ArticleNeuroethics2022
Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance.
Article in Neuroethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Neurorights: comparing some perspectives on legal reform in global south to analyze the Brazilian case.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Ethical Governance Strategies for the Responsible Innovation of Neurotechnologies: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Does brain-computer interface-based mind reading threaten mental privacy? ethical reflections from interviews with Chinese experts.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Regulatory challenges of digital health: the case of mental health applications and personal data in South Africa.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Paradigm Shift in Global Governance of Medical Brain-Computer Interface: Addressing Practical Challenges Through Institutional Innovation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Neuroethics and AI ethics: a proposal for collaboration.BMC neuroscience · 2024Review
- What a NeuroRights legislation should not look like: the case of the Latin American Parliament.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation.Nature protocols · 2023Review
- A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Virtual emotions and Criminal Law.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- A Latin American perspective on neurodiplomacy.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Article
- Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law.Frontiers in psychology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper analyses recent calls for so called "neurorights", suggested novel human rights whose adoption is allegedly required because of advances in neuroscience, exemplified by a proposal of the Neurorights Initiative. Advances in neuroscience and technology are indeed impressive and pose a range of challenges for the law, and some novel applications give grounds for human rights concerns. But whether addressing these concerns requires adopting novel human rights, and whether the proposed neurorights are suitable candidates, are a different matter. This paper argues that the proposed rights, as individuals and a class, should not be adopted and lobbying on their behalf should stop. The proposal tends to promote rights inflationism, is tainted by neuroexceptionalism and neuroessentialism, and lacks grounding in relevant scholarship. None of the proposed individual rights passes quality criteria debated in the field. While understandable from a moral perspective, the proposal is fundamentally flawed from a legal perspective. Rather than conjuring up novel human rights, existing rights should be further developed in face of changing societal circumstances and technological possibilities.
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.