ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2021
Dignity neuroscience: universal rights are rooted in human brain science.
Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2021. 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.
- The Marriage of Neurotechnologies and Artificial Intelligence: Ethical, regulatory, and technological aspects.IEEE signal processing magazine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in neurology: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
- National plans and awareness campaigns as priorities for achieving global brain health.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Review
- Brain morphological variability between whites and African Americans: the importance of racial identity in brain imaging research.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2023Article
- Anger, agency, risk and action: a neurobehavioral model with proof-of-concept in healthy young adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Leadership in Education, Medical Education and Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Long-Latency Event-Related Potentials (300-1000 ms) of the Visual Insight.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- New insights explain that organic agriculture as sustainable agriculture enhances the sustainable development of medicinal plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Universal human rights are defined by international agreements, law, foreign policy, and the concept of inherent human dignity. However, rights defined on this basis can be readily subverted by overt and covert disagreements and can be treated as distant geopolitical events rather than bearing on individuals' everyday lives. A robust case for universal human rights is urgently needed and must meet several disparate requirements: (1) a framework that resolves tautological definitions reached solely by mutual, revocable agreement; (2) a rationale that transcends differences in beliefs, creed, and culture; and (3) a personalization that empowers both individuals and governments to further human rights protections. We propose that human rights in existing agreements comprise five elemental types: (1) agency, autonomy, and self-determination; (2) freedom from want; (3) freedom from fear; (4) uniqueness; and (5) unconditionality, including protections for vulnerable populations. We further propose these rights and protections are rooted in fundamental properties of the human brain. We provide a robust, empirical foundation for universal rights based on emerging work in human brain science that we term dignity neuroscience. Dignity neuroscience provides an empirical foundation to support and foster human dignity, universal rights, and their active furtherance by individuals, nations, and international law.
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.