Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34350987›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2021

Dignity neuroscience: universal rights are rooted in human brain science.

Tara L White, Meghan A Gonsalves

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Leadership in Education, Medical Education and Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Tara L WhiteDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.ORCID 0000-0003-3395-0136
Meghan A GonsalvesNeuroscience Graduate Program, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.ORCID 0000-0003-0819-5124

Funding

British Academy International Visiting FellowshipClare Hall International Visiting Fellowship, University of Cambridge, England, U.K.Zimmerman Fund for Scientific Innovation Awards in Brain Science, Robert J. and Nancy D. Carney Institute for Brain Science
6 · The paper itself

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

FreedomPersonal AutonomyRespectBrainHuman RightsHumansNeurosciencesinternational lawneurosciencepublic policysustainable development goalsuniversal human rights

Identifiers

PMID34350987
PMCPMC9291326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.