Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements as professionals and citizens: Perspectives of Canadian speech-language pathologists and audiologists

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Villamil, Valentina^{a; 1} | Wolbring, Gregor^{b; *}

Affiliations: [a] Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada | [b] Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Correspondence: [*] Address for correspondence: Gregor Wolbring, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary T2N 4N1, AB, Canada. Tel.: +1 403 210 7083; E-mail: [email protected].

Note: [1] Valentina Villamil was a member of the Bachelor of Community Rehabilitation program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada when she executed the work of this study.

Abstract: BACKGROUND:Early involvement of stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses of neuroscientific and neurotechnological advancements is seen as essential to curtail negative consequences. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUs) make use of neuroadvancements including cochlear implants, brain-computer interfaces, and deep-brain stimulation. Although they have a stake in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, they are rarely mentioned in having a role, whether as professionals or as citizens. OBJECTIVE:The objective of the study was to explore the role of SLPs and AUs as professionals and citizens in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions and examine the utility of lifelong learning mechanisms to learn about the implications of neuroadvancements to contribute in a meaningful way to these discussions. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews conducted with 7 SLPs and 3 AUs were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Participants stated that their roles expected from them as professionals and as citizens indicate the importance to be knowledgeable on ethical, legal, and social implications of neuroadvancements and that lifelong learning is not used to learn about these implications. CONCLUSION:More must be done to facilitate the participation of SLPs and AUs in neuroethics and neurogovernance discussions, which would enrich the neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses benefitting patients, professionals, and the public.

Keywords: Neuroscience, neurotechnologies, lifelong learning, neuroethics, role expectation

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-205104

Journal: Work, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 565-584, 2022