage of overlap with other databases, such as Philosopher's Index and Academic Search Premier, ranges between 50% -60%. In developing the bibliography, the RefWorks citation manager program was utilized to eliminate duplicate reference citations.

Overlapping coverage
The following references are to articles, book chapters, and monographs that provide overviews/reviews of neuroethics as a field of study.