Why We Need Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) in Neuroethics

Abstract Empirical scholarship in neuroethics is steadily growing, adding greater context and complexity to conceptual and ethical debates Starke et al. BMC Medical Ethics 25:89, 2024. For example, qualitive studies have been used to understand what it is like for research participants to take part in implantable neural device trials Kögel et al. BMC Medical Ethics 21:2, 2020. These studies are broadly unidirectional when considering their impact through the lens of engagement practices: engagement with research participants takes place through uptake of data collection processes, which are then analyzed for understanding and academic dissemination. Beyond one or two formal interactions (e.g., qualitative interviews, surveys) for data collection, with a few exceptions Illes et al. Frontiers in Communication 9:1267065, 2024, there have not been many efforts to promote iterative engagement between research participants and neuroethics researchers, which we will argue is a shortcoming that should be addressed. Focusing on research participants of implantable neural device trials or Brain Pioneers, this paper offers a conceptual argument and roadmap for why neuroethics researchers ought to pursue more bidirectional and iterative engagement with this community. Drawing on models in health science research, we argue that the framework of community-based participatory research (CBPR) can help fill in key engagement gaps not offered by unidirectional engagement: long-term relationship-building between Brain Pioneers and neuroethicists, creating opportunities for co-learning and mutual benefit. The CBPR framework can also help to further bring Brain Pioneers together, making space for community-empowerment so that they have increased capacities to collectively and actively advocate for their needs before, during, and after research. In addition, a CBPR partnership between neuroethicists and Brain Pioneers can better position neuroethics scholarship to identify and address immediate ethical concerns in implantable neural device research to ensure the fair and non-exploitative treatment of prospective and current research participants.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Neuroethics
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-026-09643-7
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why We Need Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) in Neuroethics

Michelle Pham, Sara Goering, Eran Klein, Ian Burkhart et al.
Neuroethics
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
article

Why We Need Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) in Neuroethics

Michelle Pham, Sara Goering, Eran Klein, Ian Burkhart, Arynn de Leeuw
article en

Abstract

Abstract Empirical scholarship in neuroethics is steadily growing, adding greater context and complexity to conceptual and ethical debates Starke et al. BMC Medical Ethics 25:89, 2024. For example, qualitive studies have been used to understand what it is like for research participants to take part in implantable neural device trials Kögel et al. BMC Medical Ethics 21:2, 2020. These studies are broadly unidirectional when considering their impact through the lens of engagement practices: engagement with research participants takes place through uptake of data collection processes, which are then analyzed for understanding and academic dissemination. Beyond one or two formal interactions (e.g., qualitative interviews, surveys) for data collection, with a few exceptions Illes et al. Frontiers in Communication 9:1267065, 2024, there have not been many efforts to promote iterative engagement between research participants and neuroethics researchers, which we will argue is a shortcoming that should be addressed. Focusing on research participants of implantable neural device trials or Brain Pioneers, this paper offers a conceptual argument and roadmap for why neuroethics researchers ought to pursue more bidirectional and iterative engagement with this community. Drawing on models in health science research, we argue that the framework of community-based participatory research (CBPR) can help fill in key engagement gaps not offered by unidirectional engagement: long-term relationship-building between Brain Pioneers and neuroethicists, creating opportunities for co-learning and mutual benefit. The CBPR framework can also help to further bring Brain Pioneers together, making space for community-empowerment so that they have increased capacities to collectively and actively advocate for their needs before, during, and after research. In addition, a CBPR partnership between neuroethicists and Brain Pioneers can better position neuroethics scholarship to identify and address immediate ethical concerns in implantable neural device research to ensure the fair and non-exploitative treatment of prospective and current research participants.

NeuroethicsVol. 19(1)
Pioneer (United States) (US), Oregon Health & Science University (US), University of Washington (US), Michigan State University (US)
BRAIN Initiative
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.