ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019
Beyond Research Ethics: Dialogues in Neuro-ICT Research.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training Bioethics Professionals in AI Ethics: A Framework.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025Article
- Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Training in Neuroscience: Insights from the Human Brain Project Education Programme.Neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Article
- Time to consider animal data governance: perspectives from neuroscience.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Building a responsible innovation toolkit as project legacy.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- International data governance for neuroscience.Neuron · 2022Review
- Does Proof of Concept Trump All? RRI Dilemmas in Research Practices.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Limits of Neural Computation in Humans and Machines.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Responsible Data Governance of Neuroscience Big Data.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to help facilitate neuroscience adds a new level of complexity to the question of how ethical issues of such research can be identified and addressed. Current research ethics practice, based on ethics reviews by institutional review boards (IRB) and underpinned by ethical principlism, has been widely criticized. In this article, we develop an alternative way of approaching ethics in neuro-ICT research, based on discourse ethics, which implements Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) through dialogues. We draw on our work in Ethics Support, using the Human Brain Project (HBP) as empirical evidence of the viability of this approach.
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.