@article{schneider_samsa_dubljević_eric_2024, title={A Political and ethical landscape of brain organoid research [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]}, volume={2}, url={https://molecularpsychology.org/articles/2-3/v2}, DOI={10.12688/molpsychol.17521.2}, abstractNote={Human cerebral organoids (hCOs), produced in labs through directed cell culture of embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells, closely replicate the 3-dimensional architecture of the human brain on a micro scale. This technology has been used to model neurological disease and shows promise to complement or supplant animal subjects in preclinical therapeutic investigation. However, attention must be paid by researchers and institutions to the various ethical concerns associated with hCO development. Human-animal chimeras produced through the grafting of hCOs have shown integration of neurological function, calling into question the moral status of both the animal chimeras and the organoid itself. Sensationalist reporting on such acts may also prompt public backlash, potentially jeopardizing hCO research and the promised benefits thereof. Moreover, concerns arise over privacy and consent for past and prospective donors of stem cells used to produce organoids. Genetic information may be considered privileged to the public domain and disrupted trust can reduce the supply of willing donors. Though hCOs are believed thus far to lack the capacity for consciousness and cognitive function, consideration must be given to their potential status as moral agents with further development or enhancement. Boundaries concerning organoids adhered to by researchers have been largely voluntary and informal to this point. By edict or by the power of the purse, governmental regulatory agencies ought to formalize necessary guidelines to ensure compliance with ethical principles and the adequate representation of all affected stakeholders in future decisions.}, number={3}, journal={Molecular Psychology: Brain, Behavior, and Society}, author={Schneider, Eric and Samsa, Leigh Ann and Dubljević, Veljko and Eric, Schneider}, editor={Veljko, Dubljević and Ann, Samsa LeighEditors}, year={2024}, month={Mar} }
 @article{dubljević_2024, title={Colleges and universities are important stakeholders for regulating large language models and other emerging AI}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102480}, DOI={10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102480}, journal={Technology in Society}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2024}, month={Mar} }
 @article{mccall_dubljevic_2024, title={HUMAN FLOURISHING OR INJUSTICE? SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT}, ISBN={["978-0-367-61581-9", "978-0-367-61579-6"]}, DOI={10.4324/9781003105596-37}, journal={ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF THE ETHICS OF HUMAN ENHANCEMENT}, author={McCall, Iris Coates and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2024}, pages={389–406} }
 @article{dempsey_coin_dubljevic_2024, title={Is the Internet a Cognitive Enhancement?}, volume={3}, ISSN={["2509-3304"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-024-00289-y}, DOI={10.1007/s41465-024-00289-y}, journal={JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT}, author={Dempsey, Ronald P. and Coin, Allen and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2024}, month={Mar} }
 @article{dubljevic_2024, title={On Changes and Opportunities at AJOB Neuroscience}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2292490}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2023.2292490}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2024}, month={Jan} }
 @misc{nair_berryessa_dubljevic_2023, title={A Scoping Review of Ethical and Legal Issues in Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2561-4665"]}, url={https://cjb-rcb.ca/index.php/cjb-rcb/article/view/621}, DOI={10.7202/1101133ar}, abstractNote={Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a subtype of frontotemporal dementia characterized by changes in personality, social behaviour, and cognition. Although neural abnormalities cause bvFTD patients to struggle with inhibiting problematic behaviour, they are generally considered fully autonomous individuals. Subsequently, bvFTD patients demonstrate understanding of right and wrong but are unable to act in accordance with moral norms. To investigate the ethical, legal, and social issues associated with bvFTD, we conducted a scoping review of academic literature with inclusion & exclusion criteria and codes derived from our prior work. Among our final sample of fifty-six articles, four mentioned bvFTD patient-offenders as unfit to stand trial by insanity, and sixteen mentioned the use of dementia evidence in a court of law to better understand the autonomy of bvFTD patients. Additional emergent issues that were discovered include: training police officers to handle situations involving bvFTD patients and educating healthcare providers on how to help caregivers navigate bvFTD. The current literature highlights the inadequacy of traditional applications of medico-legal categories such as autonomy, capacity and competence, in informing cognitive capacity assessments in clinical and legal settings and deserves consideration by neuroethicists.}, number={2}, journal={CANADIAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS-REVUE CANADIENNE DE BIOETHIQUE}, author={Nair, Anirudh and Berryessa, Colleen M. and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2023} }
 @article{sattler_dubljevic_racine_2023, title={Cooperative behavior in the workplace: Empirical evidence from the agent-deed-consequences model of moral judgment}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1664-1078"]}, DOI={10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1064442}, abstractNote={Introduction Moral judgment is of critical importance in the work context because of its implicit or explicit omnipresence in a wide range of work-place practices. The moral aspects of actual behaviors, intentions, and consequences represent areas of deep preoccupation, as exemplified in current corporate social responsibility programs, yet there remain ongoing debates on the best understanding of how such aspects of morality (behaviors, intentions, and consequences) interact. The ADC Model of moral judgment integrates the theoretical insights of three major moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism) into a single model, which explains how moral judgment occurs in parallel evaluation processes of three different components: the character of a person (Agent-component); their actions (Deed-component); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component). The model offers the possibility of overcoming difficulties encountered by single or dual-component theories. Methods We designed a 2 × 2 × 2-between-subjects design vignette experiment with a Germany-wide sample of employed respondents (N = 1,349) to test this model. Results Results showed that the Deed-component affects willingness to cooperate in the work context, which is mediated via moral judgments. These effects also varied depending on the levels of the Agent- and Consequences-component. Discussion Thereby, the results exemplify the usefulness of the ADC Model in the work context by showing how the distinct components of morality affect moral judgment.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Sattler, Sebastian and Dubljevic, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2023}, month={Jan} }
 @article{kaebnick_magnus_kao_hosseini_resnik_dubljevic_rentmeester_gordijn_cherry_2023, title={Editors' Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1536-0075"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2292437}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2023.2292437}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS}, author={Kaebnick, Gregory E. and Magnus, David Christopher and Kao, Audiey and Hosseini, Mohammad and Resnik, David and Dubljevic, Veljko and Rentmeester, Christy and Gordijn, Bert and Cherry, Mark J.}, year={2023}, month={Dec} }
 @article{kaebnick_magnus_kao_hosseini_resnik_dubljević_rentmeester_gordijn_cherry_2023, title={Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2257181}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2023.2257181}, abstractNote={The new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, and especially the large language models (LLMs) of which ChatGPT is the most prominent example, have the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. How the transformations will play out remains to be seen, both because the different parties involved in the production and publication of scholarly work are still learning about these tools and because the tools themselves are still in development, but the tools have a vast range of potential uses. Authors are likely to use generative AI to conduct research, frame their thoughts, produce data, search for ways of articulating their thoughts, develop drafts, generate text, revise their writing, and create visuals. Peer reviewers might use AI to help them produce their reviews. Editors might use AI in the initial editorial screening of manuscripts, to locate reviewers, or for copyediting. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. We do not pre-tend to have resolved the many social questions that we think generative AI raises for scholarly publishing, but in the interest of fostering a wider conversation about these questions, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations about generative AI in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, author={Kaebnick, Gregory E. and Magnus, David Christopher and Kao, Audiey and Hosseini, Mohammad and Resnik, David and Dubljević, Veljko and Rentmeester, Christy and Gordijn, Bert and Cherry, Mark J.}, year={2023}, month={Oct} }
 @article{pflanzer_dubljevic_bauer_orcutt_list_singh_2023, title={Embedding AI in society: ethics, policy, governance, and impacts}, volume={6}, ISSN={["1435-5655"]}, DOI={10.1007/s00146-023-01704-2}, journal={AI & SOCIETY}, author={Pflanzer, Michael and Dubljevic, Veljko and Bauer, William A. A. and Orcutt, Darby and List, George and Singh, Munindar P. P.}, year={2023}, month={Jun} }
 @article{dempsey_eskander_dubljevic_2023, title={Ethical Decision-Making in Law Enforcement: A Scoping Review}, url={https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/5/2/37}, DOI={10.3390/psych5020037}, abstractNote={Decision-making in uncertain and stressful environments combined with the high-profile cases of police violence in the United States has generated substantial debates about policing and created challenges to maintaining public confidence and trust in law enforcement. However, despite the manifestations of reactions across the ideological spectrum, it is unclear what information is available in the literature about the convergence between ethical decision-making and policing. Therefore, an interdisciplinary scoping review was conducted to map the nature and extent of research evidence, identify existing gaps in knowledge, and discuss future implications for ethical decision-making in law enforcement. This review investigates the interaction between the job complexities of policing (psychological and normative factors) and aspects of ethical decision-making, synthesizing three distinct themes: (1) socio-moral dimensions impact the job complexities of police work, (2) lethal means and moral injury influence intuitive and rational decision-making, and (3) police wellness and interventions are critical to sustaining police readiness. Gaps in recruiting, training, and leadership and managerial practices can be broadly transformed to fundamentally emphasize officer wellness and a holistic approach to ethical practices, enabling police officers to uphold the rule of law, promote public safety, and protect the communities they serve.}, journal={Psych}, author={Dempsey, Ronald and Eskander, Elizabeth E. and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Jun} }
 @article{pflanzer_traylor_lyons_dubljević_nam_2023, title={Ethics in human–AI teaming: principles and perspectives}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00214-z}, DOI={10.1007/s43681-022-00214-z}, abstractNote={Abstract Ethical considerations are the fabric of society, and they foster cooperation, help, and sacrifice for the greater good. Advances in AI create a greater need to examine ethical considerations involving the development and implementation of such systems. Integrating ethics into artificial intelligence-based programs is crucial for preventing negative outcomes, such as privacy breaches and biased decision making. Human–AI teaming (HAIT) presents additional challenges, as the ethical principles and moral theories that provide justification for them are not yet computable by machines. To that effect, models of human judgments and decision making, such as the agent-deed-consequence (ADC) model, will be crucial to inform the ethical guidance functions in AI team mates and to clarify how and why humans (dis)trust machines. The current paper will examine the ADC model as it is applied to the context of HAIT, and the challenges associated with the use of human-centric ethical considerations when applied to an AI context.}, journal={AI and Ethics}, author={Pflanzer, Michael and Traylor, Zachary and Lyons, Joseph B. and Dubljević, Veljko and Nam, Chang S.}, year={2023}, month={Aug} }
 @article{dempsey_brunet_dubljević_2023, title={Exploring and Understanding Law Enforcement’s Relationship with Technology: A Qualitative Interview Study of Police Officers in North Carolina}, volume={13}, ISSN={2076-3417}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13063887}, DOI={10.3390/app13063887}, abstractNote={Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into law enforcement has become a concern of contemporary politics and public discourse. In this paper, we qualitatively examine the perspectives of AI technologies based on 20 semi-structured interviews of law enforcement professionals in North Carolina. We investigate how integrating AI technologies, such as predictive policing and autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, impacts the relationships between communities and police jurisdictions. The evidence suggests that police officers maintain that AI plays a limited role in policing but believe the technologies will continue to expand, improving public safety and increasing policing capability. Conversely, police officers believe that AI will not necessarily increase trust between police and the community, citing ethical concerns and the potential to infringe on civil rights. It is thus argued that the trends toward integrating AI technologies into law enforcement are not without risk. Policymaking guided by public consensus and collaborative discussion with law enforcement professionals must aim to promote accountability through the application of responsible design of AI in policing with an end state of providing societal benefits and mitigating harm to the populace. Society has a moral obligation to mitigate the detrimental consequences of fully integrating AI technologies into law enforcement.}, number={6}, journal={Applied Sciences}, publisher={MDPI AG}, author={Dempsey, Ronald P. and Brunet, James R. and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Mar}, pages={3887} }
 @article{cecchini_brantley_dubljevic_2023, title={Moral judgment in realistic traffic scenarios: moving beyond the trolley paradigm for ethics of autonomous vehicles}, volume={11}, ISSN={["1435-5655"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01813-y}, DOI={10.1007/s00146-023-01813-y}, abstractNote={Abstract The imminent deployment of autonomous vehicles requires algorithms capable of making moral decisions in relevant traffic situations. Some scholars in the ethics of autonomous vehicles hope to align such intelligent systems with human moral judgment. For this purpose, studies like the Moral Machine Experiment have collected data about human decision-making in trolley-like traffic dilemmas. This paper first argues that the trolley dilemma is an inadequate experimental paradigm for investigating traffic moral judgments because it does not include agents’ character-based considerations and is incapable of facilitating the investigation of low-stakes mundane traffic scenarios. In light of the limitations of the trolley paradigm, this paper presents an alternative experimental framework that addresses these issues. The proposed solution combines the creation of mundane traffic moral scenarios using virtual reality and the Agent-Deed-Consequences (ADC) model of moral judgment as a moral-psychological framework. This paradigm shift potentially increases the ecological validity of future studies by providing more realism and incorporating character considerations into traffic actions.}, journal={AI & SOCIETY}, author={Cecchini, Dario and Brantley, Sean and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Nov} }
 @article{twiddy_hector_dubljević_2023, title={Perceived Invasiveness and Therapeutic Acceptability of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2150710}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2022.2150710}, abstractNote={rier opening in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using MRguided focused ultrasound. Nature Communications 10(1): 4373. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12426-9. Bluhm, R., M. Cortright, E. D. Achtyes, and L. Y. Cabrera. 2023. “They are invasive in different ways.”: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the invasiveness of psychiatric electroceutical interventions. AJOB Neuroscience 14(1): 1–12. doi:10. 1080/21507740.2021.1958098. Coates McCall, I., N. Minielly, A. Bethune, N. Lipsman, P. J. McDonald, and J. Illes. 2020. Readiness for first-inhuman neuromodulatory interventions. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 47(6): 785–92. doi:10. 1017/cjn.2020.113. Cole, J., M. N. Sohn, A. D. Harris, S. L. Bray, S. B. Patten, and A. McGirr. 2022. Efficacy of adjunctive D-cycloserine to intermittent theta-burst stimulation for major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2022: e223255. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.3255. Elias, W. J., N. Lipsman, W. G. Ondo, P. Ghanouni, Y. G. Kim, W. Lee, M. Schwartz, K. Hynynen, A. M. Lozano, and B. B. Shah. 2016. A randomized trial of focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor. The New England Journal of Medicine 375(8): 730–9. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa1600159. Kondziolka, D., J. G. Ong, J. Y. Lee, R. Y. Moore, J. C. Flickinger, and L. D. Lunsford. 2008. Gamma Knife thalamotomy for essential tremor. Journal of Neurosurgery 108(1): 111–7. doi:10.3171/JNS/2008/108/01/0111. Lipsman, N., Y. Meng, A. J. Bethune, Y. Huang, B. Lam, M. Masellis, N. Herrmann, C. Heyn, I. Aubert, and A. Boutet. 2018. Blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer’s disease using MR-guided focused ultrasound. Nature Communications 9(1): 2336. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04529-6. Mureb, M., D. Golub, C. Benjamin, J. Gurewitz, B. A. Strickland, G. Zada, and D. Kondziolka. 2020. Earlier radiosurgery leads to better pain relief and less medication usage for trigeminal neuralgia patients: An international multicenter study. Journal of Neurosurgery 2020: 1–8. doi:10.3171/2020.4.JNS192780. Silk, E. M., Diwan, T. Rabelo, H. Katzman, A. C. P. Campos, F. V. Gouveia, P. Giacobbe, N. Lipsman, and C. Hamani. 2022. Serotonin 5-HT1B receptors mediate the antidepressantand anxiolytic-like effects of ventromedial prefrontal cortex deep brain stimulation in a mouse model of social defeat. Psychopharmacology 239(12): 3875–92. doi:10.1007/s00213-022-06259-6.}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, author={Twiddy, Jack and Hector, Emily C. and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Jan} }
 @article{schneider_samsa_dubljević_2023, title={Political and ethical landscape of brain organoid research}, url={https://doi.org/10.12688/molpsychol.17521.1}, DOI={10.12688/molpsychol.17521.1}, abstractNote={Human cerebral organoids (hCOs), produced in labs through directed cell culture of embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cells, closely replicate the 3-dimensional architecture of the human brain on a micro scale. This technology has been used to model neurological disease and shows promise to complement or supplant animal subjects in preclinical therapeutic investigation. However, attention must be paid by researchers and institutions to the various ethical concerns associated with hCO development. Human-animal chimeras produced through the grafting of hCOs have shown integration of neurological function, calling into question the moral status of both the animal chimeras and the organoid itself. Sensationalist reporting on such acts may also prompt public backlash, potentially jeopardizing hCO research and the promised benefits thereof. Moreover, concerns arise over privacy and consent for past and prospective donors of stem cells used to produce organoids. Genetic information may be considered privileged to the public domain and disrupted trust can reduce the supply of willing donors. Though hCOs are believed thus far to lack the capacity for consciousness and cognitive function, consideration must be given to their potential status as moral agents with further development or enhancement. Boundaries concerning organoids adhered to by researchers have been largely voluntary and informal to this point. By edict or by the power of the purse, governmental regulatory agencies ought to formalize necessary guidelines to ensure compliance with ethical principles and the adequate representation of all affected stakeholders in future decisions.}, journal={Molecular Psychology: Brain, Behavior, and Society}, author={Schneider, Eric and Samsa, Leigh Ann and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Apr} }
 @misc{day_twiddy_dubljevic_2023, title={Present and Emerging Ethical Issues with tDCS use: A Summary and Review}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1874-5504"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09508-9}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-022-09508-9}, number={1}, journal={NEUROETHICS}, author={Day, Parker and Twiddy, Jack and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Apr} }
 @article{trettenbach_ranisch_dubljević_2023, title={The Socio-political Perspective in Neuroethics: Applications, Clarifications & Extensions}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2023.2243862}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2023.2243862}, abstractNote={Socio-Political}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, author={Trettenbach, Katharina and Ranisch, Robert and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2023}, month={Jul} }
 @inbook{dubljević_bauer_2022, title={Autonomous Vehicles and the Basic Structure of Society}, ISBN={9780197639191}, booktitle={Autonomous Vehicle Ethics, The Trolley Problem and Beyond}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Dubljević, V. and Bauer, W.A.}, editor={Jenkins, R. and Cerny, D. and Hribek, T.Editors}, year={2022} }
 @article{dubljevic_young_appelbaum_2022, title={Diversifying the Bioethics Funding Landscape: The Case of TMS}, volume={22}, ISSN={["1536-0075"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.2001106}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2021.2001106}, abstractNote={Fabi and Goldberg (2022) investigate how funding availability influences the landscape of bioethics as a field, and (inadvertently) perpetuates forms of social and epistemic injustice while limiting diversity. We propose that it would be worthwhile to specify ways in which the diversity of bioethics scholarship can be promoted, specifically in terms of the review and rating process. Our suggestion is that these should be a system akin to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mechanisms for promoting “early career” researchers and that current mechanisms, such as the mandatory inclusion of a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives”, are not sufficient. Additionally, we would like to bolster Fabi and Goldberg’s argument by reflecting on the kinds of neuroethics research being supported by the NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Namely, the requirement that ethical scholarship has to address the cutting edge of technology means that technologies that are still in development and not yet approved treatments (Voarino et al. 2017) are being given priority. One such example is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which is explored by multiple BRAIN Neuroethics grants, while another neuromodulation technique, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapeutic used to treat thousands of people has received no funds for sustained ethical analysis. We conclude by specifying the mechanisms (e.g., reformulation of “innovation” scores) which would increase the diversity of topics and methodologies being funded in bioethics research. Fabi and Goldberg argue that there is a strong moral justification for changing the allocation of funding streams in bioethics to support more diverse scholarship. However, stating that something ought to be done does not provide guidance on how this may be accomplished (Dubljevi c 2019). Philanthropic and industry funding of bioethics scholarship is largely unregulated (Fabbri et al. 2018) and permits a “lack of transparency and reliance on informal systems of personal networks and relationships” in funders’ decision-making processes (Pratt and Hyder 2017, 457). However, most funded bioethics scholarship is actually supported by the U.S. government. Sharp and colleagues (Sharp et al. 2008) conducted a survey on the funding disclosures in major bioethics journals: 45% of published articles reported at least one source of research funding, while only 14% reported two or more funding sources, and 64% of funders were U.S. government agencies. In certain areas of governmental bioethics funding, most notably the NIH BRAIN Initiative Neuroethics funding mechanism (RFA-MH21-205), there is a requirement to include a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives” (PEDP) as part of the application. This may be viewed as the government’s response to just the kinds of concerns that Fabi and Goldberg raise. However, even though the PEDP is touted as an instrument for providing an integrated view of how the enhancement of diverse perspectives is envisioned and supported throughout the duration of the bioethics research project, this one-page document does not provide guidance on how diversity should be achieved at a holistic level.}, number={1}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Young, Jonathan R. and Appelbaum, L. Gregory}, year={2022}, month={Jan}, pages={28–30} }
 @article{presley_samsa_dubljevic_2022, title={Media portrayal of ethical and social issues in brain organoid research}, volume={17}, ISSN={["1747-5341"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-022-00119-z}, DOI={10.1186/s13010-022-00119-z}, abstractNote={Abstract Background Human brain organoids are a valuable research tool for studying brain development, physiology, and pathology. Yet, a host of potential ethical concerns are inherent in their creation. There is a growing group of bioethicists who acknowledge the moral imperative to develop brain organoid technologies and call for caution in this research. Although a relatively new technology, brain organoids and their uses are already being discussed in media literature. Media literature informs the public and policymakers but has the potential for utopian or dystopian distortions. Thus, it is important to understand how this technology is portrayed to the public. Methods To investigate how brain organoids are displayed to the public, we conducted a systematic review of media literature indexed in the Nexis Uni database from 2013–2019. News and media source articles passing exclusion criteria ( n = 93) were scored to evaluate tone and relevant themes. Themes were validated with a pilot sample before being applied to the dataset. Thematic analysis assessed article tone, reported potential for the technology, and the scientific, social, and ethical contexts surrounding brain organoids research. Results Brain organoid publications became more frequent from 2013 to 2019. We observed increases in positively and negatively toned articles, suggesting growing polarization. While many sources discuss realistic applications of brain organoids, others suggest treatment and cures beyond the scope of the current technology. This could work to overhype the technology and disillusion patients and families by offering false hope. In the ethical narrative we observe a preoccupation with issues such as development of artificial consciousness and “humanization” of organoid-animal chimeras. Issues of regulation, ownership, and accuracy of the organoid models are rarely discussed. Conclusions Given the power that media have to inform or misinform the public, it is important this literature provides an accurate and balanced reflection of the therapeutic potential and associated ethical issues regarding brain organoid research. Our study suggests increasing polarization, coupled with misplaced and unfounded ethical concern. Given the inhibitory effects of public fear or disillusion on research funding, it is important media literature provides an accurate reflection of brain organoids.}, number={1}, journal={PHILOSOPHY ETHICS AND HUMANITIES IN MEDICINE}, author={Presley, Abigail and Samsa, Leigh Ann and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }
 @article{dubljević_douglas_milojevich_ajmeri_bauer_list_singh_2022, title={Moral and social ramifications of autonomous vehicles: a qualitative study of the perceptions of professional drivers}, volume={5}, ISSN={0144-929X 1362-3001}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2070078}, DOI={10.1080/0144929X.2022.2070078}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Artificial intelligence raises important social and ethical concerns, especially about accountability, autonomy, dignity, and justice. We focus on the specific concerns arising from how the emerging autonomous vehicle (AV) technology will affect professional drivers. We posit that we must engage with stakeholders to understand the implications of a technology that will affect the stakeholders’ lives, livelihoods, or wellbeing. We conducted nine in-depth interviews with professional drivers, with at least two years of driving experience, to understand the ethical and societal challenges from the drivers’ perspective during the predicted widespread implementation of AVs. Safety was the most commonly discussed issue, which was mentioned by all drivers (17 times by truck drivers and 18 times by Uber/Lyft drivers). We find that although drivers agree that AVs will significantly impact future transportation systems, they are apprehensive about the prospects of reskilling for other jobs and want their employers to be straightforward in how the introduction of AVs will affect them. Additionally, drivers dismiss the suggestions that driving jobs are unsatisfying and potentially unhealthy and thus should be eliminated. These findings should be considered seriously in decision-making about questions of socioeconomic justice, and could be useful to policymakers as they shape relevant regulations.}, note={Publisher Copyright: \textcopyright 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.}, journal={Behaviour & Information Technology}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Douglas, Sean and Milojevich, Jovan and Ajmeri, Nirav and Bauer, William A. and List, George and Singh, Munindar P.}, year={2022}, month={May}, pages={1–8} }
 @article{cacace_simons-rudolph_dubljevic_2022, title={Morality, Risk-Taking and Psychopathic Tendencies: An Empirical Study}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1664-1078"]}, DOI={10.3389/fpsyg.2022.834734}, abstractNote={Research in empirical moral psychology has consistently found negative correlations between morality and both risk-taking, as well as psychopathic tendencies. However, prior research did not sufficiently explore intervening or moderating factors. Additionally, prior measures of moral preference (e.g., sacrificial dilemmas) have a pronounced lack of ecological validity. This study seeks to address these two gaps in the literature. First, this study used Preference for Precepts Implied in Moral Theories (PPIMT), which offers a novel, more nuanced and ecologically valid measure of moral judgment. Second, the current study examined if risk taking moderates the relationships between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment. Results indicated that models which incorporated risk-taking as a moderator between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment were a better fit to the data than those that incorporated psychopathic tendencies and risk-taking as exogenous variables, suggesting that the association between psychopathic tendencies and moral judgment is influenced by level of risk-taking. Therefore, future research investigating linkages between psychopathic tendencies and moral precepts may do well to incorporate risk-taking and risky behaviors to further strengthen the understanding of moral judgment in these individuals.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Cacace, Sam and Simons-Rudolph, Joseph and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @misc{antal_luber_brem_bikson_brunoni_kadosh_dubljevic_fecteau_ferreri_floeel_et al._2022, title={Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2467-981X"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.cnp.2022.05.002}, abstractNote={Attempts to enhance human memory and learning ability have a long tradition in science. This topic has recently gained substantial attention because of the increasing percentage of older individuals worldwide and the predicted rise of age-associated cognitive decline in brain functions. Transcranial brain stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and transcranial electric (tES) stimulation, have been extensively used in an effort to improve cognitive functions in humans. Here we summarize the available data on low-intensity tES for this purpose, in comparison to repetitive TMS and some pharmacological agents, such as caffeine and nicotine. There is no single area in the brain stimulation field in which only positive outcomes have been reported. For self-directed tES devices, how to restrict variability with regard to efficacy is an essential aspect of device design and function. As with any technique, reproducible outcomes depend on the equipment and how well this is matched to the experience and skill of the operator. For self-administered non-invasive brain stimulation, this requires device designs that rigorously incorporate human operator factors. The wide parameter space of non-invasive brain stimulation, including dose (e.g., duration, intensity (current density), number of repetitions), inclusion/exclusion (e.g., subject's age), and homeostatic effects, administration of tasks before and during stimulation, and, most importantly, placebo or nocebo effects, have to be taken into account. The outcomes of stimulation are expected to depend on these parameters and should be strictly controlled. The consensus among experts is that low-intensity tES is safe as long as tested and accepted protocols (including, for example, dose, inclusion/exclusion) are followed and devices are used which follow established engineering risk-management procedures. Devices and protocols that allow stimulation outside these parameters cannot claim to be "safe" where they are applying stimulation beyond that examined in published studies that also investigated potential side effects. Brain stimulation devices marketed for consumer use are distinct from medical devices because they do not make medical claims and are therefore not necessarily subject to the same level of regulation as medical devices (i.e., by government agencies tasked with regulating medical devices). Manufacturers must follow ethical and best practices in marketing tES stimulators, including not misleading users by referencing effects from human trials using devices and protocols not similar to theirs.}, journal={CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY PRACTICE}, author={Antal, Andrea and Luber, Bruce and Brem, Anna-Katharine and Bikson, Marom and Brunoni, Andre R. and Kadosh, Roi Cohen and Dubljevic, Veljko and Fecteau, Shirley and Ferreri, Florinda and Floeel, Agnes and et al.}, year={2022}, pages={146–165} }
 @article{dubljevic_cacace_desmarais_2022, title={Surveying Ethics: a Measurement Model of Preference for Precepts Implied in Moral Theories (PPIMT)}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1878-5166"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00530-z}, DOI={10.1007/s13164-021-00530-z}, number={1}, journal={REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Cacace, Sam and Desmarais, Sarah L.}, year={2022}, month={Mar}, pages={197–214} }
 @article{dubljević_trettenbach_ranisch_2022, title={The Socio-Political Roles of Neuroethics and the Case of Klotho}, volume={4}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1896597}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2021.1896597}, abstractNote={Abstract An increasing amount of very diverse scholarship self-identifies as belonging to the field of neuroethics, illuminating a need to provide some reference points for what that field actually entails. We argue that neuroethics is a single field with distinct perspectives, roles, and subspecialties. We propose that—in addition to the three traditional perspectives delineated by Eric Racine—a fourth, socio-political perspective, must be recognized in neuroethics. The socio-political perspective in neuroethics focuses on the interplay between the behavioral as well as the brain sciences and the socio-political system; this interplay includes social regulation in addition to all other realistic elements of social and political neurodiscourses. Thus, defining what—if any—roles the socio-political perspective in neuroethics might have is a pressing issue. Doing so could provide guidance for defining the criteria for prospective ethical evaluations in neuroethics. A promising approach to doing this could be by describing the roles of neuroethics in terms of the more concrete examples of the roles of political philosophy in general, as in the tradition of John Rawls. We take klotho, the supposed “longevity protein,” as a modern neuroethics case to exemplify the obstacles faced in securing neuroethics’ legitimacy and how the Rawlsian framework we propose may be applied to handle cases such as this. Ultimately, the socio-political perspective in neuroethics should not be swayed by the media hype and ought to offer useful ethical guidance and articulation of genuine ethical concerns to policy makers and the public alike.}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Trettenbach, Katharina and Ranisch, Robert}, year={2022}, month={Jan}, pages={1–13} }
 @article{scheper_rosenfeld_dubljević_2022, title={The public impact of academic and print media portrayals of TMS: shining a spotlight on discrepancies in the literature}, volume={23}, ISSN={1472-6939}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00760-5}, DOI={10.1186/s12910-022-00760-5}, abstractNote={Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is an FDA approved treatment for major depression, migraine, obsessive compulsive disorder, and smoking addiction. TMS has gained popular media support, but media coverage and commercial reporting of TMS services may be contributing to the landscape of ethical issues.We explore the differences between the academic and print media literature portrayals of TMS to evaluate their ethical impact for the public. We performed a comprehensive literature review using PubMed and NexisUni databases to evaluate the literature available on TMS from 2014 to 2019. Our sample consisted of 1632 academic articles and 468 print media articles for a total of 2100 articles. We then coded each article for seven specific top-level codes: (1) type of source, (2) year of publication, (3) purpose of TMS application, (4) age of subjects, (5) population, (6) overall tone, and (7) specification of TMS parameters. We also made some additional notes of the TMS parameters where specified and the breakdown of mental health applications.Our results indicated several discrepancies between the academic and the print media reporting about TMS technology, particularly with regards to tone and specificity. Namely, the academic sample was largely neutral and specific about the parameters under which TMS was being applied, while the print media sample was heavily optimistic and presented the application of TMS with far less specificity. There was some convergence between the two samples, such as the focus of both on therapy as the predominant TMS application.We call upon the academic community to increase scrutiny of TMS services in order to ensure that people's knowledge of health technologies is not unduly influenced by sensational claims and a general lack of adequate information.}, number={1}, journal={BMC Medical Ethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Scheper, Abigail and Rosenfeld, Cynthia and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @article{edgren_dubljevic_2022, title={The ubiquity of the fallacy of composition in cognitive enhancement and in education}, volume={10}, ISSN={["1573-1200"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09595-y}, DOI={10.1007/s11017-022-09595-y}, abstractNote={Research into cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, and arguments for and against it have failed to identify the logical fallacy underlying this debate: the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a lesser-known fallacy of ambiguity, but it has been explored and applied extensively to other fields, including economics. The fallacy of composition, which occurs when the characteristics of the parts of the whole are incorrectly extended to apply to the whole itself, and the conclusion is false, should be addressed in the debate on cognitive enhancement and within education. Within cognitive enhancement, the premise that individual distinct cognitive processes can be enhanced by cognitive enhancers leads to the conclusion that they must enhance cognition overall, and this idea is pervasive in the literature. If the goal of cognitive enhancement is to enhance cognition or learning, and not merely individual cognitive processes, then this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition. The ambiguity of "cognitive," "cognition," and "enhancement" only perpetuates this fallacy and creates more confusion surrounding the purposes and goals of enhancement. Identifying this fallacy does not threaten the existing body of research; however, it provides a novel framework to explore new avenues for research, education, and enhancement, particularly through education reform initiatives. Education enhances and facilitates learning, and improvements to education could be considered cognitive enhancements. Furthermore, the same fallacy is ubiquitous in education; educators commit it by "teaching to the test" and prioritizing memorization over generalizable skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. We will explore these new avenues for research and highlight principles of learning success from other disciplines to create a clearer understanding of the means and ends of cognitive enhancement. Recognizing the pervasiveness of composition fallacy in cognitive enhancement and education will lead to greater clarity of normative positions and insights into student learning that steer away from fallacious reasoning.}, journal={THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS}, author={Edgren, Nora and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2022}, month={Oct} }
 @article{coin_dubljevic_2022, title={Using Algorithms to Make Ethical Judgements: METHAD vs. the ADC Model}, volume={22}, ISSN={["1536-0075"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2075967}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2022.2075967}, abstractNote={In their paper “ Algorithms for Ethical Decision-Making in the Clinic: A Proof of Concept}, note={PMID: 35737500}, number={7}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Coin, Allen and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2022}, month={Jul}, pages={41–43} }
 @inbook{coin_dubljević_2021, place={London}, title={Carebots for Eldercare: Technology, Ethics, and Implications}, ISBN={9780128194720}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819472-0.00024-1}, DOI={10.1016/B978-0-12-819472-0.00024-1}, abstractNote={As the demographic cohort known as the “Baby Boomers” age in many nations around the world, emerging trends show that this aging populace in need of caregiving services may soon outpace the number of individuals trained and licensed to provide such care. Simultaneously, advances in robotics technology, consumer electronics, and telehealth are progressing to the point that some tasks associated with eldercare can be addressed via technological solutions and may continue to advance to the point that more and more caregiving services required by the elderly in need may be automated and provided by robots. Such robots are referred to in the literature and in industry as carebots. Carebots can provide a number of benefits to the elderly and could help address a potential gap between the number of licensed caregivers available and the number of people requiring caregiving services. In recent years, ethics literature has debated potential ethical and moral concerns about carebot technology. However, consensus on what (if anything) should be done about carebots is lacking. Should carebots be heavily regulated, or even banned outright? Or are carebots a beneficial technology that should be embraced, even preferred over human caregiving? This paper explores the state of the art of carebot technology and where it may progress in the future, summarizing and addressing some of the ethical concerns about carebots and making recommendations for the present and near future use of carebot technology for providing care for the elderly.}, booktitle={Trust in Human-Robot Interactions}, publisher={Academic Press/Elsevier}, author={Coin, A. and Dubljević, V.}, editor={Nam, C.S. and Lyons, J.Editors}, year={2021}, pages={553–569} }
 @book{dubljević_bottenberg_2021, place={Cham, Switzerland}, title={Living with Dementia: Neuroethical Issues and International Perspectives}, publisher={Springer}, year={2021} }
 @article{coin_dubljević_2021, title={The Authenticity of Machine-Augmented Human Intelligence: Therapy, Enhancement, and the Extended Mind}, volume={14}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09453-5}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-020-09453-5}, number={2}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Coin, Allen and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2021}, month={Jul}, pages={283–290} }
 @article{dubljevic_2021, title={The Normative Implications of Recent Empirical Neuroethics Research on Moral Intuitions}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1874-5504"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09465-9}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-021-09465-9}, number={3}, journal={NEUROETHICS}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={449–457} }
 @article{dubljević_neupert_2021, title={The complex nature of willpower and conceptual mapping of its normative significance in research on stress, addiction, and dementia}, volume={44}, ISSN={0140-525X 1469-1825}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20000886}, DOI={10.1017/S0140525X20000886}, abstractNote={Willpower (as suppression, resolve, and habit) has ramifications for autonomy and mental time-travel. Autonomy presupposes mature powers of volition and the capacity to anticipate future events and consequences of one's actions. Ainslie's study is useful to clarify basic autonomy in addiction and dementia. Furthermore, we show how our study on coping with stress can be applied to suppression and resolve.}, journal={Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Neupert, Shevaun D.}, year={2021} }
 @article{dubljevic_list_milojevich_ajmeri_bauer_singh_bardaka_birkland_edwards_mayer_et al._2021, title={Toward a rational and ethical sociotechnical system of autonomous vehicles: A novel application of multi-criteria decision analysis}, volume={16}, ISSN={1932-6203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256224}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0256224}, abstractNote={The impacts of autonomous vehicles (AV) are widely anticipated to be socially, economically, and ethically significant. A reliable assessment of the harms and benefits of their large-scale deployment requires a multi-disciplinary approach. To that end, we employed Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to make such an assessment. We obtained opinions from 19 disciplinary experts to assess the significance of 13 potential harms and eight potential benefits that might arise under four deployments schemes. Specifically, we considered: (1) the status quo, i.e., no AVs are deployed; (2) unfettered assimilation, i.e., no regulatory control would be exercised and commercial entities would “push” the development and deployment; (3) regulated introduction, i.e., regulatory control would be applied and either private individuals or commercial fleet operators could own the AVs; and (4) fleets only, i.e., regulatory control would be applied and only commercial fleet operators could own the AVs. Our results suggest that two of these scenarios, (3) and (4), namely regulated privately-owned introduction or fleet ownership or autonomous vehicles would be less likely to cause harm than either the status quo or the unfettered options.}, number={8}, journal={PLOS ONE}, publisher={Public Library of Science (PLoS)}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and List, George and Milojevich, Jovan and Ajmeri, Nirav and Bauer, William A. and Singh, Munindar P. and Bardaka, Eleni and Birkland, Thomas A. and Edwards, Charles H. W. and Mayer, Roger C. and et al.}, editor={Yuan, QuanEditor}, year={2021}, month={Aug}, pages={e0256224} }
 @article{ouchchy_coin_dubljevic_2020, title={AI in the headlines: the portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media}, volume={35}, ISSN={["1435-5655"]}, DOI={10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5}, abstractNote={Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become increasingly prominent in our daily lives, media coverage of the ethical considerations of these technologies has followed suit. Since previous research has shown that media coverage can drive public discourse about novel technologies, studying how the ethical issues of AI are portrayed in the media may lead to greater insight into the potential ramifications of this public discourse, particularly with regard to development and regulation of AI. This paper expands upon previous research by systematically analyzing and categorizing the media portrayal of the ethical issues of AI to better understand how media coverage of these issues may shape public debate about AI. Our results suggest that the media has a fairly realistic and practical focus in its coverage of the ethics of AI, but that the coverage is still shallow. A multifaceted approach to handling the social, ethical and policy issues of AI technology is needed, including increasing the accessibility of correct information to the public in the form of fact sheets and ethical value statements on trusted webpages (e.g., government agencies), collaboration and inclusion of ethics and AI experts in both research and public debate, and consistent government policies or regulatory frameworks for AI technology.}, number={4}, journal={AI & SOCIETY}, author={Ouchchy, Leila and Coin, Allen and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2020}, month={Dec}, pages={927–936} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2020, title={Disease and wellness across the lifespan: A global perspective on the mental health burden of dementia}, ISBN={9780128150634}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-815063-4.00014-9}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-12-815063-4.00014-9}, abstractNote={Dementia, and especially behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), reverses the hard won freedoms and rights that are enjoyed by most adult human beings. The deficits in cognition and decision-making lead to a legitimate reduction in autonomy and rights. The prognosis for dementia is poor and it ultimately ends in death. These facts, along with the widespread fear of dementia, lead to social exclusion and stigmatization of both persons living with dementia and their family members, which contributes to significant mental health burdens. This chapter explores the perspectives of persons living with dementia, caregivers, and people at risk of developing dementia in order to give a human face and voice to a marginalized population that is increasing globally. Perspectives and challenges of early and later stage patients and care-givers are contrasted to preconceived notions of older adults as well as media representations of dementia in order to explore the social discourses of labeling persons as “demented.” The mental health burden of dementia is a global problem which can only be solved after innovative policies across the world are assessed for enabling healthcare delivery and empowering patients to lead as dignified lives as possible.}, booktitle={Global Mental Health and Neuroethics}, publisher={Elsevier}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2020}, pages={225–235} }
 @article{coin_mulder_dubljević_2020, title={Ethical Aspects of BCI Technology: What Is the State of the Art?}, volume={5}, url={https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040031}, DOI={10.3390/philosophies5040031}, abstractNote={Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) technology is a promising research area in many domains. Brain activity can be interpreted through both invasive and non-invasive monitoring devices, allowing for novel, therapeutic solutions for individuals with disabilities and for other non-medical applications. However, a number of ethical issues have been identified from the use of BCI technology. In this paper, we review the academic discussion of the ethical implications of BCI technology in the last five years. We conclude that some emerging applications of BCI technology—including commercial ventures that seek to meld human intelligence with AI—present new and unique ethical concerns. Further, we seek to understand how academic literature on the topic of BCIs addresses these novel concerns. Similar to prior work, we use a limited sample to identify trends and areas of concern or debate among researchers and ethicists. From our analysis, we identify two key areas of BCI ethics that warrant further research: the physical and psychological effects of BCI technology. Additionally, questions of BCI policy have not yet become a frequent point of discussion in the relevant literature on BCI ethics, and we argue this should be addressed in future work. We provide guiding questions that will help ethicists and policy makers grapple with the most important issues associated with BCI technology.}, number={4}, journal={Philosophies}, publisher={MDPI AG}, author={Coin, Allen and Mulder, Megan and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2020}, month={Oct}, pages={31} }
 @article{mccall_mcintosh_dubljević_2020, title={How Public Opinion Can Inform Cognitive Enhancement Regulation}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1830881}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2020.1830881}, abstractNote={In the target article “Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies Across Different Situations,” the authors explore the effect of metaphor framing, the cognitive enhancement (CE) context (stude...}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, author={McCall, Iris Coates and McIntosh, Tristan and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2020}, month={Oct} }
 @inbook{dubljević_mccall_illes_2020, place={Cham, Switzerland}, title={Neuroenhancement at work: Addressing the ethical, legal and social implications}, ISBN={9783030271763}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27177-0_7}, abstractNote={Neuroenhancement is associated with a wide range of existing, emerging, and future biomedical technologies that are intended to improve human cognitive performance and mitigate—if not reverse—human error. Neuroenhancement in classrooms, universities, and the military has been discussed at length, but the workplace has been largely omitted from the conversation until now. By providing examples from branches of the commercial market that are rarely linked with cognitive enhancement in the literature, we argue that neuroenhancement at work is likely to become a major challenge in the labor market. Therefore, we focus here on the specific application of neuroenhancements to the workplace. Central issues involve both drugs and devices, some of which are well-trodden ethical concerns while others are novel challenges. We conclude with a brief discussion and outline of a discourage-use policy that has the potential to mitigate the challenges of neuroenhancement at work.}, booktitle={Organizational Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer}, author={Dubljević, V. and McCall, I.C. and Illes, J.}, editor={Trempe-Martineau, J. and Racine, E.Editors}, year={2020}, pages={87–103} }
 @article{dubljević_2020, title={The Principle of Autonomy and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia}, volume={17}, ISSN={["1872-4353"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11673-020-09972-z}, abstractNote={Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is characterized by an absence of obvious cognitive impairment and presence of symptoms such as disinhibition, social inappropriateness, personality changes, hyper-sexuality, and hyper-orality. Affected individuals do not feel concerned enough about their actions to be deterred from violating social norms, and their antisocial behaviours are most likely caused by the neurodegenerative processes in the frontal and anterior temporal lobes. BvFTD patients present a challenge for the traditional notion of autonomy and the medical and criminal justice systems. Antisocial behaviour is often the earliest recognized manifestation of bvFTD. Given that the symptoms are not specific and that atrophy of the frontal lobes is only observable with structural neuroimaging in the later stages of the disease, it is hard to ascertain their autonomy. Recently proposed re-conceptualizations of autonomy (Dworkin's, Jaworska's, and Dubljević's) can, however, be sufficiently redefined to provide explicit rules and offer nuanced guidance in such cases. A combination of notions of autonomy gives the most nuanced guidance with three modifications: 1) including socio-moral judgement in the notion of "normal cognitive competence," 2) excluding in-principle un-endorsable ideals from the notion of "capacity to value," and 3) redefining ideal-typical degrees of compulsion (mild, severe, and total).}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Bioethical Inquiry}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2020}, month={Jun}, pages={271–282} }
 @article{dubljevic_2020, title={Toward Implementing the ADC Model of Moral Judgment in Autonomous Vehicles}, volume={26}, ISSN={["1471-5546"]}, DOI={10.1007/s11948-020-00242-0}, abstractNote={Autonomous vehicles (AVs)-and accidents they are involved in-attest to the urgent need to consider the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI). The question dominating the discussion so far has been whether we want AVs to behave in a 'selfish' or utilitarian manner. Rather than considering modeling self-driving cars on a single moral system like utilitarianism, one possible way to approach programming for AI would be to reflect recent work in neuroethics. The agent-deed-consequence (ADC) model (Dubljević and Racine in AJOB Neurosci 5(4):3-20, 2014a, Behav Brain Sci 37(5):487-488, 2014b) provides a promising descriptive and normative account while also lending itself well to implementation in AI. The ADC model explains moral judgments by breaking them down into positive or negative intuitive evaluations of the agent, deed, and consequence in any given situation. These intuitive evaluations combine to produce a positive or negative judgment of moral acceptability. For example, the overall judgment of moral acceptability in a situation in which someone committed a deed that is judged as negative (e.g., breaking a law) would be mitigated if the agent had good intentions and the action had a good consequence. This explains the considerable flexibility and stability of human moral judgment that has yet to be replicated in AI. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the ADC model and how the model could inform future work on ethics of AI in general.}, number={5}, journal={SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2020}, month={Oct}, pages={2461–2472} }
 @inproceedings{dubljevic_2020, title={Toward Implementing the Agent-Deed-Consequence Model of Moral Judgment in Autonomous Vehicles}, ISBN={9781450371100}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375853}, DOI={10.1145/3375627.3375853}, abstractNote={Autonomous vehicles (AVs) and accidents they are involved in attest to the urgent need to consider the ethics of AI. The question dominating the discussion has been whether we want AVs to behave in a 'selfish' or utilitarian manner. Rather than considering modeling self-driving cars on a single moral system like utilitarianism, one possible way to approach programming for AI would be to reflect recent work in neuroethics. The Agent-Deed-Consequence (ADC) model [1-4] provides a promising account while also lending itself well to implementation in AI. The ADC model explains moral judgments by breaking them down into positive or negative intuitive evaluations of the Agent, Deed, and Consequence in any given situation. These intuitive evaluations combine to produce a judgment of moral acceptability. This explains the considerable flexibility and stability of human moral judgment that has yet to be replicated in AI. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the ADC model and how the model could inform future work on ethics of AI in general.}, booktitle={Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society}, publisher={ACM}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2020}, month={Feb} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={A Proposal for a Reconstruction of the Concept of Autonomy}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_3}, abstractNote={In many spheres of scholarship, including bioethics andPolitical (approach) to neuroethics neuroethicsNeuroethics , there seems to be a significant misunderstanding involving the conflation of the metaphysical concept of free will with the moral–political concept of autonomyAutonomy . Ever since Benjamin LibetLibet, Benjamin published the results of his experiments measuring the timing of a decisionEthics debate free decision-making to move by using electro-encephalography (Libet 1985), neuroscientific findings have been given a new impetus for metaphysical debates, which have mistakenly spilled over in practical philosophyPhilosophy .}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={27–41} }
 @article{bauer_dubljević_2019, title={AI Assistants and the Paradox of Internal Automaticity}, volume={13}, ISSN={1874-5490 1874-5504}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09423-6}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-019-09423-6}, number={3}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Bauer, William A. and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2019}, month={Nov}, pages={303–310} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={Are There Problems with the Economic Disincentives Model of Regulation?}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_7}, abstractNote={In the chapter on empirical constraints of psychopharmacological cognitiveCognitive enhancement pharmacological enhancersPsychopharmaceutical enhancers (Chap. 4 ), I analyzed available information and policy options for the two of the most commonly used cognitiveRegulation, regulations enhancement enhancementRegulation, regulations cognitive enhancement (CE) drugs: Adderall and Ritalin.}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={109–122} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={Cognitive Enhancement and the Problem of the Pressure to Enhance: Rational Choice Modeling and Normative Justification}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_2}, abstractNote={The problem of regulating cognitive neuroenhancement for healthy adults has generated considerable interest.}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={13–25} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={Is the Proposal of the Political Notion of Autonomy Problematic?}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_6}, abstractNote={My prior work on autonomyAutonomy (see Dubljević in Am J Bioeth Neurosci 4(4):44–51, 2013 and Chap. 3 ) took up the challenge posed by FelsenFelsen, Gidon and ReinerReiner, Peter B (Am J Bioeth Neurosci 2(3):3–14, 2011) to substantially address how autonomy should be viewed in light of new evidence fromNeuroscience (cognitive) neuroscience. I argued that it is premature to propose that the empirical data renders autonomy ‘Quixotic’, posited that the moral–political notion of autonomy was mistakenly associated with the metaphysical concept of “free will”, and offered ideal-typical degrees of coercionCoercion and compulsion which qualify instances in which autonomy might be diminished or entirely lacking.}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={87–108} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={Legitimate Public Policies on Electro-magnetic Cognitive Enhancements}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_5}, abstractNote={Drugs are not the only means of brain modulation. Indeed, medical devices have long since known to be able to modulate, and perhaps even improve, cognitionCognition . However, there has been a considerable amount of speculationCognitive enhancement speculation about regarding what kinds of medical devices might offer cognitiveRegulation, regulations enhancement enhancementRegulation, regulations cognitive enhancement (CE) and what would be the accompanying ethical and regulatory challenges.}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={65–83} }
 @article{scheper_dubljević_2019, title={Neuroconsumerism and Comprehensive Neuroethics}, volume={10}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.1665125}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2019.1665125}, abstractNote={In her article “Dimensions of Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies,” Kreitmair (2019) presents a strong case for the seven ethical dimensions she outlines pertaining to direct-to-consumer (DTC) neurotechnologies. However, Kreitmair herself acknowledges that while “some consideration of each of these dimensions is necessary for a given DTC neurotechnology to be ethical,” she is “not committed to the claim that they are also jointly sufficient” (157). In order to achieve joint sufficiency, we argue that at least three additional ethical dimensions must be included: namely, we seek to include consideration of a hierarchy of oversight, ethical attachments to a technology’s purposes and uses, and dimensions of business ethics in order to form a more comprehensive evaluation pertaining to neuroconsumerism. First, some discussion of the level on which each technology ought to be evaluated is necessary. While all seven issues are ethically relevant, some, like epistemic appropriateness and existential authenticity, are relevant only on the individual level, while others, such as safety and transparency, are relevant on the public decision-making level. Because of these differences, some kind of hierarchy of public regulatory interest would need to be created in a comprehensive neuroethical evaluation, specifically because, as Kreitmair notes, the current regulatory oversight of DTC neurotechnology is insufficient. For instance, Kreitmair discusses existential authenticity as “something that should be considered in the development, use, regulation, and evaluation of DTC neurotechnology” after characterizing it as “[central] ... to an individual’s flourishing” (161, emphasis added). However, this would belie the fact that profoundly meaningful issues for individuals and groups at times cannot be used in discussions of regulation and still align with liberal democratic tradition (see Dubljevi c 2019). From a pragmatic perspective, given the current lack of regulation and limited regulatory resources, a hierarchy of evaluative dimensions would lead to a conclusion that some dimensions, such as safety, need to be prioritized, and others,}, number={4}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Scheper, Abigail and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2019}, month={Oct}, pages={185–187} }
 @book{dubljevic_2019, title={Neuroethics, Justice and Autonomy: Public Reason in the Cognitive Enhancement Debate}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7}, abstractNote={This book explicitly addresses the policy options in a democratic society regarding cognitive enhancement drugs and devices. The book offers an in-depth case by case analysis of existing and emerging cognitive neuroenhancement technologies and canvasses a distinct approach}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={1–138} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={Neuropharmacology, Addiction and Autonomy: A Proposal for Public Policy on Adderall and Ritalin as Pharmacological Enhancements}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_4}, abstractNote={The use of medical drugs such as Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts) and Ritalin (methylphenidate) by healthy adults for enhancement of cognitive function is a social trend that has gained in momentum (see, e.g., DeSantis et al. in J Am Coll Health 57(3):315–324, 2008; Maher in Nature 452(7188):674–675, 2008; Ragan et al. in Neuropharmacology 64:588–595, 2012), and accordingly has generated a lot of attention in academia (for an overview see Racine in Pragmatic neuroethics: improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010, Chap. 6).}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={45–63} }
 @inbook{dubljević_racine_2019, title={Pediatric Neuro-enhancement, Best Interest, and Autonomy: A Case of Normative Reversal}, ISBN={9783030106768 9783030106775}, ISSN={2522-5677 2522-5685}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10677-5_13}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-10677-5_13}, abstractNote={The debate on “cognitive enhancement” has moved from discussions about enhancement in adults to enhancement in children and adolescents. Similar to positions expressed in the adult context, some have argued that pediatric cognitive enhancement is acceptable and even laudable. However, the implications differ between the adult and the pediatric contexts. For example, in the debate over cognitive enhancement in adults, i.e., those who have legal majority, respect for autonomy demands that personal preferences not be overridden in absence of strong arguments because competent adults are in the best position to recognize and protect their own interests. However, the concepts of best interest and autonomy provide a different picture in the case of pediatric enhancement. In the context of decision-making involving minors, it is assumed that the parents are in the best position to promote and protect the interests of their children and this is chiefly why they are granted the authority to make decisions on their behalf. However, we argue in favor of guarding the physical integrity of children from intrusive medical interventions without medical need and with clear and detrimental effects (e.g., suppressing growth). We also support leaving open other legitimate life trajectory and career choices, as this is in the best interest of the child, even if they are less in line with the expectations of parents or success in educational settings. In addition, parental decision-making in favor of cognitive enhancement suffers from a lack of information about cognitive enhancers (e.g., safety and efficacy) and potential biases. Thus, bearing in mind these issues and the development of volitional capacities of children, we argue that pediatric enhancement is not a morally acceptable practice and “inevitability” can be curbed with clear and fair rules that establish duties of state representatives, physicians, and public institutions. We conclude by canvassing evidence-based policy options that could protect the open future of minors and define the parameters of parental decision-making analogous to the cases of nicotine and alcohol.}, booktitle={Advances in Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2019}, pages={199–212} }
 @article{dubljevic_2019, title={Psychiatric Neuroethics-Studies in Research and Practice}, volume={33}, ISSN={["1467-8519"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12643}, DOI={10.1111/bioe.12643}, abstractNote={BioethicsVolume 33, Issue 8 p. 974-975 BOOK REVIEW Psychiatric Neuroethics—Studies in Research and Practice Walter Glannon Oxford University Press, 2019. 408 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-875885-3, $44.95. Veljko Dubljevic, Corresponding Author Veljko Dubljevic veljko.dubljevic@yahoo.com orcid.org/0000-0003-3606-587X Department of Philosophy and Religious studies, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this author Veljko Dubljevic, Corresponding Author Veljko Dubljevic veljko.dubljevic@yahoo.com orcid.org/0000-0003-3606-587X Department of Philosophy and Religious studies, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 August 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12643Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume33, Issue8Special Issue: Bioethics and ActivismOctober 2019Pages 974-975 RelatedInformation}, number={8}, journal={BIOETHICS}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2019}, month={Oct}, pages={974–975} }
 @article{dubljević_2019, title={Public Reason and Reasonable Conceptions of Justice}, volume={12}, number={1}, journal={Sofia Philosophical Review}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2019}, pages={24–46} }
 @article{dubljevic_dubljevic_2019, title={The Application of Rawlsian Principles of Justice on Cognition-Enhancement Drugs: A Policy Proposal}, volume={19}, ISBN={["978-3-030-13642-0"]}, ISSN={["1875-0036"]}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-13643-7_1}, abstractNote={StimulantStimulants medication, which has been dubbed “smart drugs”, offers the potential for enhancement of cognitionCognition , which by itself is seen as a “promise” or a “threat” due to the drastic changes of the lives of all citizens in society. The current lack of adequate regulation could potentially lead to widespread violation of rights and justice, especially since directEthics debate coercion, direct and indirectEthics debate coercion, indirect coercionCoercion may be brought to bear on many individuals, as a result from utility calculations of employers and other corporate actors. The pressure to enhance is likely to become very high in the military and education contexts, but the most far-reaching influence would come from the sphere of business.}, journal={NEUROETHICS, JUSTICE AND AUTONOMY: PUBLIC REASON IN THE COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT DEBATE}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Dubljevic, V}, year={2019}, pages={3–12} }
 @book{dubljević_jotterand_jox_racine_2018, place={Cham, Switzerland}, title={Advances in Neuroethics (Book Series)}, ISSN={2522-5677}, publisher={Springer}, year={2018} }
 @article{dubljević_sattler_racine_2018, title={Deciphering moral intuition: How agents, deeds, and consequences influence moral judgment}, volume={13}, ISSN={1932-6203}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204631}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0204631}, abstractNote={Moral evaluations occur quickly following heuristic-like intuitive processes without effortful deliberation. There are several competing explanations for this. The ADC-model predicts that moral judgment consists in concurrent evaluations of three different intuitive components: the character of a person (Agent-component, A); their actions (Deed-component, D); and the consequences brought about in the situation (Consequences-component, C). Thereby, it explains the intuitive appeal of precepts from three dominant moral theories (virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism), and flexible yet stable nature of moral judgment. Insistence on single-component explanations has led to many centuries of debate as to which moral precepts and theories best describe (or should guide) moral evaluation. This study consists of two large-scale experiments and provides a first empirical investigation of predictions yielded by the ADC model. We use vignettes describing different moral situations in which all components of the model are varied simultaneously. Experiment 1 (within-subject design) shows that positive descriptions of the A-, D-, and C-components of moral intuition lead to more positive moral judgments in a situation with low-stakes. Also, interaction effects between the components were discovered. Experiment 2 further investigates these results in a between-subject design. We found that the effects of the A-, D-, and C-components vary in strength in a high-stakes situation. Moreover, sex, age, education, and social status had no effects. However, preferences for precepts in certain moral theories (PPIMT) partially moderated the effects of the A- and C-component. Future research on moral intuitions should consider the simultaneous three-component constitution of moral judgment.}, number={10}, journal={PLOS ONE}, publisher={Public Library of Science (PLoS)}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Sattler, Sebastian and Racine, Eric}, editor={Ferrer, RodrigoEditor}, year={2018}, month={Oct}, pages={e0204631} }
 @misc{dubljević_ranisch_2018, title={Moral Enhancement - And the Opposite: Making People More or Less Moral}, ISBN={9780470015902 9780470016176}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0027993}, DOI={10.1002/9780470015902.a0027993}, abstractNote={Abstract ‘Moral enhancement’ refers to the possibility of using biomedical means for making individuals morally better in practice. It has generated a heated debate, especially in terms of the strategies for enhancement, the means that provide the desired enhancement effects and the populations that are supposed to be enhanced. It is important to note the history of moral enhancement, reasons that have been given in the recent discussions for engaging in moral enhancement and possible targets of intervention (cognition, volition or effect). There is some evidence that suggests that psychopharmacological (Oxytocin and stimulant drugs), electromagnetic (noninvasive brain stimulation) and genetic means (selective reproduction and direct genome editing) could be used for such a purpose. However, no safe and effective means of moral enhancement are available at this time. Key Concepts Moral enhancement refers to the (speculative) possibility of using biomedical means for making individuals morally better. Bioliberals typically emphasise the importance of morphological and reproductive freedom in a liberal state. Transhumanists do not merely want to enhance humanity but overcome the limits of humankind and guide evolution towards a ‘posthuman’ age. Moral malleability refers to the idea that moral cognition is amenable to pharmacological, electromagnetic and possibly even genetic interventions. Psychopathic individuals have impaired capacity for empathy, guilt and remorse, and consequently commit a disproportionate amount of immoral acts, thus they are considered the key population in need of moral enhancement.}, journal={eLS}, publisher={John Wiley & Sons, Ltd}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Ranisch, Robert}, year={2018}, month={Oct}, pages={1–8} }
 @article{saigle_dubljević_racine_2018, title={The Impact of a Landmark Neuroscience Study on Free Will: A Qualitative Analysis of Articles Using Libet and Colleagues' Methods}, volume={9}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2018.1425756}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2018.1425756}, abstractNote={Gathering evidence across disciplines is a strength of interdisciplinary fields like neuroethics. However, conclusions can only be made if the evidence applies to the issue at hand. Libet and colleagues' 1983 experiment is an interesting case study in this problem. Despite ongoing critiques about the methods used and the replicability of its findings, many people consider Libet and colleagues' methodology a valid strategy to investigate free will and related topics. We reviewed studies using methods similar to those of Libet and colleagues (N = 48) to identify its use and the evidence produced. Overall, we found substantial variation between studies. While the Libet paradigm may be useful for examining how stimuli affect temporal judgments, the link between this and free will or moral responsibility is not clear. Being aware and critical of the methods used to gather results is important when applying scientific experiments to complex, abstract phenomena.}, number={1}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Saigle, Victoria and Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2018}, month={Jan}, pages={29–41} }
 @article{dubljević_2018, title={Toward an Improved Multi-Criteria Drug Harm Assessment Process and Evidence-Based Drug Policies}, volume={9}, ISSN={1663-9812}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00898}, DOI={10.3389/fphar.2018.00898}, abstractNote={Drug scheduling within the international system of drug control and national legislation has been recently criticized as having insufficient footing in scientific evidence. The legal harms related to non-medical uses of certain drugs (e.g., cannabis) have arguably exceeded their physiological and social harmfulness compared to legally available substances (e.g., tobacco), which prompted some states to explore alternative regulation policies, similar to the drug regime in the Netherlands. Other legally prescribed drugs (e.g., stimulants) created a surge of interest for “better than well” uses, while yet others (e.g., opioids) caused an epidemic of dramatic proportions in North America. The evidence-based multi-criteria drug harm scale (MCDHS) has been proposed as a way of grounding policy in the actual degree of harmfulness of drugs. Indeed, the scale has had great ramifications in several areas of policy, and it has been used extensively in distinct lines of interdisciplinary research. However, some aspects of MCDHS remain disputed. For example, the way the data has been generated has been criticized as suffering from “expert bias.” This article reviews strengths and weaknesses of evidence provided with the use of MCDHS. Furthermore, the author argues that the shortcomings of MCDHS can be resolved by offering methodological improvements. These include (1) dissociating the harms of use from harms of abuse, (2) adding the perspectives of people who use drugs, pharmacists, and general medical practitioners along with the expert assessments, and (3) focusing on subsets of drugs to allow for comparison without mixing different social contexts of drug use. The paper concludes with outlines of substance subset-specific extensions of the MCDHS and related policy proposals in the four areas identified as generating the most controversy: non-medical use of opioids, “study aid” uses of stimulants, shifting trends in nicotine containing products, and regulation of medical and recreational uses of cannabis.}, journal={Frontiers in Pharmacology}, publisher={Frontiers Media SA}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2018}, month={Aug} }
 @inbook{racine_dubljević_2017, place={New York, NY}, title={Behavioral and brain-based research on free moral agency: Threatening or empowering?}, ISBN={9780198786832}, DOI={10.1093/oso/9780198786832.003.0020}, abstractNote={The belief that people are free human beings is central to much explanation of human behavior as well as to a broad set of social practices such as law, ethics, and politics. Neuroscience has been heralded as a game-changer that will radically alter how people perceive human freedom and potentially lead to the denial of its very existence. This chapter first examines some of the claims made by neuroscience research that challenge beliefs in free moral agency. It posits that a commonly held but unfounded objectivist and essential stance toward free moral agency and an equally common dichotomist fact–value/is–ought tension are at the center of these problematic interpretations. A resolution can be found in pragmatist theory and recent research in social psychology, both of which suggest that knowledge can also empower moral agency.}, booktitle={Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Racine, E. and Dubljević, V.}, editor={Illes, J.Editor}, year={2017}, pages={388–410} }
 @article{racine_dubljevic_jox_baertschi_christensen_farisco_jotterand_kahane_muller_2017, title={CAN NEUROSCIENCE CONTRIBUTE TO PRACTICAL ETHICS? A CRITICAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF THE METHODOLOGICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL CHALLENGES OF THE NEUROSCIENCE OF ETHICS}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1467-8519"]}, DOI={10.1111/bioe.12357}, abstractNote={Neuroethics is an interdisciplinary field that arose in response to novel ethical challenges posed by advances in neuroscience. Historically, neuroethics has provided an opportunity to synergize different disciplines, notably proposing a two-way dialogue between an 'ethics of neuroscience' and a 'neuroscience of ethics'. However, questions surface as to whether a 'neuroscience of ethics' is a useful and unified branch of research and whether it can actually inform or lead to theoretical insights and transferable practical knowledge to help resolve ethical questions. In this article, we examine why the neuroscience of ethics is a promising area of research and summarize what we have learned so far regarding its most promising goals and contributions. We then review some of the key methodological challenges which may have hindered the use of results generated thus far by the neuroscience of ethics. Strategies are suggested to address these challenges and improve the quality of research and increase neuroscience's usefulness for applied ethics and society at large. Finally, we reflect on potential outcomes of a neuroscience of ethics and discuss the different strategies that could be used to support knowledge transfer to help different stakeholders integrate knowledge from the neuroscience of ethics.}, number={5}, journal={BIOETHICS}, author={Racine, Eric and Dubljevic, Veljko and Jox, Ralf J. and Baertschi, Bernard and Christensen, Julia F. and Farisco, Michele and Jotterand, Fabrice and Kahane, Guy and Muller, Sabine}, year={2017}, month={Jun}, pages={328–337} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2017, title={Is It Time to Abandon the Strong Interpretation of the Dual-Process Model in Neuroethics?}, ISBN={9783319546506 9783319546513}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3_9}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3_9}, booktitle={Debates About Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2017}, pages={129–140} }
 @article{dubljevic_racine_2017, title={Moral enhancement meets normative and empirical reality: Assessing the practical feasibility of moral enhancement neurotechnologies}, volume={31}, DOI={10.1111/bioe.12355}, abstractNote={Moral enhancement refers to the possibility of making individuals and societies better from a moral standpoint. A fierce debate has emerged about the ethical aspects of moral enhancement, notably because steering moral enhancement in a particular direction involves choosing amongst a wide array of competing options, and these options entail deciding which moral theory or attributes of the moral agent would benefit from enhancement. Furthermore, the ability and effectiveness of different neurotechnologies to enhance morality have not been carefully examined. In this paper, we assess the practical feasibility of moral enhancement neurotechnologies. We reviewed the literature on neuroscience and cognitive science models of moral judgment and analyzed their implications for the specific target of intervention (cognition, volition or affect) in moral enhancement. We also reviewed and compared evidence on available neurotechnologies that could serve as tools of moral enhancement. We conclude that the predictions of rationalist, emotivist, and dual process models are at odds with evidence, while different intuitionist models of moral judgment are more likely to be aligned with it. Furthermore, the project of moral enhancement is not feasible in the near future as it rests on the use of neurointerventions, which have no moral enhancement effects or, worse, negative effects.}, number={5}, journal={Bioethics}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Racine, E.}, year={2017}, pages={338–348} }
 @article{dubljevic_jox_racine_2017, title={NEUROETHICS: NEUROSCIENCE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIOETHICS}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1467-8519"]}, DOI={10.1111/bioe.12360}, abstractNote={BioethicsVolume 31, Issue 5 p. 326-327 Editorial Neuroethics: Neuroscience's Contributions to Bioethics Veljko Dubljević, Veljko DubljevićSearch for more papers by this authorRalf J. Jox, Ralf J. JoxSearch for more papers by this authorEric Racine, Eric RacineSearch for more papers by this author Veljko Dubljević, Veljko DubljevićSearch for more papers by this authorRalf J. Jox, Ralf J. JoxSearch for more papers by this authorEric Racine, Eric RacineSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 May 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12360Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume31, Issue5Special Issue: Neuroethics: Neuroscience's Contributions to BioethicsJune 2017Pages 326-327 RelatedInformation}, number={5}, journal={BIOETHICS}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Jox, Ralf J. and Racine, Eric}, year={2017}, month={Jun}, pages={326–327} }
 @article{bryan_dubljevic_2017, title={To Disclose or Not to Disclose: When Fear of Nocebo Effects Infringes Upon Autonomy}, volume={17}, ISSN={["1536-0075"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1314045}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2017.1314045}, abstractNote={Fortunato and colleagues (2017) provide an interesting perspective on nocebo effects in clinical contexts, and propose selective withholding of information during the informed consent process for a...}, number={6}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bryan, Hadley and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2017}, pages={50–52} }
 @article{voarino_dubljević_racine_2017, title={tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues}, volume={10}, ISSN={1662-5161}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00678}, DOI={10.3389/fnhum.2016.00678}, abstractNote={Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising technology to enhance cognitive and physical performance. One of the major areas of interest is the enhancement of memory function in healthy individuals. The early arrival of tDCS on the market for lifestyle uses and cognitive enhancement purposes lead to the voicing of some important ethical concerns, especially because, to date, there are no official guidelines or evaluation procedures to tackle these issues. The aim of this article is to review ethical issues related to uses of tDCS for memory enhancement found in the ethics and neuroscience literature and to evaluate how realistic and scientifically well-founded these concerns are? In order to evaluate how plausible or speculative each issue is, we applied the methodological framework described by Racine et al. (2014) for “informed and reflective” speculation in bioethics. This framework could be succinctly presented as requiring: (1) the explicit acknowledgment of factual assumptions and identification of the value attributed to them; (2) the validation of these assumptions with interdisciplinary literature; and (3) the adoption of a broad perspective to support more comprehensive reflection on normative issues. We identified four major considerations associated with the development of tDCS for memory enhancement: safety, autonomy, justice and authenticity. In order to assess the seriousness and likelihood of harm related to each of these concerns, we analyzed the assumptions underlying the ethical issues, and the level of evidence for each of them. We identified seven distinct assumptions: prevalence, social acceptance, efficacy, ideological stance (bioconservative vs. libertarian), potential for misuse, long term side effects, and the delivery of complete and clear information. We conclude that ethical discussion about memory enhancement via tDCS sometimes involves undue speculation, and closer attention to scientific and social facts would bring a more nuanced analysis. At this time, the most realistic concerns are related to safety and violation of users’ autonomy by a breach of informed consent, as potential immediate and long-term health risks to private users remain unknown or not well defined. Clear and complete information about these risks must be provided to research participants and consumers of tDCS products or related services. Broader public education initiatives and warnings would also be worthwhile to reach those who are constructing their own tDCS devices.}, journal={Frontiers in Human Neuroscience}, publisher={Frontiers Media SA}, author={Voarino, Nathalie and Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2017}, month={Jan} }
 @article{dubljević_2016, title={21 Selected Abstracts from the Montreal Neuroethics Conference for Young Researchers}, volume={9}, ISSN={1874-5490 1874-5504}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S12152-016-9262-Y}, DOI={10.1007/S12152-016-9262-Y}, number={2}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2016}, month={May}, pages={137–145} }
 @article{dubljević_2016, title={Autonomy is Political, Pragmatic, and Postmetaphysical: A Reply to Open Peer Commentaries on “Autonomy in Neuroethics”}, volume={7}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2016.1244125}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2016.1244125}, abstractNote={In a target article (Dubljevi c 2013), I concluded that the moral–political notion of autonomy was mistakenly associated with the metaphysical concept of “free will.” Although there are important voices issuing agreement regarding autonomy as a gradual capacity (Nagel 2013) and a right (Dolan 2013), some commentators objected that my proposal has “hidden” metaphysical presuppositions, while others found faults with the definition of autonomy. Given the constraints in space, I try to clarify the most salient issues: the emphasis on rights and empirically observable capacities in autonomy, and the theoretical foundations. First, I acknowledge that rights are only part of political identity of citizens in democratic societies, and that citizens certainly have metaphysical and religious convictions. Therefore, the fact that neuroscience has been coupled with metaphysics is not problematic per se, but, as I have argued, is misplaced at the level of practically ascribing moral and legal responsibility in liberal democracies. It should be noted that the basis for ascription of moral and legal responsibility differs in traditional and pluralist democratic societies. In a traditional society, the normative force of the legal system is based on religious authority or metaphysical “truth.” However, liberal democracies are supposed to be legitimate for citizens upholding diverse worldviews, and as such neither presuppose nor are hostile toward any reasonable religious or metaphysical doctrines. Thus, in contemporary states, the law starts from observable empirical facts about relevant capacities (see Morse 2007), unless of course there is a proclaimed official religion (e.g., Shia Islam in Iran) or metaphysical position (e.g., determinism/dialectical materialism in North Korea). In liberal democracies, the law is a normative structure that draws on moral–political concepts and makes binary distinctions that are grounded in specific gradual capacities, but sharp by necessity. In a sense, these are arbitrary and “socially constructed,” but apart from the necessity to define the degrees of a relevant capacity, this in no way makes it “metaphysical” or obsolete. Consider the case of maturity: It is vague, gradual, and linked with a variable ability—self-control. Conceptual and empirical analysis might provide relevant insights, but the exact age at which persons are entitled to, say, drink, drive, vote, and freely dispose of their property is a social construct that differs}, number={4}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2016}, month={Oct}, pages={W1–W3} }
 @book{jotterand_dubljević_2016, place={New York}, title={Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, year={2016} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2016, place={New York}, title={Enhancement with Modafinil: Benefiting or harming the society?}, booktitle={Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Dubljević, V.}, editor={Jotterand, F. and Dubljević, V.Editors}, year={2016}, pages={259–274} }
 @article{racine_nguyen_saigle_dubljevic_2016, title={Media Portrayal of a Landmark Neuroscience Experiment on Free Will}, volume={23}, ISSN={1353-3452 1471-5546}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S11948-016-9845-3}, DOI={10.1007/S11948-016-9845-3}, abstractNote={The concept of free will has been heavily debated in philosophy and the social sciences. Its alleged importance lies in its association with phenomena fundamental to our understandings of self, such as autonomy, freedom, self-control, agency, and moral responsibility. Consequently, when neuroscience research is interpreted as challenging or even invalidating this concept, a number of heated social and ethical debates surface. We undertook a content analysis of media coverage of Libet's et al.'s (Brain 106(Pt 3):623-642, 1983) landmark study, which is frequently interpreted as posing a serious challenge to the existence of free will. Media descriptions of Libet et al.'s experiment provided limited details about the original study. Overall, many media articles reported that Libet et al.'s experiments undermined the existence of free will, despite acknowledging that several methodological limitations had been identified in the literature. A propensity to attribute greater credibility than warranted to neurobiological explanations could be at stake.}, number={4}, journal={Science and Engineering Ethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Racine, Eric and Nguyen, Valentin and Saigle, Victoria and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2016}, month={Nov}, pages={989–1007} }
 @inbook{racine_dubljević_2016, place={Oxford}, title={Neuroethics: Neuroscience and Society}, DOI={10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.46}, abstractNote={This article reviews different points of interest in neuroethics. These are exemplified by the three broad areas of neuroscience research—neuroimaging, neuropharmacology, and neurostimulation—and the major ethical questions with which they are associated. It considers primary research in neuroscience, ethics, and philosophy and identifies some important questions meriting further attention, primarily in the context of healthcare but also beyond, in the broad areas of education, business, and the military. A heavily debated trend, that of the enhancement use of neuropharmaceuticals and neurostimulation devices, is also discussed, especially in relationship to cognitive enhancement and neuroethics. In addition, emerging forms of neurostimulation are considered with respect to effectiveness and ethics.}, booktitle={Oxford Handbooks Online – Philosophy}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Racine, E. and Dubljević, V.}, year={2016} }
 @article{racine_dubljević_2016, title={Porous or Contextualized Autonomy? Knowledge Can Empower Autonomous Moral Agents}, volume={16}, ISSN={1526-5161 1536-0075}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1120800}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2015.1120800}, abstractNote={The principle of respect for autonomy and the underlying concept of autonomy implied by this ethical principle have been cornerstones of medical ethics and clinical practice since the later part of...}, number={2}, journal={The American Journal of Bioethics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Racine, Eric and Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2016}, month={Feb}, pages={48–50} }
 @article{dubljević_saigle_racine_2016, title={The Bright Future of Neuroethics}, volume={9}, ISSN={1874-5490 1874-5504}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S12152-016-9263-X}, DOI={10.1007/S12152-016-9263-X}, number={2}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Saigle, Victoria H. and Racine, Eric}, year={2016}, month={May}, pages={103–105} }
 @article{dubljević_2015, title={Cognitive Enhancement}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-12-417042-1.00013-9}, abstractNote={“Cognitive enhancement” refers to the use of drugs or devices for non–health-related improvement of cognition. Most cognitive enhancers have either been developed in model animals or they have a history of use in humans. While many specific issues related to existing cognitive enhancers remain unanswered (e.g., properties, prevalence, modalities, reasons for use, likely future developments) the normative issues surrounding their use (i.e., should they be used, for what, and by whom) are perhaps the most contentious. A range of normative issues (e.g., authenticity) have been discussed in the literature, but this chapter provides a short overview of the positions adopted on a key normative issue; whether the use of cognitive enhancement is a form of cheating. We also discuss the regulation of cognitive enhancers using fictional yet realistic scenarios and, finally, we analyze the policy options for existing and future cognitive enhancers, discussing the legal and methodological challenges faced in developing a legitimate, evidence-based regulatory policy.}, journal={Cognitive Enhancement}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2015}, pages={343–365} }
 @article{dubljevic_ryan_2015, title={Cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate and modafinil: conceptual advances and societal implications}, volume={8}, ISSN={2230-3561}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/nan.s61925}, DOI={10.2147/nan.s61925}, abstractNote={: “Cognition enhancement” (CE) drugs are pharmaceuticals taken by healthy people with the aim of sustaining attention, augmenting memory, or improving other cognitive capacities. This paper focuses on two CE drugs – methylphenidate and modafinil. It analyzes their mechanism of action, the evidence for their efficacy in nonsleep deprived individuals}, journal={Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko and Ryan, Christopher}, year={2015}, month={Aug}, pages={25} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2015, place={Amsterdam}, title={Cognitive enhancement: A glance at the future and ethical considerations}, booktitle={Cognitive Enhancement}, publisher={Elsevier}, author={Dubljević, V.}, editor={Knafo, S. and Venero, C.Editors}, year={2015}, pages={343–365} }
 @article{dubljević_2015, title={Lost in Interpretation: Autonomy and What Patients Tell Versus What Is Inferred}, volume={15}, ISSN={1526-5161 1536-0075}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062168}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2015.1062168}, number={9}, journal={The American Journal of Bioethics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2015}, month={Aug}, pages={28–30} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2015, place={Tübingen}, title={Regulation of cognition enhancement drugs and public reason: prohibition or economic disincentives model?}, ISBN={9783772085468}, booktitle={Human Self-design with Biotechnology, (Tübingen Studies in Ethics)}, publisher={Francke Attempto Verlag}, author={Dubljević, V.}, editor={Ranisch, R. and Schuol, S. and Rockoff, M.Editors}, year={2015}, pages={289–304} }
 @article{dubljević_venero_knafo_2015, title={What is Cognitive Enhancement?}, DOI={10.1016/b978-0-12-417042-1.00001-2}, abstractNote={“Cognitive enhancement” is commonly associated with drug use or the use of devices to improve cognition, technologies that have on the whole been established in laboratory animals or through a history of use in humans. In this chapter we aim to clarify the concept underlying “cognitive enhancement” and to provide a brief overview of the current use of this term in the academic literature, distinguishing the strategies to enhance cognitive function under normal conditions and the therapeutic strategies aimed at overcoming cognitive impairment. In addition, we will briefly review the various approaches to cognitive enhancement later described in this book.}, journal={Cognitive Enhancement}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Venero, César and Knafo, Shira}, year={2015}, pages={1–9} }
 @article{dubljević_racine_2014, title={A single cognitive heuristic process meets the complexity of domain-specific moral heuristics}, volume={37}, ISSN={0140-525X 1469-1825}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13003701}, DOI={10.1017/S0140525X13003701}, abstractNote={The inherence heuristic (a) offers modest insights into the complex nature of both the is-ought tension in moral reasoning and moral reasoning per se, and (b) does not reflect the complexity of domain-specific moral heuristics. Formal and general in nature, we contextualize the process described as "inherence heuristic" in a web of domain-specific heuristics (e.g., agent specific; action specific; consequences specific).}, number={5}, journal={Behavioral and Brain Sciences}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2014}, month={Oct}, pages={487–488} }
 @article{dubljević_sattler_racine_2014, title={Cognitive Enhancement and Academic Misconduct: A Study Exploring Their Frequency and Relationship}, volume={24}, ISSN={1050-8422 1532-7019}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.869747}, DOI={10.1080/10508422.2013.869747}, abstractNote={We investigated the acceptability and use frequency of cognitive enhancement medication and three different types of academic misconduct (plagiarism, cheating, and falsifying/fabricating data). Data collected from a web-based survey of German university students were used in our analysis. Moral acceptability of cognitive enhancers was relatively low and moderate for academic misconduct. The correlation between these measures was moderately weak. The use frequency of cognitive enhancers was lower than for academic misconduct and was (very) lightly correlated with the occurrences of reported plagiarism and fabrication/falsification. A higher acceptability of each act was associated with a higher use frequency of each act.}, number={5}, journal={Ethics & Behavior}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Sattler, Sebastian and Racine, Éric}, year={2014}, month={Jun}, pages={408–420} }
 @article{racine_bell_yan_andrew_bell_clarke_dubljevic_goldowitz_janvier_mclachlan_et al._2014, title={Ethics challenges of transition from paediatric to adult health care services for young adults with neurodevelopmental disabilities.}, volume={19}, url={http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/24596475}, number={2}, journal={Paediatrics & child health}, author={Racine, E and Bell, E and Yan, A and Andrew, G and Bell, LE and Clarke, M and Dubljevic, V and Goldowitz, D and Janvier, A and McLachlan, K and et al.}, year={2014}, month={Feb}, pages={65–68} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2014, place={Novi Sad}, title={How Neuroethics differs from Bioethics, and does it matter?}, booktitle={Primenjena etika}, publisher={Mediterran}, author={Dubljević, V.}, editor={Franeta, D. and Protopapadakis, A.Editors}, year={2014}, pages={52–85} }
 @article{dubljević_2014, title={Neurostimulation Devices for Cognitive Enhancement: Toward a Comprehensive Regulatory Framework}, volume={8}, ISSN={1874-5490 1874-5504}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S12152-014-9225-0}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-014-9225-0}, number={2}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2014}, month={Nov}, pages={115–126} }
 @article{dubljević_2014, title={Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Prohibition or Coffee Shops: Regulation of Amphetamine and Methylphenidate for Enhancement Use by Healthy Adults”}, volume={14}, ISSN={1526-5161 1536-0075}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.862417}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2014.862417}, abstractNote={In my target article (Dubljevic 2013a), I analyzed available information and policy options for the two of the most commonly used cognitive enhancement (CE) drugs: Adderall and Ritalin. I concluded that for all forms of amphetamine, including Adderall, and for instant-release forms of methylphenidate, any form of sale beyond prescription for therapeutic purposes needs to be prohibited, while some form of a taxation approach (Dubljevic 2012a) and the economic disincentives model (EDM) in particular (Dubljevic 2012b) could be an option for public policy on extended-release forms ofmethylphenidate (like RitalinSR). However, not everyone agreed with my conclusions. There has been a considerable amount of constructive criticism regarding my proposal. Some neuroethicists objected to my favoring prohibitive policies to dangerous CE drugs such as amphetamine and argued for laissez-faire or even mandatory use of enhancements. Others took issuewith the conclusion that the economic disincentives model (EDM) could be an option for public policy on extended release forms ofmethylphenidate. Furthermore, there are those that think my argument in general and EDM in particular are failing to address the relevant issues in regulation of CE, such as social justice and real autonomy. Finally, there are those who offer suggestions on how the argument and the model of public policy for CE drugs can be improved. Since it makes sense to respond to similar commentaries together, I first review and respond to the objections coming from the Oxford “pro-enhancement group”: Anders Sandberg (2013), Neil Levy (2013), and Julian Savulescu (2013). Then I explore and answer several objections from neu-}, number={1}, journal={The American Journal of Bioethics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2014}, month={Jan}, pages={W1–W8} }
 @article{dubljević_racine_2014, title={The ADC of Moral Judgment: Opening the Black Box of Moral Intuitions With Heuristics About Agents, Deeds, and Consequences}, volume={5}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2014.939381}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2014.939381}, abstractNote={This article proposes a novel integrative approach to moral judgment and a related model that could explain how unconscious heuristic processes are transformed into consciously accessible moral intuitions. Different hypothetical cases have been tested empirically to evoke moral intuitions that support principles from competing moral theories. We define and analyze the types of intuitions that moral theories and studies capture: those focusing on agents (A), deeds (D), and consequences (C). The integrative ADC approach uses the heuristic principle of “attribute substitution” to explain how people make intuitive judgments. The target attributes of moral judgments are moral blameworthiness and praiseworthiness, which are substituted with more accessible and computable information about an agent's virtues and vices, right/wrong deeds, and good/bad consequences. The processes computing this information are unconscious and inaccessible, and therefore explaining how they provide input for moral intuitions is a key problem. We analyze social heuristics identified in the literature and offer an outline for a new model of moral judgment. Simple social heuristics triggered by morally salient cues rely on three distinct processes (role-model entity, action analysis, and consequence tallying—REACT) in order to compute the moral valence of specific intuitive responses (A, D, and C). These are then rapidly combined to form an intuitive judgment that could guide quick decision making. The ADC approach and REACT model can clarify a wide set of data from empirical moral psychology and could inform future studies on moral judgment, as well as case assessments and discussions about issues causing “deadlocked” moral intuitions.}, number={4}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2014}, month={Oct}, pages={3–20} }
 @article{dubljević_saigle_racine_2014, title={The Rising Tide of tDCS in the Media and Academic Literature}, volume={82}, ISSN={0896-6273}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2014.05.003}, DOI={10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.003}, abstractNote={Academic and public interest in tDCS has been fueled by strong claims of therapeutic and enhancement effects. We report a rising tide of tDCS coverage in the media, while regulatory action is lacking and ethical issues need to be addressed.}, number={4}, journal={Neuron}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Saigle, Victoria and Racine, Eric}, year={2014}, month={May}, pages={731–736} }
 @article{dubljević_2013, title={Autonomy in Neuroethics: Political and Not Metaphysical}, volume={4}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2013.819390}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2013.819390}, abstractNote={This article examines and refutes the claims that neuroscientific evidence renders autonomy “quixotic” and thus supports a shift toward paternalism in medical and political decision-making. The author argues that the notion of autonomy has been mistakenly associated with the metaphysical concept of free will, and offers a political definition of autonomy to clarify how responsibility is implicitly grounded in the legal and political system: An agent acts autonomously when she/he (a) endorses decisions and acts in accord with internal motivational states, (b) shows commitment to them in the absence of undue coercion and compulsion, and (c) could as a reasonable and rational person continue to do so after a period of informed critical reflection. The author further argues that neuroscientific findings confirm the assumption that humans are fundamentally fallible social creatures and explain the mechanisms of openness to the social world, which can be and sometimes are abused. A naturalistic framework does not dispute autonomy or rights, but it does point toward means of manipulation and toward areas in which further legal protection of rights and autonomous choice is needed. The author concludes by clarifying the ideal-typical degrees of coercion (indirect, direct and total) and compulsion (mild, severe and total) that serve the purpose of qualifying reduction of autonomy and responsibility in certain cases, and elaborating the middle-ground position between the “moral” and “brain disease” model of addiction.}, number={4}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2013}, month={Oct}, pages={44–51} }
 @article{dubljević_racine_2013, title={Judging Deeds, Not Psychopaths}, volume={4}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2013.782912}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2013.782912}, abstractNote={The target article, “What We Owe the Psychopath: A Neuroethical Analysis” (Gillett and Huang 2013), argues that we need to rethink our attitudes toward psychopaths because they are both victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. The authors highlight important ethical problems associated with labeling practices and attitudes toward marginalized populations and societal responsibility for a cycle of victimization (most notably in the prison context). However, determining how we can draw conclusions on social dues toward psychopaths based on such considerations is complex. Gillett and Huang’s evaluation of moral dues to psychopaths based on their status as neurobiologically diverse human beings appears to be one-sided in three respects: first, the difference between “successful” and “unsuccessful” psychopaths and related social status and even prestige has not been discussed; second, the difference between reactive and instrumental aggression has not been taken into account; and third, the elucidation of the genesis of psychopathy partially explains away the normative aspect of social norms. Let’s start with the first issue. Although most studies involving human beings with psychopathic traits take place in a prison context where there is much to be said about hostility, distrust, and interpersonal abuse, not all psychopaths are incarcerated. There is increasing recognition that people with psychopathic traits can thrive in society and assume important social positions, such as lawyers and senior business managers (see, e.g., Board and Fritzon 2005). These “successful” psychopaths are not marginalized by society, and they could be socially acceptable and even celebrated as heroic if and when they use their unique characteris-}, number={2}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2013}, month={Apr}, pages={33–34} }
 @article{bell_dubljevic_racine_2013, title={Nudging Without Ethical Fudging: Clarifying Physician Obligations to Avoid Ethical Compromise}, volume={13}, ISSN={1526-5161 1536-0075}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.781714}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2013.781714}, abstractNote={Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.}, number={6}, journal={The American Journal of Bioethics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Bell, Emily and Dubljevic, Veljko and Racine, Eric}, year={2013}, month={Jun}, pages={18–19} }
 @article{dubljević_2013, title={Prohibition or Coffee Shops: Regulation of Amphetamine and Methylphenidate for Enhancement Use by Healthy Adults}, volume={13}, ISSN={1526-5161 1536-0075}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.794875}, DOI={10.1080/15265161.2013.794875}, abstractNote={This article analyzes appropriate public policies for enhancement use of two most important stimulant drugs: Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts). The author argues that appropriate regulation of cognition enhancement drugs cannot be a result of a general discussion on cognitive enhancements as such, but has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Starting from the recently proposed taxation approach to cognition enhancement drugs, the author analyzes available, moderately permissive models of regulation. After a thorough analysis of relevant characteristics of methylphenidate and amphetamine, the author concludes that a moderately liberal permissive regulation of enhancement use by healthy adults might be appropriate for extended release forms of methylphenidate. However, due to their danger profile, amphetamine and instant release forms of methylphenidate should not be made readily available to healthy adults and would need to be prohibited.}, number={7}, journal={The American Journal of Bioethics}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2013}, month={Jul}, pages={23–33} }
 @article{ranisch_garofoli_dubljevic_2013, title={“Clock Shock,” Motivational Enhancement, and Performance Maintenance in Adderall Use}, volume={4}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2012.748704}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2012.748704}, abstractNote={The article by Scott Vrecko (2013) contributes toward the elucidation of a neglected issue in the debate on cognition enhancement drugs, namely, the exact nature of the effects experienced by users...}, number={1}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Ranisch, Robert and Garofoli, Duilio and Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2013}, month={Jan}, pages={13–14} }
 @article{dubljević_2012, title={Cognitive Enhancement, Rational Choice and Justification}, volume={6}, ISSN={1874-5490 1874-5504}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S12152-012-9173-5}, DOI={10.1007/s12152-012-9173-5}, number={1}, journal={Neuroethics}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Dubljević, Veljko}, year={2012}, month={Dec}, pages={179–187} }
 @article{dubljević_2012, title={How to understand Rawls's Law of Peoples}, volume={20}, number={1}, journal={Studies in Social and Political Thought}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2012}, pages={85–105} }
 @article{dubljevic_2012, title={Principles of Justice as the Basis for Public Policy on Psychopharmacological Cognitive Enhancement}, volume={4}, DOI={10.5235/175799612800650617}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT The paper provides a brief conceptual analysis of the debate on psycho-pharmacological cognitive enhancement from the point of view of public reason as it is construed in contemporary political philosophy. The author argues that the strong reasonable disagreement that marks authenticity, posthumanist and “playing God” arguments stems from their presuppositions in religious, ethical or metaphysical comprehensive doctrines, whereas the principles of justice could be the basis for an “overlapping consensus” in the context of regulating use of cognition enhancement drugs for non-therapeutic purposes. The analysis of requirements of justice points to a conclusion that discouraging the use of psycho-pharmacological cognitive enhancements would be the most legitimate public policy. The author offers a model of such a policy: with the imposition of taxes, fees and requirements of additional insurance, the use and indirect coercion to use would be less profitable and less wide-spread, while additional funds thus created could be allocated to meet basic medical needs.}, number={1}, journal={Law, Inn Tech}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2012}, month={May}, pages={67–83} }
 @article{dubljević_2012, title={The difference between justice and legitimacy as the basis for an interpretation of Rawls' Law of Peoples}, volume={4}, number={1}, journal={Političke perspektive}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2012}, pages={45–71} }
 @article{dubljevic_2012, title={Toward a Legitimate Public Policy on Cognition-Enhancement Drugs}, volume={3}, ISSN={2150-7740 2150-7759}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2012.700681}, DOI={10.1080/21507740.2012.700681}, abstractNote={This article proposes a model for regulating use of cognition enhancement drugs for nontherapeutic purposes. Using the method of reflective equilibrium, the author starts from the considered judgment of many citizens that treatments are obligatory and permissible while enhancements are not, and with the application of general principles of justice explains why this is the case. The author further analyzes and refutes three reasons that some influential authors in the field of neuroethics might have for downplaying the importance of justice: (1) Justice applies only to public funds and state action—not to individual choice or corporate actors. (2) “Performance enhancement” does imply questions of justice, while “performance maintenance” does not. (3) There is no sufficient difference between cognition-enhancement drugs and other technologies to warrant the importance of justice for the debate. The challenges are refuted by taking into account the difference between consumption and tool use, and the influence of socioeconomic pressure for widespread use that existing drugs could have on the basic structure of society and equal autonomy of citizens. The analysis of requirements of justice points to a conclusion that introducing economic disincentives for the use of cognition-enhancement drugs would be the most legitimate public policy. With the imposition of taxes, fees, and requirements of additional insurance, the use and indirect coercion to use would be less profitable and less widespread, while additional funds thus created could be allocated to meet basic medical needs and/or education.}, number={3}, journal={AJOB Neuroscience}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Dubljevic, Veljko}, year={2012}, month={Jul}, pages={29–33} }
 @article{dubljević_2011, title={Habermas’s criticism of “Justice as Fairness” and Rawls's distinction of four roles for political philosophy}, volume={5}, number={2}, journal={Nauka i politika}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2011}, pages={195–204} }
 @article{dubljević_2011, title={Morality, religion and the political culture of tolerance}, volume={9}, number={16}, journal={Religion and Tolerance}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2011}, pages={245–256} }
 @article{dubljević_2010, title={Discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas in relation to contemporary science}, volume={4}, number={2}, journal={Interdisciplinarnost i jedinstvo savremene nauke}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2010}, pages={133–142} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2010, place={Novi Sad}, title={The application of Categorical Imperative}, booktitle={Evropska zajednica naroda i univerzalne vrednosti}, publisher={NATEF}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2010}, pages={127–147} }
 @article{dubljević_2010, title={The application of utilitarian analysis}, volume={2}, number={1}, journal={Poslovna ekonomija}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2010}, pages={151–167} }
 @article{dubljević_2010, title={The formulation and reformulation of Rawls's idea of public reason}, volume={14}, journal={Pravni život}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2010}, pages={737–758} }
 @article{dubljević_2009, title={Legitimacy and the economic model of pluralist democracy}, volume={1}, number={2}, journal={Poslovna ekonomija}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2009}, pages={200–218} }
 @book{dubljevic_jovanovic_2009, place={Sremska Kamenica}, edition={3rd}, title={Students' handbook for university entrance exam}, publisher={Educons University Press}, author={Dubljevic, V. and Jovanovic, A.}, year={2009} }
 @article{dubljević_2009, title={The philosophy of law of Jürgen Habermas}, volume={12}, journal={Pravni život}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2009}, pages={595–609} }
 @article{dubljević_2008, title={How to interpret Habermas’ critique of "Justice as Fairness"}, volume={10}, journal={Pravni život}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2008}, pages={335–356} }
 @book{dubljevic_jovanovic_2008, place={Sremska Kamenica}, edition={2nd}, title={Students' handbook for university entrance exam}, publisher={Educons University Press}, author={Dubljevic, V. and Jovanovic, A.}, year={2008} }
 @book{dubljević_jovanović_2007, place={Sremska Kamenica}, title={Students' handbook for university entrance exam}, publisher={Educons University Press}, author={Dubljević, V. and Jovanović, A.}, year={2007} }
 @article{dubljević_2007, title={The application of “Justice as Fairness” through notions of the rational and the reasonable}, volume={8}, journal={Pravni život}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2007}, pages={399–414} }
 @article{dubljević_2006, title={Organizational justice}, volume={4}, number={1}, journal={Žurnal za sociologiju}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2006}, pages={76–85} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2002, place={Begrade}, title={Morality and religion}, booktitle={Religije Balkana: Iskustva i perpektive}, publisher={Belgrade Open School}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2002}, pages={180–183} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2001, place={Novi Sad}, title={Philosophy and modern science}, booktitle={Filozofija – problemski pristup}, publisher={SSFF}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2001}, pages={140–143} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2001, place={Novi Sad}, title={Problems in methodology of teaching philosophy}, booktitle={Filozofija – problemski pristup}, publisher={SSFF}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2001}, pages={206–210} }
 @inbook{dubljević_2001, place={Novi Sad}, title={Socrates}, booktitle={Filozofija – problemski pristup}, publisher={SSFF}, author={Dubljević, V.}, year={2001}, pages={34–44} }