Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36919331›Full record

ReviewExperimental neurobiology2023

Policy Analysis for Implementing Neuroethics in Korea's Brain Research Promotion Act.

Tae-Woo Kang, Tai-Won Oh, Sung-Jin Jeong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental neurobiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Tae-Woo KangKorea Brain Research Institute, Daegu 41062, Korea.
Tai-Won OhDepartment of Police, Kyungil University, Gyeongsan 38428, Korea.
Sung-Jin JeongKorea Brain Research Institute, Daegu 41062, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1998, Korea implemented the Brain Research Promotion Act (BRPA), a law to revamp the field of neuroscience at the national level. However, despite numerous revisions including the definition and classification of neuroscience and the national plans for the training and education systems, the governance for neuroethics has not been integrated into the Act. The ethical issues raised by neuroscience and neurotechnology remain unchallenged, especially given the focus on the industrial purpose of the technology. In the current study, we analyzed the BRPA revision process by using Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to determine the problems faced by the process. We propose a new strategy, including neuroethics governance and a national committee, to promote interdisciplinary neuroscience research and strengthen neuroethics in Korea.

Indexed as

Brain research promotion actKingdon’s multiple streams frameworkNeuroethicsNeuroscience

Identifiers

PMID36919331
PMCPMC10017843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.