Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research. RESULTS: A total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data. DISCUSSION: We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

Neuroethics: Fostering Collaborations to Enable Neuroscientific Discovery.

The NIH-funded Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative has led to significant advances in what we know about the functions and capacities of the brain. This multifaceted and expansive effort supports a range of experimentation from cells to circuits, and its outputs promise to ease suffering from various neurological injuries, diseases, and neuropsychiatric conditions. At the midway point of the 10-year BRAIN Initiative, we pause to consider how these studies, and neuroscience research more broadly, may bear on human characteristics and moral concepts such as identity, agency, and others. This midway point also offers us an opportunity to evaluate the sociology and impacts of BRAIN Initiative-funded investigations to ensure that ethical standards of fairness and justice pervade the scientific process itself. Neuroethics inquiry provides a mechanism to invite relevant, novel expertise from the wide array of disciplines that intersect with biomedicine in neuroscience research. As the BRAIN Initiative and the broader field of neuroscience proceed, neuroethics serves as a central component of neuroscience inquiry to i) foster necessary and beneficial collaborations for responsible discovery; ii) ensure a rigorous, reproducible, and representative neuroscience research process; and iii) explore the unique nature of study of the human brain through accurate and representative models of its function and dysfunction.

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review.

Importance: Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants. Observations: Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities. Conclusions and Relevance: This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

BRAIN Initiative: Cutting-Edge Tools and Resources for the Community.

The overarching goal of the NIH BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative is to advance the understanding of healthy and diseased brain circuit function through technological innovation. Core principles for this goal include the validation and dissemination of the myriad innovative technologies, tools, methods, and resources emerging from BRAIN-funded research. Innovators, BRAIN funding agencies, and non-Federal partners are working together to develop strategies for making these products usable, available, and accessible to the scientific community. Here, we describe several early strategies for supporting the dissemination of BRAIN technologies. We aim to invigorate a dialogue with the neuroscience research and funding community, interdisciplinary collaborators, and trainees about the existing and future opportunities for cultivating groundbreaking research products into mature, integrated, and adaptable research systems. Along with the accompanying Society for Neuroscience 2019 Mini-Symposium, "BRAIN Initiative: Cutting-Edge Tools and Resources for the Community," we spotlight the work of several BRAIN investigator teams who are making progress toward providing tools, technologies, and services for the neuroscience community. These tools access neural circuits at multiple levels of analysis, from subcellular composition to brain-wide network connectivity, including the following: integrated systems for EM- and florescence-based connectomics, advances in immunolabeling capabilities, and resources for recording and analyzing functional connectivity. Investigators describe how the resources they provide to the community will contribute to achieving the goals of the NIH BRAIN Initiative. Finally, in addition to celebrating the contributions of these BRAIN-funded investigators, the Mini-Symposium will illustrate the broader diversity of BRAIN Initiative investments in cutting-edge technologies and resources.

The NIH BRAIN Initiative: Integrating Neuroethics and Neuroscience.

The NIH Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to transform our understanding of the brain, and neuroethics is an essential component of this research effort. Coordination with other brain projects around the world will help maximize success.

Neuroethics Questions to Guide Ethical Research in the International Brain Initiatives.

Increasingly, national governments across the globe are prioritizing investments in neuroscience. Currently, seven active or in-development national-level brain research initiatives exist, spanning four continents. Engaging with the underlying values and ethical concerns that drive brain research across cultural and continental divides is critical to future research. Culture influences what kinds of science are supported and where science can be conducted through ethical frameworks and evaluations of risk. Neuroscientists and philosophers alike have found themselves together encountering perennial questions; these questions are engaged by the field of neuroethics, related to the nature of understanding the self and identity, the existence and meaning of free will, defining the role of reason in human behavior, and more. With this Perspective article, we aim to prioritize and advance to the foreground a list of neuroethics questions for neuroscientists operating in the context of these international brain initiatives.

Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative.

The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to revolutionize our understanding of how the brain functions in health and disease, in large part to address the growing societal impact of neurological, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Recent advances in neurotechnology are delivering unprecedented ways to interrogate and modulate brain function, and the BRAIN Initiative is focused on translation for human medical uses over the next decade. Since its inception, the NIH component of the BRAIN Initiative has utilized an iterative model of integrating ethics into the scientific trajectory of the Initiative, most recently with the creation of a Neuroethics Division of the NIH BRAIN Initiative Multi-Council Working Group. The Division serves as a resource of expertise, to help the BRAIN Initiative navigate issues involving ethics. Here we discuss the BRAIN Initiative, and its implications and aspirations for neuroethics. We also discuss new opportunities for collaboration and for integrating stakeholder voices.

Neuroethics in the Age of Brain Projects.

Neuroscience advances have brought important ethical questions. The recent launch of two large brain projects, the United States BRAIN Initiative and the European Union Human Brain Project, should accelerate progress in understanding the brain. This article examines neuroethics in those two projects, as well as its exploration by other efforts.

B vitamins alleviate indices of neuropathic pain in diabetic rats.

There are sporadic reports that assorted combinations of B vitamins can alleviate pain in diabetic patients, but there is neither agreement on the relative efficacy of individual B vitamins nor understanding of the mechanisms involved. We therefore investigated the efficacy of a cocktail of the vitamins B1, B6 and B12 in alleviating behavioral indices of sensory dysfunction such as allodynia and hyperalgesia in diabetic rats and also the relative contribution of individual components of the cocktail. Repeated daily treatment with the cocktail of B vitamins for 7-9 days ameliorated tactile allodynia and formalin-evoked hyperalgesia in a dose-dependent manner and also improved sensory nerve conduction velocity in diabetic rats. Investigation of the contribution of individual B vitamins suggested that all three participated with variable efficacy in the alleviation of allodynia after protracted, but not single dose treatment. Only vitamin B6 improved sensory nerve conduction velocity slowing in diabetic rats when given alone. To address potential mechanisms of action, we measured markers of oxidative stress (lipid and protein oxidation) and inflammation (cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and TNFalpha protein) in the nerve but treatment with the vitamin B cocktail did not significantly affect any of these parameters. The positive effects of B vitamins on functional and behavioral disorders of diabetic rats suggest a potential for use in treating painful diabetic neuropathy.

Allodynia and hyperalgesia in diabetic rats are mediated by GABA and depletion of spinal potassium-chloride co-transporters.

Diabetic rats show behavioral indices of painful neuropathy that may model the human condition. Hyperalgesia during the formalin test in diabetic rats is accompanied by the apparently paradoxical decrease in spinal release of excitatory neurotransmitters and increase in the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA. Decreased expression of the potassium-chloride co-transporter, KCC2, in the spinal cord promotes excitatory properties of GABA. We therefore measured spinal KCC2 expression and explored the role of the GABA(A) receptor in rats with painful diabetic neuropathy. KCC2 protein levels were significantly reduced in the spinal cord of diabetic rats, while levels of NKCC1 and the GABA(A) receptor were unchanged. Spinal delivery of the GABA(A) receptor antagonist bicuculline reduced formalin-evoked flinching in diabetic rats and also dose-dependently alleviated tactile allodynia. GABA(A) receptor-mediated rate-dependent depression of the spinal H reflex was absent in the spinal cord of diabetic rats. Control rats treated with the KCC2 blocker DIOA, mimicked diabetes by showing increased formalin-evoked flinching and diminished rate- dependent depression. The ability of bicuculline to alleviate allodynia and formalin-evoked hyperalgesia in diabetic rats is consistent with a reversal of the properties of GABA predicted by reduced spinal KCC2 and suggests that reduced KCC2 expression and increased GABA release contribute to spinally mediated hyperalgesia in diabetes.

Elevated lipid peroxidation and DNA oxidation in nerve from diabetic rats: effects of aldose reductase inhibition, insulin, and neurotrophic factors.

We investigated the effect of treatment with an aldose reductase inhibitor, insulin, or select neurotrophic factors on the generation of oxidative damage in peripheral nerve. Rats were either treated with streptozotocin to induce insulin-deficient diabetes or fed with a diet containing 40% d-galactose to promote hexose metabolism by aldose reductase. Initial time course studies showed that lipid peroxidation and DNA oxidation were significantly elevated in sciatic nerve after 1 week or 2 weeks of streptozotocin-induced diabetes, respectively, and that both remained elevated after 12 weeks of diabetes. The increase in nerve lipid peroxidation was completely prevented or reversed by treatment with the aldose reductase inhibitor, ICI 222155, or by insulin, but not by the neurotrophic factors, prosaptide TX14(A) or neurotrophin-3. The increase in nerve DNA oxidation was significantly prevented by insulin treatment. In contrast, up to 16 weeks of galactose feeding did not alter nerve lipid peroxidation or protein oxidation, despite evidence of ongoing nerve conduction deficits. These observations demonstrate that nerve oxidative damage develops early after the onset of insulin-deficient diabetes and that it is not induced by increased hexose metabolism by aldose reductase per se, but rather is a downstream consequence of flux through this enzyme. Furthermore, the beneficial effect of prosaptide TX14(A) and neurotrophin-3 on nerve function and structure in diabetic rats is not due to amelioration of increased lipid peroxidation.

Pathogenesis of spinally mediated hyperalgesia in diabetes.

Hyperalgesia to noxious stimuli is accompanied by increased spinal cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 protein in diabetic rats. The present studies were initiated to establish causality between increased spinal COX-2 activity and hyperalgesia during diabetes and to assess the potential involvement of polyol pathway activity in the pathogenesis of spinally mediated hyperalgesia. Rats with 1, 2, or 4 weeks of streptozotocin-induced diabetes exhibited significantly increased levels of spinal COX-2 protein and activity, along with exaggerated paw flinching in response to 0.5% paw formalin injection. Increased flinching of diabetic rats was attenuated by intrathecal pretreatment with a selective COX-2 inhibitor immediately before formalin injection, confirming the involvement of COX-2 activity in diabetic hyperalgesia. Chronic treatment with insulin or ICI222155, an aldose reductase inhibitor (ARI) previously shown to prevent spinal polyol accumulation and formalin-evoked hyperalgesia in diabetic rats, prevented elevated spinal COX-2 protein and activity in diabetic rats. In contrast, the ARI IDD676 had no effect on spinal polyol accumulation, elevated spinal COX-2, or hyperalgesia to paw formalin injection. In the spinal cord, aldose reductase immunoreactivity was present solely in oligodendrocytes, which also contained COX-2 immunoreactivity. Polyol pathway flux in spinal oligodendrocytes provides a pathogenic mechanism linking hyperglycemia to hyperalgesia in diabetic rats.

Novel sites of aldose reductase immunolocalization in normal and streptozotocin-diabetic rats.

Glucose metabolism by aldose reductase (AR) is implicated in the pathogenesis of many diabetic complications, including neuropathy. We have re-evaluated the distribution of AR in the sciatic nerve and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) of normal rats, expanded these observations to describe the location of AR in the spinal cord and footpad skin, and investigated whether diabetes alters the distribution of AR. In sciatic nerve, AR was restricted to cytoplasm of myelinated Schwann cells and endothelial cells of epineurial, but not endoneurial, blood vessels. AR immunoreactivity (IR) was present in satellite cells in the DRG. In skin, AR-IR was detected in vascular endothelial cells, Schwann cells of myelinated fibers, and axons of perivascular sympathetic nerves. AR was localized selectively to oligodendrocytes of the white matter of spinal cord. The distribution of AR-IR in sciatic nerve, DRG, skin, and spinal cord was not altered by up to 12 weeks of streptozotocin-induced diabetes. Identification of perineuronal satellite cells, oligodendrocytes, and perivascular sympathetic nerves as AR-expressing cells reveals them as cellular sites with the potential to contribute to diabetic neuropathy.

Therapeutic efficacy of prosaposin-derived peptide on different models of allodynia.

We have previously demonstrated that the prosaposin-derived 14-mer peptide TX14(A) prevents structural and functional abnormalities associated with peripheral neuropathy in diabetic rats. Unusually, this neuroprotective peptide also exhibited acute anti-hyperalgesic properties in the same model, suggesting a dual action of TX14(A) that could allow therapeutic targeting of both degenerative neuropathy and neuropathic pain. In the present study, we have extended investigation of the anti-allodynic properties of TX14(A) to a range of models in which allodynia is induced using metabolic, physical, neurotoxic or chemical/inflammatory damage to the peripheral nerve. Single systemic doses of TX14(A) rapidly alleviated tactile allodynia in rats in which nerve injury was induced by diabetes, sciatic nerve hemiligation, systemic paclitaxel treatment or paw formalin injection. Further, TX14(A) pre-treatment prevented onset of allodynia in the paclitaxel and formalin injection models. These results indicate that TX14(A) has anti-allodynic properties in diverse models of neuropathic pain and support further exploration of its potential as a therapeutic agent for a wide range of peripheral neuropathies and neuropathic pain states.