Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Engaging Scientists in Shared Responsible Innovation in Neuroscience in the United States and Southeast Asia

Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

INTRODUCTION

Advancements in life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering have the potential to solve many pressing technical, medical, social, and environmental challenges. In recent years, rapid advances in the field of neuroscience and neurotechnology have led to unprecedented insights into the inner workings of the brain and potential cutting-edge therapeutics and technologies to improve human health. As this research and innovation moves forward in countries around the world, including in Southeast Asia, questions about ethics, safety, and security have also emerged as researchers, policymakers, and the public consider the potential for neuroscience data or technologies to be misused to cause harm or exploited in ways that exacerbate societal issues.

To foster exchange with scientists in Southeast Asia about opportunities to maximize the benefits of emerging neuroscience research and neurotechnologies while minimizing the risks, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) hosted a workshop series entitled Engaging Scientists in Shared Responsible Innovation in Neuroscience in Southeast Asia. The workshops brought together scientists, researchers, and other experts in academia, industry, and government from the United States, Southeast Asia, and other regions for a series of virtual presentations and discussions on February 20—21 and April 10, 2024. Participants shared examples of current research developments and applications in neuroscience, examined potential benefits and harms of emerging areas of science and technology, and discussed principles and practices for responsible innovation¹ and advancing shared norms, ethics, safety, and security in different national, cultural, and institutional contexts. This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by rapporteurs as a high-level summary of what occurred at the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteurs or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or NASEM.

PART 1: EMERGING NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Participants began the workshop by sharing current and emerging developments in neuroscience and neurotechnology in various national contexts. They discussed how these developments could bring a variety of benefits through a better understanding of the brain; lead to improved diagnostics, treatments and interventions for neurological disorders; empower people with tools for personal wellness, convenience, recreation and social connectedness; and inform health and social policy. They

__________________

also examined how neurotechnologies could potentially cause harm, for example, if they were used to track or manipulate a person’s behavior or decision-making; weaponize data for military, government, or business aims; or identify, discriminate against, or stigmatize individuals.

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Margaret Kosal (Georgia Institute of Technology) moderated an opening session exploring the current state of neuroscience research and development in the United States and Southeast Asia. The session began with three keynote speakers:

Andrea Beckel-Mitchener (National Institutes of Health) spoke about the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative;² Jafri Malin Abdullah (Universiti Sains Malaysia) provided an overview of neuroscience investments and practices in Malaysia; and Kah-Leong Lim (Nanyang Technological University) discussed the neuroscience landscape in Singapore. Discussants Christopher Rozell (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Huong Thi Thanh Ha (International University Vietnam National University) offered additional perspectives to build on the keynote talks, and panelists engaged in an open discussion of neuroscience research investments and approaches, the goals and drivers of these activities, and the considerations and limitations encountered in different national contexts.

Neuroscience in the United States

For context on neuroscience investments in the United States, Beckel-Mitchener provided an overview of the NIH BRAIN Initiative, a large program of the U.S. federal government to fund, develop, leverage, apply, and disseminate innovations to revolutionize understanding of the human brain. Since its launch in 2013, the BRAIN Initiative has invested about $3 billion in research projects to advance science and technologies aimed at addressing a variety of neurological conditions and mental health challenges. Beckel-Mitchener highlighted the initiative’s role in supporting basic research on the structure, function, and connectivity of the human brain and diverse neural cell types across species; spurring new neuroimaging technologies and tools for recording and modulating brain activity; and exploring neural circuits at a systems level, among other areas.

Noting that data science is a major pillar of this effort, Beckel-Mitchener described how the BRAIN Initiative collaborates with domestic and international partners to develop data standards, tools, and programs; data sharing policies; and privacy mechanisms to control data access and deter malicious use.³ She also highlighted the initiative’s strong emphasis on educational components to train the next generation of researchers in neuroscience and neuroethics. Across all these activities, Beckel-Mitchener said that neuroethics has been a key consideration, reflecting the importance of focusing not only on potential uses and benefits of emerging technologies but also the potential risks. “In many instances, we are running up against ethical questions of this technology that we have not had to confront before,” she stated. As research investments continue to yield promising new approaches to relieve the burden of a variety of mental health challenges and neurological disorders—from depression to eating disorders to spinal cord injuries to Parkinson’s disease—she said it is essential to consider how the science and technologies can be deployed responsibly, with appropriate attention to factors like consent, privacy, and access.

Neuroscience in Malaysia

Abdullah painted a contrasting picture of the neuroscience activities underway in Malaysia, where research investments and infrastructure are more limited, and the focus is typically on translational rather than basic research. Despite these challenges, neuroscience research in Malaysia is very active and productive, although the results may not necessarily be accessible to the international audience due to lack of archiving, he said. Noting that neuroscience capacity is important for addressing the significant burdens of mental health issues that Malaysia’s population experiences, Abdullah described several factors that have limited the ability for the country’s neuroscience research community to reach its full potential in recent years.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, research was paused for several years, Abdullah said. A series of political upheav-

__________________

als has led to rapid shifts in government priorities, with implications for research funding and oversight. For example, the current research funding prioritizes innovation in translational research over basic or fundamental research studies. However, Abdullah said that the country lacks the infrastructure needed to support neurotechnology commercialization.

Abdullah suggested that Malaysia’s research community could benefit from greater interdisciplinary capacity to focus on ethical and security considerations and support responsible innovation. He noted that guidelines have recently been established to address research ethics, including the requirement that research subjects represent Malaysia’s diverse population. Looking forward, Abdullah said that advancing responsible innovation in Malaysia will require effective interdisciplinary collaboration among engineers, biologists, and clinicians, as well as greater availability of data and data infrastructure. Noting that many Malaysian neuroscientists were educated abroad and are accustomed to working within international collaborations, Abdullah also noted that the Malaysian scientific community can further leverage its strong capacity to engage in productive research collaborations.

Neuroscience in Singapore

Neuroscience research and development is a key priority in Singapore, which has made large investments in both basic and translational research efforts. Lim described how the country’s robust, interconnected infrastructure of universities, hospitals, and national institutes supports next-generation research to advance neurotechnology, therapies for mental health and neurological disorders, cognitive learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

Several large initiatives foster innovation and strategic partnerships to combat priority neurological conditions including dementia and Parkinson’s disease, he noted. Specialized research centers and facilities, sophisticated neuroimaging capacity, and a national brain tissue repository are a few examples of the resources that enable neuroscience advances. Lim highlighted several emerging areas in the coming years, including generative AI in neurological health care (an area he noted will require careful regulation), AI for neurological therapy development (for example, to achieve a more holistic view of brain-body interactions), and disease modeling using organoid technology, such as 3-D printing human brain tissue.

In advancing these cutting-edge research areas and technologies, Singapore also prioritizes responsible innovation, and has developed strong data and biobanking protections, with regular auditing and strict dual-use policies. There are also strict ethical and legal research requirements, said Lim. While frameworks and structures for responsible research and innovation are important for any activities involving neuroscience, animals, or human subjects, Lim noted that some emerging areas of focus such as AI and cognitive learning may raise particular concerns in terms of misuse and dual-use potential. He suggested that new responsible science frameworks to address new advancements are needed, both in Singapore and around the world.

Perspectives on Neuroscience in a Global Context

Discussants offered their own reflections and built upon the keynote speakers’ remarks. In a panel discussion, the speakers, discussants, and other invited workshop experts engaged in wide-ranging discussion of neuroscience activities in a global context.

Rozell highlighted the rapid pace at which neurotechnologies and AI-enhanced applications are being developed to improve human health in the United States and other regions, particularly psychiatric disorders that are not adequately addressed with existing treatments. “The general public is not prepared for the degree to which neurotechnology is going to be present in our lives very, very soon,” he stated. As these advances continue to develop and attract intense commercial interest, he underscored the importance of thoroughly considering their responsible use. He urged the community to meaningfully engage with issues around neuroethics and the potential social and global implications of these technologies; emphasize comprehensive and multidisciplinary training; and deepen neuroscience knowledge as the neurotechnology industry matures. “I think it’s crucial that

we are aware of the decisions that we make that create the future that we’re going to have—that those things don’t happen to us by accident, but that we’re making intentional choices about the future that we are wanting to create,” Rozell stated.

He also emphasized the value of international collaborations in building upon the strong foundation of basic research, which is fundamental to medical and technological breakthroughs, and supported by programs like the BRAIN Initiative to advance translational work. Beckel-Mitchener highlighted some examples of ambitious, large scale, and multidisciplinary work the BRAIN Initiative supports, such as a brain cell atlas and brain-connection mapping efforts. Rozell expressed appreciation for the vision and approach of the BRAIN Initiative. “The type of projects that are funded and the type of collaborative teams that are able to come out of it is very different than anything that I was able to experience as a scientist prior to the BRAIN Initiative, and I think it’s absolutely transformative,” he said. He added that foreign private investment can also play a role in helping to develop a domestic neurotechnology industry in some countries.

Ha noted that the neuroscience landscape in Vietnam is more similar to Malaysia than the United States. Most Vietnamese researchers focus on translational work because that is where the country’s domestic research funding opportunities are focused, she noted. While scientists are engaging in collaborations to advance areas such as AI-enhanced neuroimaging, -omics analyses of neurodegenerative diseases, and the development of pharmaceuticals from local natural compounds, she said that the Vietnamese research community also faces a number of challenges. Key issues include limited funding; disconnects between academic researchers, practicing clinicians, and engineers; and a limited awareness of the ethics, potential security risks, and responsible innovation, both among the research community and the general public, she said. She added that ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects are quite strict in Vietnam. While protections for human subjects are important, she said that navigating complex approval processes from multiple institutional bodies can be improved to balance scientific progress with responsible innovation.

Panelists and participants also discussed some of the challenges researchers in various countries face when engaging in international neuroscience collaborations. Abdullah and Lim highlighted intellectual property as an important issue. Noting that Malaysia’s patent laws can limit the ability to fully reap the potential economic benefits of technologies, Abdullah said that copyright and patent restrictions can be especially challenging in commercial research. Lim added that it is important to clearly spell out intellectual property rights when establishing research collaboration agreements. He also noted that international collaborations, especially on certain topics like AI, require skillful geopolitical navigation, sensitivity to cultural differences, and a spirit of reciprocity. Lim and Rozell agreed that the convergence of AI and neuroscience will require clear guidance to balance beneficial use, regulations, and progress.

Another challenge is the retention of scientists who leave developing countries to pursue research careers in more developed countries. Abdullah said that when talented Malaysian scientists enter international research collaborations, they often end up being recruited for positions abroad. Sirawaj Itthipuripat (King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand) added that young scientists can also find themselves stuck between countries; for example, young Thai scientists who pursue scientific training abroad often have difficulties receiving funding when they return, because that research is not a domestic priority, yet they are often not eligible for foreign funding sources, either. Abdullah added that sustaining adequate funding represents a perpetual challenge for researchers in less-resourced countries, noting that Malaysian researchers often archive data and samples when they do not have the resources to work with them, in the hopes that they can be utilized later when more funding is available.

Several participants also highlighted the importance of cultural considerations. Lim said that it can be challenging to ensure samples and data reflect Singapore’s diversity. For example, its brain bank only has six specimens so far, in part because of a cultural reticence to donate

organs for research. Lim and Kosal also noted that it is vital for interdisciplinary research teams to include social scientists, since the social context can have a major influence on technology implementation and adoption. As an illustration, Lim pointed to variations in COVID-19 vaccine uptake stemming from vaccine hesitancy among some populations.

POTENTIAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

Some participants pointed to a number of potential security implications for neuroscience and neurotechnology innovations, including those enabled by AI. Karen Rommelfanger (Emory University) moderated a session focused on these issues and posited that international collaborations can be instrumental in mitigating risks through a shared understanding and exchange of resources, knowledge, values, ethical guidelines, and cultural and geographic considerations.

Neurotechnologies and the Future of Warfare

Kosal discussed how neuroscience advances may impact the future of warfare. Recognizing that many technologies can be simultaneously beneficial and dangerous, she said investments in neurotechnologies may be applicable to warfare.

Examples of neurotechnologies that may be developed for future defense applications include genetic modifications, tissue engineering, and regenerative medicine; brain-computer interfacing approaches such as imaging, implants, and virtual reality augmentation; and mechanical performance enhancers such as robotics, nanotechnology, and exoskeletons. To better understand how these technologies fit into the threat landscape, Kosal and colleagues developed a model that considers the political, cultural, economic, and technical contexts within different contexts. The model can then be used to predict the early adopters of military and commercial applications for neurotechnologies.⁴

Noting that there are currently no treaties that address cognitive science or neurotechnology specifically, Kosal said that careful consideration is warranted as countries weigh different approaches in deterrence or threat containment of that new biotechnologies may pose. “The difference between beneficial and dangerous research is often only one of intent,” Kosal noted. She cautioned that poorly designed or reactionary limitations on research will not necessarily advance security interests and could in some cases further amplify the risks. Kosal suggested that international neurotechnology governance, developed through proactive collaborations, is needed to encourage beneficial use and cooperation, but noted that the uncertainty over actor intent, and technological capabilities will likely pose a continuing challenge.

Neurogenetics Research in Southeast Asia

Azlina Ahmad-Annuar (University of Malaya) shared some of the challenges scientists in Southeast Asia face in studying the role of genomic factors in neurobiology and how limitations in this area impact neuroscience knowledge globally. Southeast Asian populations are significantly under-represented in Western-led genomic research,⁵ and the region’s scientists struggle with a sense of playing “catchup” to Western researchers, Ahman-Annuar said. She said that some of the factors that have contributed to this imbalance include funding limitations, a lack of clinician buy-in, and a limited understanding of the potential uses—and misuses—of genetic information among the public. Given the large size and diversity of the region’s population, she posited that increasing the representation of Southeast Asian populations in genomic datasets could advance neuroscience knowledge overall and help scientists find new disease-associated genes that may be applicable to other populations.

A shift toward more inclusive and equitable global research partnerships is helping Southeast Asian countries access the funding, computing resources, technical expertise, and bioinformatics infrastructure needed to conduct large-scale neuroscience and genomics research, Ahman-Annuar said, although she noted that this is not always a domestic priority.⁶ Several projects are underway to find new disease-associated genes and create a reference genome for this diverse part of the world

__________________

that will also be relevant globally, and Ahman-Annuar emphasized the importance of ensuring strong data protections within these collaborations.

Moving forward, Ahman-Annuar said that it will be important to overcome challenges around research participants recruitment, issues regarding informed consent, downstream use, genetic counseling, and cultural sensitivities related to genomic testing and research. She said that there are often particular gaps when it comes to data sharing and interpretation, both on the research side and on the clinical side. “A lot of the genomics research tends to be very focused on just publishing, but there’s very little effort to go back and engage the population or the participant population,” she said. Ahman-Annuar added that strengthening genomic research and clinical capabilities in the region can bring tangible health benefits for patients. “There really is a need for us to do this work, to give them that opportunity and not to be left behind just because they are in this part of the world,” she stated.

Ahmad-Annuar also noted that establishing ethical frameworks for research in Malaysia often falls to institutions and that this can lead to variability in research and clinical practices. For example, obtaining informed consent is challenging because with few genetic counselors, the task often falls on clinicians, who may lack the time or understanding to fully explain all the downstream potential uses of a patient’s data. She suggested that more training could help to address this gap.

International Data Governance

Franco Pestilli (University of Texas at Austin) discussed opportunities to encourage responsible innovation in neuroscience through international data governance. Stating that “data are the new oil,” Pestilli underscored the value and impact of scaling up the amount and type of data that can be collected and analyzed and noted that neuroscience data can be particularly powerful for spurring scientific advancements and applications.^{7, 8} Given the sheer amount of brain related data being generated, emerging AI applications, and the potential for large scale global collaborations, he said that it is important for research and innovations to be shared responsibly and ethically to improve understanding of fundamental brain processes and generate benefits for public health.⁹ “It takes a village to understand the brain, so we might very well share data in a way that benefits society,” Pestilli said.

Toward this end, he posited that there is a need for international governance of neuroscience data based on a full consideration of the ethical, legal, cultural, and technical aspects of these advances; recognition of the risks, benefits, and patients’ lived experiences; and shared principles, practical tools, and training.¹⁰ Noting that recent NIH mandates on data sharing could provide models and lessons for this effort, he described how cloud-based platforms can support the responsible sharing of brain data for the benefit of many populations.

Even when data and scientific tools are made widely and freely available, there can be technical, ethical, and socioeconomic challenges in leveraging the technologies in different regions of the world. As an example, Pestilli described how students in Nigeria encountered problems taking advantage of a free web-based neuroscience platform because they lacked reliable electricity, and their computers were too old to run current web browsers. In addition, he said that researchers and policymakers can face challenges navigating what happens (and who benefits) when sharing data between countries that have different perspectives on ethical conduct of research or different rules on privacy protections.

Balancing Risks and Benefits

Reflecting on the examples and discussions from the first two workshop sessions, Rommelfanger stated that neuroscience has great promise and great risk, and balancing the two requires a thorough and thoughtful discussion of the ethical layers involved while avoiding hype. She added that it is important to consider cultural differences in research practices and interpreting what constitutes privacy and security; determine which factors could enable countries to become early adopters of neurotech-

__________________

nologies; proactively identify areas of mutual interest, benefits, and risks; and avoid creating reactive or counterproductive laws that inadvertently infringe on human rights. Kosel agreed, adding that proactive collaboration on this topic could also benefit from engaging lawyers with expertise in existing global conflict and humanitarian law. She cautioned that it is important to recognize the risk that state actors could take advantage of the uncertainties around new technologies and exploit them. Several participants suggested ideas for future topics for discussion, including unintended short- and long-term consequences of neurotechnologies, when it is advisable not to share research data, and approaches to study underrepresented groups without reinforcing negative stereotypes.

PART II: CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUPPORTING RESPONSIBLE NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

During the second workshop in the series, participants examined how awareness, practices, and policies can support responsible innovation, safety, and security in neuroscience research and innovation. They discussed strategies and approaches to advancing these goals, as well as considerations for determining which strategies might be effective and translatable in different contexts.

INTERNATIONAL DISCOURSE ON RESPONSIBLE SCIENCE

To inform a productive international discourse on responsible science, workshop participants reflected on a variety of potential benefits and positive impacts of neuroscience and technology along with potential capabilities for intentional and unintentional misuse. Building on these discussions, they then explored considerations for responsible innovation.

In terms of benefits, several participants pointed to many opportunities for neuroscience research to improve health and well-being. Some highlighted how the field could empower individual patients and improve public health by uncovering the root causes of neurological and psychiatric disorders, improving diagnoses and treatment outcomes, and enabling new opportunities for

prevention. Neurotechnologies could also enhance brain performance for improved productivity and effectiveness in spheres such as learning, work, and military contexts, a few participants noted. In addition, neuroscience research can improve understanding of the fundamental processes of the nervous system.

Many of the potential security risks participants associated with neuroscience and neurotechnology relate to the exploitation of the nature and sensitivity of neuroscience data. For example, a few participants expressed concern about the potential for brain imaging data to be matched with facial recognition data to identify individuals which can be both a security and privacy risk. Access to individuals’ brain data could also open new opportunities to misuse the data for other purposes without proper consent, such as to train AI algorithms,. Some participants imagined that exploiting wearable or implantable neurotechnology devices could be another avenue of potential security risks as they can be used to predict, record, or manipulate behavior. Many participants also raised the prospect that the public could be pressured or incentivized to adopt neurotechnology devices and noted that the commercial sector may not anticipate risks or downstream uses, advocate for appropriate regulations, or invest in security and privacy measures regarding consumer data privacy.

Participants also discussed possible approaches to facilitating the advancement of beneficial technologies while minimizing the risks of misuse. For example, a certification system could be established to help consumers identify direct-to-consumer neurotechnologies that comply with certain guidelines or privacy safeguards. Some participants also suggested that an international entity could be established with the purpose of examining and integrating policies covering risk assessments, research conduct, and the responsibilities of institutions and funders, while recognizing that policies operate within multiple cultures and contexts globally.

Several participants stressed the importance of inclusivity, recognizing that patients, researchers, and the public reflect different perspectives. They also noted that advancing international and interdisciplinary efforts to encourage responsible innovation requires sensitivity to different cultural contexts.

RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES IN NEUROSCIENCE

In a session moderated by Diane DiEuliis (National Defense University), participants considered approaches to guiding responsible research practices in neuroscience. Deming Chau (Universiti Putra Malaysia) shared insights from an initiative established to foster research integrity, and Damian Eke (University of Nottingham) presented frameworks for supporting responsible research and innovation, along with some of the challenges of implementation. Participants then built upon these examples in a broader discussion.

A Bottom-Up Approach to Fostering Research Integrity in Malaysia

Research integrity is an important component of neuroscience innovation. Chau is a member of the Science Integrity Working Group, an interdisciplinary coalition of early to mid-career biologists, physicians, engineers, physicists, chemists, social scientists, and neuroscientists who collaborate to foster research integrity in Malaysia. Inspired by initiatives the National Academies previously hosted in the country, Chau described how the group developed an active learning pedagogy to engage local scientists with concepts and practices around responsible science and research integrity. They also created an interdisciplinary instructional guide for Malaysian researchers to learn and teach responsible clinical research, an area that is highly relevant to neuroscience and neuroethics.¹¹ In addition, they helped produce a national code of guidelines and principles that will soon be required knowledge for researchers to qualify for state funding. The working group’s materials have been shared with other Southeast Asian countries to help them develop their own resources.

Noting a few lessons learned during the course of developing these resources, Chau said that an unexpected challenge was a lack of institutional support for promoting awareness of research integrity; in addition, he said that the group encountered some reluctance to engage on the part of researchers, who did not always see the issue as a priority. To garner interest and increase engagement, Chau stressed the importance of using interactive, learner-centered training approaches. He also said it is useful to assume a low level of awareness of research

__________________

integrity issues among students and researchers. He suggested building a knowledge base and emphasized the need to contextualize content within the local culture and research ecosystem. Finally, he suggested such efforts may be most impactful and receptive when students and early-career researchers are engaged, as the future leaders of the field.

Frameworks for Responsible Research and Innovation

Eke discussed a few frameworks for how to approach responsible practices in neuroscience along with associated challenges. He noted that neuroscience data is multi-dimensional, multi-functional, and generated by multiple sources. It is also highly sensitive, including, for example, measurements of neuronal activity and brain function, genetics and molecular structures, and individual behavior or mental health status. Given that neuroscience data can both fuel positive innovations and expose individuals or communities to new risks, he emphasized that responsible data governance is needed to protect data from unauthorized access or deliberate misuse, and consider the ethical, legal, social, cultural, and scientific contexts within the data are collected and used.

The concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) may help address concerns of misuse through transparent, interactive processes where the public and researchers are mutually responsible for ensuring that innovations align with societal values. The RRI AREA Framework¹² emphasizes anticipating, reflecting on, engaging with, and being responsive to issues by identifying the process, product, purpose, and people involved in an innovation. “Responsible innovation is essentially taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present,” Eke said.

As noted by other speakers throughout the workshop, key challenges in the responsible conduct of neuroscience research include protecting individual privacy, eliminating bias in research methods and data analysis, and obtaining meaningful consent, especially for studies that are more complex or include vulnerable populations. Eke emphasized that neuroscience innovation is not value-neutral; individual and societal values are integral to the design, development, and implementation of innovations. As such, he said that it is important to intentionally examine innovations, align them with social values, and balance them with ethical and security considerations and effective regulatory oversight to protect the public interest. He noted that the Brain Research International Data Governance & Exchange (BRIDGE) is one effort underway to address these issues through an international data governance framework.¹³

Navigating Differences Across the International Research Landscape

Speakers engaged with workshop participants in an open discussion to explore potential strategies for success in enhancing responsible research and innovation in global contexts.

Gabriel Lazaro (Harvard Medical School) asked the speakers to comment on some of the nuances they have observed in navigating conversations around research practices in different countries. In approaching research integrity, Chau replied that whereas colleagues in the United States may be more focused on issues of research misconduct, Malaysian researchers are generally more receptive to discussions focused on other issues such as publication, authorship, and data management. Eke added that from a practical standpoint, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation sets European data and research practices apart from those of the United States, which does not have the same type of restrictions on data practices.

Nguyen asked how smaller countries might create large-scale neuroscience initiatives similar to those in the United States and United Kingdom. Eke expressed his view that large projects are not always ideal; beyond challenges such as obtaining the necessary funding and political buy-in, he noted that they can create new types of challenges. He said he would encourage researchers from smaller countries to design studies that are locally relevant but also contribute to global neuroscience research, taking steps to help make the findings broadly applicable. In reply to a question from James Eberwine (University of Pennsylvania), Eke added that

__________________

the approach to responsible data protection may vary, depending on whether the context is advancing fundamental scientific knowledge or advancing innovation. However, neuroscience advancements in both areas of research rely on sensitive data, and therefore RRI frameworks that cover ethical and security considerations are still relevant when designing and encouraging the use of technological applications, he said.

Junhyong Kim (University of Pennsylvania) and Eke agreed that synthesizing the diverse perspectives of different cultures into a cohesive set of values pose a significant challenge for research collaborations and shared governance frameworks. Eke posited that the goal is not to truly harmonize all values but to understand and navigate the values different cultures hold. Laura Cabrera (Pennsylvania State University) noted there may still be cases in which a lack of shared values creates friction. Since research values and regulations in different countries cannot always be harmonized—and trying to change others’ culture or values is likely to lead to conflict—Eke stressed that remaining respectful is key to effective collaboration. “It’s important to find ways of respecting people’s cultures […] you can still work together, but [without] trying to change people,” he stated.

In regard to putting ideas into practice, Eke suggested that scientists can take the time to step back and engage with RRI approaches and create interdisciplinary, collaborative teams to anticipate, reflect on, and respond to the issues that are uncovered. Chau agreed, adding that it is important to not assume responsible research practices are “common sense” or come naturally to people. Rather, creating an open and ongoing dialogue can encourage students and researchers to reflect on research misconduct, hypothetical consequences, and potential security risks. He suggested that training can include consideration for scientists to discover root causes or to engage with potential consequences of their research—in their region and around the world.

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR ADVANCING RESPONSIBLE NEUROSCIENCE

The workshop’s final discussion session focused on strategies for training and education, security practices, and policies for data protection to advance responsible neuroscience.

Training and Education

Several participants posited that a key strategy for raising awareness about responsible neuroscience innovation may be to develop multidimensional international training programs that are adequately funded and create effective incentives for engagement. Noting that people of all levels in the scientific ecosystem could benefit from such training and education, multiple participants suggested these programs could take advantage of various platforms for engagement, especially social media. Training and education on practices for risk assessment, data privacy and security, research ethics, security awareness, and scientists’ responsibility to society are some areas a few participants suggested. Some participants stated that it is important for programs to be contextualized for target audience and countries to respect cultural differences. They also suggested training for the next generation of researchers and noted that programs can be most impactful when they incorporate engaging coursework such as case studies, toolkits, and role-playing activities.

More funding can be beneficial to determine which programs are effective nationally and internationally, several participants said. Creating new communication tools and strategies to facilitate conversations with the public and with policymakers, particularly around emerging areas such as the intersection of AI and neuroscience was highlighted among many attendees. A few also added that increased awareness and formal educational programs—including job placement opportunities—can be especially important in regions, like Southeast Asia, that may not have a long tradition of scientific research, established practices around data security and research integrity, policies governing international research collaborations, or a scientific culture equipped to examine ethical issues and responsible innovation.

Security Practices

Throughout the workshop, several speakers noted that neuroscience data is highly sensitive and warrants protections that consider the risks of data collection, sharing, and use. Many participants noted that data can be collected and used over the course of many years or decades, and within a complex international context in which research norms, capabilities, and priorities differ from country to country.

Several participants suggested that cybersecurity specialists may be needed to help Southeast Asian nations develop policies and protocols to store, secure, and share sensitive data; acknowledge the potential risks associated with re-identification; and communicate those risks to the public and commercial sectors. Cautioning that it is important to avoid creating protocols that are either overly burdensome or ineffective, a few participants emphasized that successful implementation of new security practices will also involve interdisciplinary coordination and effective enforcement at the institutional level.

Data Protection Policies

A few participants said that existing general data protection policies can help to inform data governance and privacy policies elsewhere or in more specialized domains, such as neuroscience data. Some participants suggested that specific policies can be used to address neuroscience or brain-related data protections or expand the definition of biometrics data to include consideration for neurodata. The intersection of AI and neuroscience is another area that warrants careful consideration, several participants suggested.

REFLECTIONS

The workshop provided a forum for a fruitful exchange of experiences, knowledge, and ideas among neuroscience researchers, clinicians, program leaders, and experts in areas such as security, safety, and bioethics from the United States, Southeast Asia, and other areas of the world. Highlighting several themes that emerged during the workshop presentations and discussions, Kosal said in closing remarks that participants had raised important theoretical and philosophical questions about the purpose of science, underscoring the value of stepping back and reflecting on scientific goals and practices against the larger backdrop of societal values and priorities. The conversations highlighted examples of key challenges including aligning national and institutional priorities with responsible research; establishing appropriate mechanisms for data governance; and advancing effective mechanisms to support privacy, security, and ethics in research conduct and technology adoption. The discussions also highlighted how existing frameworks, programs, and approaches could serve as inspiration for future efforts to define and implement responsible science and innovation practices in neuroscience and neurotechnology globally.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS Margaret E. Kosal (Chair), Georgia Institute of Technology and Savannah River National Laboratory; Hoang-Anh T. Nguyen, Vietnam–Korea Institute of Science and Technology; De-Ming Chau, Universiti Putra Malaysia; Diane DiEuliis, National Defense University; James H. Eberwine, University of Pennsylvania; Huong Thi Thanh Ha, International University – VNU HCMC; Sirawaj Itthipuripat, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi; Michael King Hwa Ling, Universiti Putra Malaysia; Mohammed Andres Mostajo-Radji, University of California, Santa Cruz; Hieu Pham, VinUniversity and VinUni-Illinois Smart Health Center; Karen Rommelfanger, Institute of Neuroethics.

SPONSOR This workshop was funded by a grant from the United States Department of State. The opinions, findings and conclusions stated herein do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Department of State.

STAFF Lyly Luhachack, Program Officer; Kavita Berger, Director; Dasia McKoy, Senior Program Assistant, Board on Life Sciences; and Sheena Posey Norris, Senior Program Officer, Board on Health Sciences Policy.

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Anne Johnson, Kathleen Pierce, Sheena M. Posey Norris, and Lyly Luhachack as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteurs or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Adeline Yoke Yin Chia, Taylor’s University, Hieu Pham, Vin University, and Jennifer Singh, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Division on Earth and Life Studies Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.