ReviewNature protocols2023
Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation.
Review in Nature protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconciling global collaboration and data sovereignty in neuroscience.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Ethical Considerations in Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Disorders of Consciousness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Article
- Advancing neurotech justice in youth digital mental health: insights from an interdisciplinary and cross-generational workshop.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven nano-enhanced stem cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases: from rational design to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- The need for cultural sensitivity and epistemic justice in applying neuroscience advances in the Global South.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Contemporary Ethical Considerations in Psychiatric Neurosurgery.Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2026Review
- Ethical Governance Strategies for the Responsible Innovation of Neurotechnologies: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Progress, challenges and future of linguistic neural decoding with deep learning.Communications biology · 2025Review
- Ethical gaps in closed-loop neurotechnology: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Capturing the Electrical Activity of all Cortical Neurons: Are Solutions Within Reach?Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Cognitive frontiers: neurotechnology and global internet governance.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Brain-based predictive modeling of mind-wandering and involuntary thought: the idiographic approach.Technology, mind, and behavior · 2025Article
- Leveraging transcranial ultrasound stimulation to enhance self-regulation in emotion and sleep.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The speech neuroprosthesis.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024Review
- Harmonizing AI governance regulations and neuroinformatics: perspectives on privacy and data sharing.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Editorial: Protecting privacy in neuroimaging analysis: balancing data sharing and privacy preservation.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Ethics and Governance of Neurotechnology in Africa: Lessons From AI.JMIR neurotechnology · 2024Article
- Demystifying the likelihood of reidentification in neuroimaging data: A technical and regulatory analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- The grand challenge at the frontiers of neurotechnology and its emerging clinical applications.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Brain Implants in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.Missouri medicineArticle
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
The ability to record and alter brain activity by using implantable and nonimplantable neural devices, while poised to have significant scientific and clinical benefits, also raises complex ethical concerns. In this Perspective, we raise awareness of the ability of artificial intelligence algorithms and data-aggregation tools to decode and analyze data containing highly sensitive information, jeopardizing personal neuroprivacy. Voids in existing regulatory frameworks, in fact, allow unrestricted decoding and commerce of neurodata. We advocate for the implementation of proposed ethical and human rights guidelines, alongside technical options such as data encryption, differential privacy and federated learning to ensure the protection of neurodata privacy. We further encourage regulatory bodies to consider taking a position of responsibility by categorizing all brain-derived data as sensitive health data and apply existing medical regulations to all data gathered via pre-registered neural devices. Lastly, we propose that a technocratic oath may instill a deontology for neurotechnology practitioners akin to what the Hippocratic oath represents in medicine. A conscientious societal position that thoroughly rejects the misuse of neurodata would provide the moral compass for the future development of the neurotechnology field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37697107What 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.