ArticleThe Hastings Center report2024
Brain Pioneers and Moral Entanglement: An Argument for Post-trial Responsibilities in Neural-Device Trials.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consent in flux: when brain‑computer interface embodiment undermines informed consent.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Research participants as 'pioneers'? Exploring how neurotechnology research is adapting the rhetoric of scientific risk-taking, exploration and trailblazing.Science as culture · 2026Article
- Recommendations on post-trial responsibility in implantable neural device research: a multidisciplinary consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical Considerations in Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Disorders of Consciousness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Article
- Article
- How will developmental neuroimaging contribute to the prediction of neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorders? Challenges and opportunities.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Mind the gap: bridging ethical considerations and regulatory oversight in implantable BCI human subjects research.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 2025Article
- Conflicting Interests and New Frontiers: A Role for Virtue Ethics in Cutting Edge Brain Research with Humans.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- Identity Theft, Deep Brain Stimulation, and the Primacy of Post-trial Obligations.The Hastings Center report · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We argue that in implanted neurotechnology research, participants and researchers experience what Henry Richardson has called "moral entanglement." Participants partially entrust researchers with access to their brains and thus to information that would otherwise be private, leading to created intimacies and special obligations of beneficence for researchers and research funding agencies. One of these obligations, we argue, is about continued access to beneficial technology once a trial ends. We make the case for moral entanglement in this context through exploration of participants' vulnerability, uncompensated risks and burdens, depth of relationship with the research team, and dependence on researchers in implanted neurotechnology trials.
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.