ArticleAJOB neuroscience
What an International Declaration on Neurotechnologies and Human Rights Could Look like: Ideas, Suggestions, Desiderata.
Article in AJOB neuroscience. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcutaneous and transcranial electrical stimulation for enhancing military performance: an update and systematic review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Contextualising Mental Privacy in South Africa: Legal, Ethical, and Socio-Cultural Considerations With Policy Recommendations.Developing world bioethics · 2026Article
- Cognitive Sovereignty: An AI-Aware Governance Framework for Neural Data Threats, Autonomous Cyber Defense, and Identity-Aware Security in Neurotechnology Systems.Neuroinformatics · 2026Article
- Review
- Ethical Governance Strategies for the Responsible Innovation of Neurotechnologies: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Editorial: Law and neuroscience: justice as a challenge for neurorights, neurolaw, and forensic psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Cognitive frontiers: neurotechnology and global internet governance.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Neuroethics and AI ethics: a proposal for collaboration.BMC neuroscience · 2024Review
- HYBRIDMINDS-summary and outlook of the 2023 international conference on the ethics and regulation of intelligent neuroprostheses.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International institutions such as UNESCO are deliberating on a new standard setting instrument for neurotechnologies. This will likely lead to the adoption of a soft law document which will be the first global document specifically tailored to neurotechnologies, setting the tone for further international or domestic regulations. While some stakeholders have been consulted, these developments have so far evaded the broader attention of the neuroscience, neurotech, and neuroethics communities. To initiate a broader debate, this target article puts to discussion twenty-five considerations and desiderata for recognition by a future instrument. They are formulated at different levels of abstraction, from the big picture to technical details, seek to widen the perspective of preparatory reports and transcend the narrow debate about "neurorights" which overshadows many richer and more relevant aspects. These desiderata are not an exhaustive enumeration but a starting point for discussions about what deserves and what requires protection by an international instrument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37921859What 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.