(29) Integrating Ethics in Next-Generation Neurotech: A Model for Embedded Ethics in Neurotechnology Industry

Introduction: Over the last decade, neuromodulation and neurotechnology have become an impactful industry, innovating for applications ranging from pain relief to motor and psychiatric conditions and enjoying optimistic market projections[1]. In this context, deep ethics integration is more important than ever. Embedded ethics, popularized via frameworks like responsible research and innovation (RRI)[2], has been applied in some academic neurotechnology research labs[3]. However, despite industry members’ interest in ethics[4,5], this model is largely absent from neurotechnology industry[6]. Prior work in our lab identified potential reasons for this. For instance, traditional embedding emphasizes idea generation through embedded observation, which can be impractical in industry. Moreover, the distinction between embedding and consulting can become blurred in the industry context. Here we present a partial embedding approach that addresses these challenges to support research that both draws from and contributes to neurotechnology industry.

Methods: We implemented our model in partnership with Motif Neurotech, a company developing novel therapeutic neurotechnology to measure and modulate mental and cognitive states. Our process (Fig. 1) begins with pre-embedding discussions between neuroethicists and company leadership to identify research directions. Background research based on these discussions informs both the project proposal and the identification of relevant teams for embedding. Here we identified Motif’s product, science, clinical, and lived experience teams. Embedded work with these teams ranged from participation in team meetings to one-on-one meetings with team members to develop research questions, methods, applications of potential findings, and more.

Results: Through this process, we co-developed a project examining how factors such as neurotechnology device characteristics, implantation procedures, and therapeutic regime impact patients’ risk perceptions and willingness to undergo a neurotechnology intervention. As study activities are completed in the spring, we will collaborate with Motif team members to incorporate findings into future decision-making related to device development and commercialization activities, while also disseminating findings academically to inform the field. This process further cultivated close working relationships between neuroethicists and team members at the company, generating practical insights for the field of neuroethics on the challenges facing early-stage neurotechnology companies.

Conclusion: This project presents a new model for ethics engagement in neurotechnology industry. Beyond collaboration or consulting, the embedded model fosters deeper integration of the ethicist with the company and prioritizes research with broad implications for the field while remaining grounded with practical industry needs. Moreover, the embedded model can generate ethics recommendations that are mindful of the constraints and realities of neurotechnology companies.