With rapid advances in neuroimaging technology, there is growing concern over potential misuse of neuroradiologic imaging data in legal matters. On December 7 and 8, 2012, a multidisciplinary consensus conference, Use and Abuse of Neuroimaging in the Courtroom, was held at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Through this interactive forum, a highly select group of experts - including neuroradiologists, neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neuroscientists, legal scholars, imaging statisticians, judges, practicing attorneys, and neuroethicists - discussed the complex issues involved in the use of neuroimaging data entered into legal evidence and for associated expert testimony. The specific contexts of criminal cases, child abuse, and head trauma were especially considered. The purpose of the conference was to inform the development of guidelines on expert testimony for the American Society of Neuroradiology and to provide principles for courts on the ethical use of neuroimaging data as evidence. This report summarizes the conference and resulting recommendations.

The use of placebo as a control condition in clinical trials of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders continues to be an area of ethical concern. Typically, opponents of placebo controls argue that they violate the beneficent-based, “best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method” that the original Helsinki Declaration of 1964 famously asserted participants are owed. A more consequentialist, oppositional argument is that participants receiving placebo might suffer enormously by being deprived of their usual medication(s). Nevertheless, recent findings of potential for suicidality in young people treated with antidepressants, along with meta-analyses suggesting that antidepressants add no significant clinical benefit over placebos, warrant a re-evaluation of the arguments against placebo. Furthermore, the nature of placebo treatment in short-term clinical trials is often not well understood, and lack of understanding can foster opposition to it. This paper will show how scientific justifications for placebo use are morally relevant. The fundamental ethical importance of placebo controls is discussed in relation to several aspects of clinical trials, including detection of adverse events, accurate assessment of clinical benefit, advancing understanding of the heterogeneity of depression and anxiety disorders and respecting informed consent requirements. Prohibiting the use of placebo controls is morally concerning in that such prohibitions allow for the possibility of serious adverse public health consequences. Moral worries that research participants receiving placebo are being unduly jeopardised will be shown to be exaggerated, especially in relation to the net benefits for end-users to be gained from the quality of data resulting from using placebo controls.

Although the literature on the ethical dimensions of knowledge creation, use, and dissemination is voluminous, it has not particularly examined the ethical dimensions of knowledge translation in rehabilitation. Yet, whether research is done in a wet lab or treatments are provided to patients in therapeutic settings, rehabilitation professionals commonly use (as well as create) knowledge and disseminate it to peers, patients, and various others. This article will refer to knowledge creation, use, and transfer as knowledge translation and examine some of its numerous ethical challenges. Three ethical dimensions of knowledge translation will particularly attract our attention: (1) the quality of knowledge disseminated to rehabilitationists; (2) ethical challenges in being too easily persuaded by or unreasonably resistant to putative knowledge; and (3) organizational barriers to knowledge translation. We will conclude with some recommendations on facilitating the ethical soundness of knowledge translation in rehabilitation.