ReviewBioethics2026
Neurotechnology Governance in the United States: Gaps and Opportunities.
Review in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Ethical Considerations in Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Disorders of Consciousness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuroscience's accelerating advances have reached a pivotal point in the study of the human brain, including neurotechnologies capable of recording large amounts of data and acting with greater precision. However, the use of neurotechnology has raised a number of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To that end, sufficiently robust policy and governance structures must be considered. To date, no published review of United States policies governing neuroscience and neurotechnology exists. To address this, we review US polices and various ethical frameworks overseeing neuroscience and neurotechnology. This policy review highlights where gaps in neuroscience and neurotechnology policy and governance might exist. Overall, our review shows that "soft policies" make up the present-day US neurotech-governance universe at the federal level, with neurodata specific state-legislation emerging. The included analysis can aid researchers, technology developers, neuroethicists, research ethicists, legal scholars, and others in facilitating ethically and socially responsible implementation of neuroscience and neurotechnology as they move from "bench to bedside and beyond."
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.