Nicolai Wohns

At some point along life’s trajectory, growing becomes aging. Gerotherapeutics—biologically-based approaches to health that target processes of aging—seem poised to respond. This theme issue investigates ethical valences of what gerotherapeutics suggest about our socially, culturally, and historically entrenched patterns of pathologizing and medicalizing aging. Advancement in our understanding of physiological mechanisms of aging has prompted some to reconceive lifespans as health spans. Geroscience also suggests the need to critically evaluate whether and to what extent we should think of anti-aging ventures as legitimate enterprises of health care. Normative roles played by aging in our personal and relational narratives, in our expectations about how duration and quality of life confer value to life, and in how life extension promotes or undermines our notions of wisdom and a good life are all at stake.

Advances in public health, medicine, and technology since the mid-19th century have redefined what is considered “natural” for human beings. This article situates contemporary geroscience in that historical context. The development of gerotherapies must be guided by historical insight, ethical foresight, and a commitment to justice. Since extending lifespans has important societal consequences, how aging research will affect future generations should be prioritized. Equitable access to gerotherapies, as well as an emphasis on social responsibility and the influence of community on health and longevity, must remain central to any vision of the future of aging.

May offers a nuanced and compelling exploration of the ethical challenges posed by advances in brain science. His clear prose, balanced analysis, and interdisciplinary approach make the book an excellent resource for educators and students alike. By addressing fundamental issues such as agency, moral responsibility, personal identity and autonomy, while challenging alarmist attitudes and emphasizing the importance of empirical and philosophical rigor, May equips readers with the tools to engage thoughtfully with a dynamic and evolving field. Whether used as the foundation for a neuroethics course or as a supplementary text in related disciplines, Neuroethics is a valuable and thought-provoking contribution that underscores the relevance of philosophical inquiry in understanding the implications of neuroscience.

Barnes et al. (2025) emphasize the need for current biobanking consent models to more deeply engage participants who want to determine how their data are used. Despite agreeing with the authors on wanting to make biobanking data more private and secure, we identify deep moral difficulties with their article on two levels. On one level, we worry that the authors have not engaged deeply enough with many of the central challenges debated in the AI literature. And on a different level, rather than critically examining the use of novel technological methods for managing biobanking data, the article instead comes across as the authors trying to market the underlying technology under the guise of an ethics paper.

While the ethical significance of caregivers in neurological research has increasingly been recognized, the role of caregivers in brain- computer interface (BCI) research has received relatively less attention. Objectives: This report investigates the extent to which caregivers are mentioned in publications describing implantable BCI (iBCI) research for individuals with motor dysfunction, communication impairment, and blindness. Methods: The scoping review was conducted in June 2024 using the PubMed and Web of Science bibliographic databases. The articles were systematically searched using query terms for caregivers, family members, and guardians, and the results were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Results: Our search yielded 315 unique studies, 78 of which were included in this scoping review. Thirty-four (43.6%) of the 78 articles mentioned the study participant’s caregivers. We sorted these into 5 categories: Twenty-two (64.7%) of the 34 articles thanked caregivers in the acknowledgement section, 6 (17.6%) articles described the caregiver’s role with regard to the consent process, 12 (35.3%) described the caregiver’s role in the technical maintenance and upkeep of the BCI system or in other procedural aspects of the study, 9 (26.5%) discussed how the BCI enhanced participant communication and goal-directed behavior with the help of a caregiver, and 3 (8.8%) articles included general comments that did not fit into the other categories but still related to the importance of caregivers in the lives of the research participants. Discussion: Caregivers were mentioned in less than half of BCI studies in this review. The studies that offered more robust discussions of caregivers provide valuable insight into the integral role that caregivers play in supporting the study participants and the research process. Attention to the role of caregivers in successful BCI research studies can help guide the responsible development of future BCI study protocols.