ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2014
Critical neuroscience-or critical science? A perspective on the perceived normative significance of neuroscience.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress and ongoing conceptual challenges "on the way to integrative human neuroscience"-ten years after.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2026Article
- How the brain structures the boundaries of psychiatric discourse.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- From Mary Shelley to Netflix: a Pan-European perspective on public communication of neuroscience and neurotechnology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Politics of Plasticity: Implications of the New Science of the "Teen Brain" for Education.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2022Article
- A Neurosociological Theory of Culturally and Structurally Situated Cognition and Ethno-Racial Stress.Frontiers in sociology · 2021Article
- Beyond Research Ethics: Dialogues in Neuro-ICT Research.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Article
- How Realistic Are the Scientific Assumptions of the Neuroenhancement Debate? Assessing the Pharmacological Optimism and Neuroenhancement Prevalence Hypotheses.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Whose well-being? Common conceptions and misconceptions in the enhancement debate.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Members of the Critical Neuroscience initiative raised the question whether the perceived normative significance of neuroscience is justified by the discipline's actual possibilities. In this paper I show how brain research was assigned the ultimate political, social, and moral authority by some leading researchers who suggested that neuroscientists should change their research priorities, promising solutions to social challenges in order to increase research funds. Discussing the two examples of cognitive enhancement and the neuroscience of (im)moral behavior I argue that there is indeed a gap between promises and expectations on the one hand and knowledge and applications on the other. However it would be premature to generalize this to the neurosciences at large, whose knowledge-producing, innovative, and economic potentials have just recently been confirmed by political and scientific decision-makers with the financial support for the Human Brain Project and the BRAIN Initiative. Finally, I discuss two explanations for the analyzed communication patterns and argue why Critical Neuroscience is necessary, but not sufficient. A more general Critical Science movement is required to improve the scientific incentive system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.