Cargando…
Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field
In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27445772 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336 |
_version_ | 1782440666689699840 |
---|---|
author | Leefmann, Jon Levallois, Clement Hildt, Elisabeth |
author_facet | Leefmann, Jon Levallois, Clement Hildt, Elisabeth |
author_sort | Leefmann, Jon |
collection | PubMed |
description | In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers. Our analysis exposes that there has been a demonstrative increase of neuroethics research while the issues addressed under this label had mostly been present before the establishment of the field. We show that the research on the ethical, legal and social aspects of neuroscience research is hardly related to neuroscience research on moral decision-making and that the academic backgrounds and affiliations of many neuroethics researchers speak for a very close entanglement of neuroscience and neuroethics. As our article suggests that after more than one decade there still is no dominant agenda for the future of neuroethics research, it calls for more reflection about the theoretical underpinnings and prospects to establish neuroethics as a marked-off research field distinct from neuroscience and the diverse branches of bioethics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4929847 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49298472016-07-21 Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field Leefmann, Jon Levallois, Clement Hildt, Elisabeth Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience In bioethics, the first decade of the twenty-first century was characterized by the emergence of interest in the ethical, legal, and social aspects of neuroscience research. At the same time an ongoing extension of the topics and phenomena addressed by neuroscientists was observed alongside its rise as one of the leading disciplines in the biomedical science. One of these phenomena addressed by neuroscientists and moral psychologists was the neural processes involved in moral decision-making. Today both strands of research are often addressed under the label of neuroethics. To understand this development we recalled literature from 1995 to 2012 stored in the Mainz Neuroethics Database (i) to investigate the quantitative development of scientific publications in neuroethics; (ii) to explore changes in the topics of neuroethics research within the defined time interval; (iii) to illustrate the interdependence of different research topics within the neuroethics literature; (iv) to show the development of the distribution of neuroethics research on peer-reviewed journals; and (v) to display the academic background and affiliations of neuroethics researchers. Our analysis exposes that there has been a demonstrative increase of neuroethics research while the issues addressed under this label had mostly been present before the establishment of the field. We show that the research on the ethical, legal and social aspects of neuroscience research is hardly related to neuroscience research on moral decision-making and that the academic backgrounds and affiliations of many neuroethics researchers speak for a very close entanglement of neuroscience and neuroethics. As our article suggests that after more than one decade there still is no dominant agenda for the future of neuroethics research, it calls for more reflection about the theoretical underpinnings and prospects to establish neuroethics as a marked-off research field distinct from neuroscience and the diverse branches of bioethics. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4929847/ /pubmed/27445772 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336 Text en Copyright © 2016 Leefmann, Levallois and Hildt. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Leefmann, Jon Levallois, Clement Hildt, Elisabeth Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title | Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title_full | Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title_fullStr | Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title_full_unstemmed | Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title_short | Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field |
title_sort | neuroethics 1995–2012. a bibliometric analysis of the guiding themes of an emerging research field |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27445772 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00336 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leefmannjon neuroethics19952012abibliometricanalysisoftheguidingthemesofanemergingresearchfield AT levalloisclement neuroethics19952012abibliometricanalysisoftheguidingthemesofanemergingresearchfield AT hildtelisabeth neuroethics19952012abibliometricanalysisoftheguidingthemesofanemergingresearchfield |