Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32716755›Full record

ReviewAJOB neuroscience

The BRAIN Initiative and Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society.

James Eberwine, Jeffrey Kahn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James EberwineUniversity of Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-9363-0858
Jeffrey KahnJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.ORCID 0000-0003-2493-2016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the Brain Research through Advancing Neurotechnologyies, better known as the BRAIN Initiative moves forward at a rapid pace increasing attention has focused on neuroethics. The National Institutes of Health recently mandated a review of the progress of the BRAIN Initiative progress with the goal of fine-tuning its future directions. The BRAIN Working Group 2 focused its discussion on science while the BRAIN Neuroethics Subgroup focused on neuroethics. The Brain Neuroethics Subgroup deliberated for over a year collecting information and recommendations through in person and video meetings, a public one-day neuroethics symposium and soliciting input from neuroscientists and neuroethicist's. The resulting report entitled "The BRAIN Initiative and Neuroethics: Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society" was accepted by Director of NIH in October of 2019. The recommendations span many BRAIN research neuroethics concerns including privacy considerations, the use of nonhuman primate model systems, neural modulation and enhancement, subject participation in BRAIN research and equity in neuroscience research. Further the group recommended a transformative project whose goal of detailing the scientific mechanisms and ethical underpinnings of consciousness is one of the most daunting issues that impact our perceptions of ourselves. It is anticipated that the report?s recommendations will provide a foundation or "roadmap" for ensuring that neuroethics and BRAIN research move forward as an integrated effort thereby insuring that BRAIN research is of the highest quality.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesAnimalsBrainMoralsNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)SocietiesUnited StatesBrain InitiativeConsciousnessNeuroethics RoadmapNeurotechnologyPrivacy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.