Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28845202›Full record

ArticleNanoethics2017

Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs).

Hub Zwart, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Peter Eduard, Lotte Krabbenborg, Sheena Laursen, Gema Revuelta, Winnie Toonders

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nanoethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hub ZwartInstitute for Science, Innovation and Society, Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jonna BrenninkmeijerInstitute for Science, Innovation and Society, Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Peter EduardExperimentarium, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lotte KrabbenborgInstitute for Science, Innovation and Society, Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Sheena LaursenExperimentarium, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gema RevueltaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Winnie ToondersInstitute for Science, Innovation and Society, Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1968, Jürgen Habermas claimed that, in an advanced technological society, the emancipatory force of knowledge can only be regained by actively recovering the 'forgotten experience of reflection'. In this article, we argue that, in the contemporary situation, critical reflection requires a deliberative ambiance, a process of mutual learning, a consciously organised process of deliberative and distributed reflection. And this especially applies, we argue, to critical reflection concerning a specific subset of technologies which are actually oriented towards optimising human cognition (neuro-enhancement). In order to create a deliberative ambiance, fostering critical upstream reflection on emerging technologies, we developed (in the context of a European 7

Indexed as

Emerging technologiesMoral deliberationMutual learning exercisesNeuro-enhancementResponsible research and innovationUpstream public engagement

Identifiers

PMID28845202
PMCPMC5554482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.