ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2023
Development of Korea Neuroethics Guidelines.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public and Clinician Perspectives on Ventilator Withdrawal in Vegetative State Following Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Vignette Survey.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- East Asian perspective of responsible research and innovation in neurotechnology.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in neuroscience and neurotechnology provide great benefits to humans though unknown challenges may arise. We should address these challenges using new standards as well as existing ones. Novel standards should include ethical, legal, and social aspects which would be appropriate for advancing neuroscience and technology. Therefore, the Korea Neuroethics Guidelines were developed by stakeholders related to neuroscience and neurotechnology, including experts, policy makers, and the public in the Republic of Korea.
methodThe guidelines were drafted by neuroethics experts, were disclosed at a public hearing, and were subsequently revised by opinions of various stakeholders.
resultsThe guidelines are composed of twelve issues; humanity or human dignity, individual personality and identity, social justice, safety, sociocultural prejudice and public communication, misuse of technology, responsibility for the use of neuroscience and technology, specificity according to the purpose of using neurotechnology, autonomy, privacy and personal information, research, and enhancement.
conclusionAlthough the guidelines may require a more detailed discussion after future advances in neuroscience and technology or changes in socio-cultural milieu, the development of the Korea Neuroethics Guidelines is a milestone for the scientific community and society in general for the ongoing development in neuroscience and neurotechnology.
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.