Gilbert and colleagues (2018) point out the discrepancy between the limited empirical data illustrating changes in personality (and related concepts of identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy, and self, i.e., PIAAAS) following implantation of deep brain stimulating (DBS) electrodes and the vast number of conceptual neuroethics papers implying that these changes are widespread, deleterious, and clinically significant. Their findings are reminiscent of C. P. Snow’s essay on the divide between the two cultures of the humanities (representing the conceptual publications) and the sciences (representing the empirical work). This division in the literature raises significant ethical concerns surrounding unjustified fear of personality changes in the context of DBS and negative perceptions of clinician-scientists engaged in DBS. These concerns have real world implications for funding future innovative, DBS trials aimed to reduce suffering as well as hampering true interdisciplinary scholarship. We argue that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism and the value it places on empirical inquiry, experiential knowledge, and inter-disciplinary scholarship – reflecting diverse ways of knowing – provides a framework to start to address the important questions Gilbert and colleagues raise. In particular, we highlight the importance of expert clinician knowledge in contributing to the neuroethical questions raised by Gilbert and colleagues. Finally, we provide illustrative examples of some of our interdisciplinary empirical research that demonstrate the iterative cycle of inquiry characteristic of pragmatism in which conceptual neuroethics questions have led to empirical studies whose results then raise additional conceptual questions that give rise to new empirical studies in a way that highlights the contributions of the humanities and the sciences.

Gilbert 及其同事 (2018) 指出了在植入深部脑刺激 (DBS) 电极和大量的概念性神经伦理学论文暗示这些变化是广泛的、有害的和具有临床意义的。他们的发现让人想起 CP Snow 关于人文学科（代表概念性出版物）和科学（代表实证工作）两种文化之间的鸿沟的文章。文献中的这种划分引发了重大的伦理问题，围绕着对 DBS 的背景下的人格变化的不合理恐惧以及对从事 DBS 的临床医生-科学家的负面看法。这些担忧对于资助未来旨在减少痛苦以及阻碍真正的跨学科研究的创新型 DBS 试验具有现实意义。我们认为实用主义的哲学传统及其对经验探究、经验知识和跨学科学术的重视——反映了不同的认识方式——为开始解决吉尔伯特及其同事提出的重要问题提供了一个框架。特别是，我们强调了专家临床医生知识在解决 Gilbert 及其同事提出的神经伦理问题方面的重要性。最后，