ArticleNeuroethics2025
A Moratorium on Implantable Non-Medical Neurotech Until Effects on the Mind are Properly Understood.
Article in Neuroethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of non-medical consumer neurotechnology is gaining momentum. As companies chart the course for future implanted and invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) in non-medical populations, the time has come for concrete steps toward their regulation. We propose three measures: First, a mandatory Mental Impact Assessment that comprehensively screens for adverse mental effects of neurotechnologies under realistic use conditions needs to be developed and implemented. Second, until such an assessment is developed and further ethical concerns are effectively resolved, a moratorium on placing implantable non-medical devices on markets should be established. Third, implantable consumer neurotech for children should be banned. These measures are initial steps in a process seeking to define the necessary requirements for placing these devices on markets. They are grounded in a human rights-based approach to technology regulation that seeks to promote the interests protected by human rights while minimizing the risks posed to them. Neurotechnologies have the potential to profoundly alter cognitive, emotional, and other mental processes, with implications for the rights to mental health and integrity, and possibly for societal dynamics.
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.