Talk:Neuroethics

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Science Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of science

Wow, in Eight Years since this article's creation, there has been no discussion on the talk page

Wow, in eight years since this article's creation, there has been no discussion on the talk page. ANy ideas why? PPdd (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, scientific interrogation, and mind control

In addition to the ethics of neuroscience, the conventional literature on neuroethics often implicitly (if not explicitly) discusses psychobiology, psychology, psychiatry, and policical issues involving mind control and the science of interrogation. The "scientific interrogation" aspects even made it into popular culture following news stories about this regarding the Bush Jr. administration. Furthermore, there is clear literature on this article's subject prior to actually coining the expression "neuroethics". This may be obvious enough to editors with expertise in this area as to include without sourcing, but I thought I would run it by on the talk page before doing so. An issue might be that academic journal articles, which are clearly within this article's subject matter, might not overtly use the expression "neuroethics", either because it had not yet been coined, or because it is obvious to any professional reader of that journal. PPdd (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebury Students Working on this Page

Our names are Mariah Dawson and Devon Tomasi, we are undergraduate students at Middlebury College taking a class on Intro to Neuroscience. We will be editing this page for the next few weeks, so feel free to comment!

Okay, cool. Note that you can sign your talk page messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just uploaded a new draft and am still working on the page. I'm open for comments and constructive criticism! Riahnend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Middlebury Classmates

Comment One

First of all, fantastic job on this page! It is very well written, easy to follow, and extremely informative. Your links to other pages are great and you treat all the issues with a nice amount of attention and detail. You really got me interested in this topic.

I just have a couple comments for you to consider (but by no means should you think you have to do these! They're just suggestions). In your intro, when you say "Rees and Rose (as cited in 'References' on page 9)," why don't you put in a footnote at the end of the sentence and cite the source in your notes section rather than using this parenthetical citation? Overall in the article the citation system seems a bit disorderly - why do you have a separate notes and references section, wouldn't it be easier to combine them? In some cases, you have citations that aren't linked to the reference section (for example, at the end of the section "Neuroethics of Neurological Treatments" you have a citation that doesn't link to the ref section). In the section on "Brain Interventions," you mention Peter Cramer but you don't cite the source (at least not directly).

In the section on "Brain Imagining" maybe flesh out a little more what you mean by "intentional deception." I was confused the first time I read it, and I think it will be easier to understand if you give a clearer definition of this term. Also, in the section "Neuroethics of Stem Cell Therapy," after the first paragraph I might include a brief description of stem cell ethics in general. I feel like you get specific into applications of neuroscience in stem cell therapy but don't adequately cover all the ethical issues this entails.

Overall, amazing job! I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks, Neuroit (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two

Your introduction is very informative, well structured, and provides great examples that capture the reader’s attention. Personally I find it very easy to read. Great job linking outside pages back the original page. I might suggest adding foot notes to some of the paragraphs and sections throughout the Wikipedia page. For the category of problems, are there any articles or websites that you can link to such problems being presented? Careful while linking back pages that do not exist. Overall, great work. --Rterrones (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3

Hi Mariah and Devon, PC here. This comment is for both of your sections. Overall nice summary and well referenced. You did a good job finding the appropriate sources for your articles. Make sure you have enough to meet the requirements. For the stem cell section, you should make the neuroethics of stem cell research more explicit. Please spend a little more time making those connections from stell cell research to ethical implications/arguments. Be sure the citations are proper and there are no typos! Thanks! PC User:Midd Intro Neuro —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4

I don’t know how much of this is yours but great job, this is probably the best article I saw that was part of our neuroscience wiki project. It is very easy to read and very informative.

The introduction is good and detailed and the history of neuroethics section gives a nice very overview of everything. The key issues in neuroethics section is especially well done, with a lot of detail and useful information.

It was very hard to find think of any useful feedback that might help you with the article, but I would just recommend one thing -- making more links to different Wikipedia pages, for example stem cells have their own wiki page and you could link it to, as well as fMRI and there are a few other terms I came across.

Again, very good job on the wiki page! Gumovnik (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comments

Thank you all for your comments! I did my best to address some of the clarification issues concerning intentional deception as well as clear up any typos. I added another section in the stem cell section about the ethical implications of using stem cells. I also found more sources to back up and flesh out my section of this page. Thanks for all of the constructive criticism. Riahnend (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for taking the time to write such helpful comments! I did my best to address all comments that applied to the work I contributed to this page. Some issues with the page unfortunately were already written before Mariah and I started editing, so I did not apply your suggestions pertaining to those sections. I found additional sources to back up my sections of the page and added some new material. I also made sure that my citations linked to sources in my reference list. Thanks again for the great suggestions! Dtomasi11 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neuroethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]