Section 1 Organizing Principles

The Decision Lab is a deeply interdisciplinary group investigating questions at the intersection of neuroscience and ethics, with two main streams of work: (1) understanding the neural and cognitive bases of decision-making, with an emphasis on health and financial decisions in aging and in disorders of aging, and (2) understanding the broader implications of brain diseases and new interventions for nervous system function, particularly in their ethical and societal context. We draw on a wide range of disciplines, ranging from neuroscience and psychology, to philosophy and law, to sociology and anthropology; applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches where appropriate given our questions and the current state of knowledge.

This is a very broad range to cover, which highlights a critical problem of focus and prioritization that I think every lab confronts in some form. Given the wide range of available questions, where should the lab’s focus be directed and what research projects should we prioritize? And for you as individual members of the lab, how can you direct your energies and the development of your skills and training?

At the broadest level, a key issue is that in science there are many questions worth investigating, and many capable research groups. If we pick out problems that everyone else is just as well-positioned to solve as we are, then the only way to succeed is to work harder and be luckier than everyone else. That’s not a sustainable path for a career or a life, and may contribute to the temptations of scientific misconduct and non-reproducible practices. So I think an overall goal for any scientist is to develop a research program (or in our case, two programs) that (1) have synergy, in that one project or question leads to understanding that can frame the next project or question, in ways that would not have been evident before what preceded; (2) draw on one’s own (or one’s team’s) unique background/skills, temperament, and interests; and (3) make use of special resources to which one has access that other’s don’t. Sometimes in business people talk about a company having a “wide moat,” meaning that it wouldn’t be easy for another company to just show up and start doing what that company has been doing. I’ve often thought that scientific research groups can also benefit from thinking about their moats. This isn’t because I view science in particularly competitive or antagonistic terms (though competition certainly does exist in science); instead, I think we’re all ultimately likely to do more good and advance understanding to a greater degree if we focus on questions that we’re particularly well-positioned to answer, as opposed to questions that could be asked by any scientist anywhere.

Within the Decision Lab, this gives some focus to our interdisciplinarity. That is, while I prize and enjoy the way our lab draws upon so many fields, we do not engage in interdisciplinarity just for its own sake. There can be great value in research that is deeply rooted in the practice and intellectual history of one home discipline; and there are many examples of research that mixes work and concepts from varied fields in haphazard and superficial ways. However, given my background in neurology and philosophy, and given our strong collaborations and the especially open culture of the MAC, I do believe our lab has shown a particular ability to productively address questions in neuroscience that also involve contributions, methods, and insights from the humanities and social sciences. In keeping with what is written above, the lab will focus on such questions and try as much as possible to leave questions that are best addressed within a single discipline to other groups.

For you as a lab member, if you’re developing an independent research project during your time here, I will keep asking you: does this project make effective use of methods, populations, resources and frameworks that our lab and the MAC are specially positioned to utilize? Your time here is a brief window during your career, and there are special research and learning opportunities you have now that you will not have in other places. (That hopefully, you will have chosen for other resources they have that we don’t have here.) More broadly, in preparing for your career after this lab, think about where your own particular background, skills and interests are most needed and can contribute the most, and use this to evaluate what other skills you need to pick up along the way to maximize the contribution that you hope to make.

In 2018 during the lab’s first big hiring wave, Ali Zahir and I tried to articulate the essentials of lab culture that we wanted to preserve and replicate in our hiring. (So you’re all here because we thought you fit the following description.) What we decided we were looking for follows from the ideas above. While we think that diversity of experiences and perspectives is valuable for all science, it is particularly important to our work, and it is also essential that lab members value and respect such diversity. We’re looking for lab members with potential to make unique contributions to lab culture and our work–whether in neuroethics, clinical work with patients, neuroscience, computation, or logistics. And we are looking for people who, wherever they come from, have a track record of making the most of the learning and research opportunities available to them.

In our work, we remain particularly mindful of our obligations to:

Our funders. Most of the work in our lab is funded by the National Institutes of Health, and of course our infrastructure is provided by the University of California. This pays my salary, your salary, travel funds, research expenses, equipment, basically everything. This ultimately comes from taxes paid by everyone, and thus reflects a tremendous public investment in our work–work that should be creative, rigorous, and ethical. We strive to be prudent in our management of resources, but also open-minded in continuing to seek out special opportunities to advance science.

Research participants (and their families). Our research participants, many of whom have serious, stigmatized and/or ultimately fatal neurological disorders, expose themselves to research-related risks and inconveniences in order to contribute to knowledge that benefits society. Ultimately, unproductive (unanalyzed datasets, research products that are never shared with the broader scientific community) and non-rigorous (sloppy, poorly documented, error-prone) research is unethical, as it undermines the social purpose for which participants’ effort and time are contributed. We also honor participants’ contributions by treating them with respect, by maintaining our training in clinical competence (see below) and safety, by responding promptly to emails and other inquiries, and by safeguarding the confidentiality of research records.

The scientific community (particularly our readers). We aim to contribute to a broader project of understanding the brain and the ethical issues raised by neuroscience. People who read our papers should find their own understanding enhanced by our work. So we use reliable and rigorous methods, back up our work to guard against data loss, double-check our own work and other lab members’ work, identify and acknowledge our mistakes, and carefully document what we do. When we make discoveries, we help people understand them by placing them in appropriate context, avoiding undue hype, acknowledging limitations and counterarguments, and writing clearly. We use social media, our website, press and other tools to help others (including nonspecialists) find our work and so contribute to a broader public conversation.

Colleagues (both in the lab and at MAC/UCSF broadly). We strive for a lab environment in which all members can be successful. Discrimination and harassment of all forms are not tolerated–please speak with me directly if you are treated in a manner that makes you uncomfortable or hinders your ability to work and learn, or observe another lab member treated in such a way. We support each other and share our knowledge. When there are disagreements or other sources of tension, we need to be able to communicate openly about them (please again come see me for help with this). We are respectful of one another’s time and that of our collaborators and research participants, so we’re punctual and reliable about meetings and appointments. That said, please do not come in to work sick. Please promote your own health and others’ by taking time to recover, making arrangements for me and your colleagues to cover for you if necessary (they’ll be happier doing so than being exposed to whatever you’ve got, and you can return the favor later), and if you absolutely need to work doing so remotely.

Ourselves. Each of us should feel that we are doing work that we’re proud of on topics that we’re excited about, that we have appropriate support, learning opportunities and mentoring to take the next steps in our careers, and that we have enough space for the people and pursuits that are important to us outside of lab. We also should acknowledge that science is inherently hard (we’re literally trying to do things no one has ever done before), and that you all are in particularly vulnerable and stressful parts of your careers. Struggling is not a sign of weakness, but is also not something you’re expected to suffer through by yourself. Please come talk to me so we can strategize together about resources, about our mutual expectations, about how your work here fits into your broader career goals, and about how lab work is structured. (I’ve had many more of these conversations with lab members than you probably realize.) Nothing we do in lab is worth doing if it doesn’t also contribute to your health and happiness.