Abstract
During its first 15 years, neuroethics research focused mostly on theoretical analysis of the ethical implications of emerging neuroscience knowledge and technologies. Kellmeyer and colleagues identify three developments shaping the field of neuroethics and explore some of the normative questions that these raise. In their concluding paragraph, they call on “neuroethics as a field [to] continue to expand its conceptual toolbox by incorporating analytic instruments and empirical approaches from other fields, such as science and technology studies, human-machine interaction studies, design thinking and others” (108, our emphasis). We agree that there is a critical need for empirical research to both strengthen and complement theoretical neuroethics research. In this commentary, we argue that this should be accomplished with (1) theoretical analyses that are more grounded in the state of the science; (2) increased use of empirical research methods; and (3) an interdisciplinary “team neuroethics” approach that better integrates theory and practice.