ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2024
Neurotechnologies, Ethics, and the Limits of Free Will.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Ethical risks and regulatory considerations in neurofeedback technology].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
- The Discussion of Free Will and Neurodeterminism: Some Methodological Implications.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026Article
- Ethical imperatives in the commercialization of brain-computer interfaces.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
- Possibilities of Free Will in Different Physical, Social, and Technological Worlds: An Introduction to a Thematic Issue.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article delves into the implications of neurotechnologies for the philosophical debates surrounding free will and moral responsibility. Tracing the concept from ancient religious and philosophical roots, we discuss how recent neurotechnological advancements (e.g. optogenetics, fMRI and machine learning, predictive diagnostics, et al.) challenge traditional notions of autonomy. Although neurotechnologies aim to enhance autonomy in the strict sense - as self-determination - they risk reducing or changing the broader notion of autonomy, which involves personal authenticity. We also submit that, in a world with an altered or limited concept of free will, humans should still be held accountable for actions executed through their bodies. By examining the dynamic between choice and responsibility, we emphasize the shift in technology ethics, moral philosophy, and the broader legal landscape in response to the advancement of neurotechnologies. By bringing the neurotechnological innovations into the world, neuroscientists not only change the technological landscape but also partake in long-standing moral narratives about freedom, justice, and responsibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38388982What 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.