IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0042836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviews of Functional MRI: The Ethical Dimensions of Methodological Critique

Author

Listed:
  • James Anderson
  • Ania Mizgalewicz
  • Judy Illes

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies involving human subjects raise a range of ethics issues. Many of these issues are heightened in the context of neuroimaging research involving persons with mental health disorders. There has been growing interest in these issues among legal scholars, philosophers, social scientists, and as well as neuroimagers over the last decade. Less clear, however, is the extent to which members of the neuroimaging community are engaged with these issues when they undertake their research and report results. In this study, we analyze the peer-reviewed review literature involving fMRI as applied to the study of mental health disorders. Our hypothesis is that, due to the critical orientation of reviews, and the vulnerability of mental health population, the penetrance of neuroethics will be higher in the review literature in this area than it is in the primary fMRI research literature more generally. We find that while authors of reviews do focus a great deal of attention on the methodological limitations of the studies they discussed, contrary to our hypothesis, they do not frame concerns in ethical terms despite their ethical significance. We argue that an ethics lens on such discussion would increase the knowledge-value of this scholarly work.

Suggested Citation

  • James Anderson & Ania Mizgalewicz & Judy Illes, 2012. "Reviews of Functional MRI: The Ethical Dimensions of Methodological Critique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-6, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0042836
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042836
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042836&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0042836?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0042836. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.