CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AINeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsCybernetics and Technology in Society

Pragmatism for a Digital Society: The (In)significance of Artificial Intelligence and Neural Technology

Open access
Sample, Matthew, Racine, Eric·2021·Advances in Neuroethics
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research regarding ethical concerns elicited by neurotech and AI as well as the need for action in this space is not new.

    “Research regarding ethical concerns elicited by neurotech and AI as well as the need for action in this space is not new”

    From AI and Neurotechnology (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Discussions illustrating the intersections of AI with neurotech in methods and applications are not new.

    “nor are discussions illustrating the intersections of AI with neurotech in methods and applications. 36,37”

    From AI and Neurotechnology (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Turner L. Bioethic$ Inc. Nat Biotech. 2004; 22(8): 947-948.
  2. Parens E, Johnston J, Moses J. Ethics. Do we need "synthetic bioethics"? Science. 2008; 321(5895): 1449.
  3. Racine E, Martin Rubio T, Chandler J, Forlini C, Lucke J. The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: The case of cognitive enhancement. Med Heal Care Phil. 2014; 17(3): 325-327
  4. Evans JH. Playing God?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2002.
  5. De Vries R. Framing neuroethics: A sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. Am J Bioeth. 2005; 5(2): 25-27.
  6. Forlini C, Partridge B, Lucke, J, Racine E. Popular media and bioethics: Sharing responsibility for portrayals of cognitive enhancement with prescription medications. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook on neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 1473-1486.
  7. Caulfield T. The commercialisation of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med 2004; 1(3): e38.
  8. Caulfield T. Biotechnology and the popular press: hype and the selling of science. Trends Biotech. 2004; 22(7): 337-339.
  9. Hedgecoe A. Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Soc Stud Sci. 2010; 40(2): 163-186.
  10. Forlini C, Racine E. Does the cognitive enhancement debate call for a renewal of the deliberative role of bioethics? In: Franke EHA, editor. Cognitive enhancement: An interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 173-86.
  11. Racine E, Gareau I, Doucet H, Laudy D, Jobin G, Schraedley-Desmond P. Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992-2001) in Québec. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(5): 1278-1290.
  12. Doucet H. Imagining a neuroethics which would go further than genethics. Am J Bioeth. 2005; 5(2): 29-31.
  13. Caulfield T, Condit C. Science and the sources of hype. Pub Heal Genom 2012; 15(3-4): 209- 217.
  14. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol. 2009; 27(6): 514-8.
  15. Rayner S. The novelty trap: why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Indus High Ed. 2004 18(6), 349-355.
  16. Simonson P. Bioethics and the rituals of media. Hastings Center Rep. 2002; 32(1): 32-39.
  17. Burwell S, Sample M, Racine E. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: A scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017; 18(1): 60.
  18. Dubljevic V, Saigle V, Racine E. The rising tide of tDCS in the media and academic literature. Neuron. 2014; 82(4): 731-36.
  19. Clausen J. Man, machine and in between. Nature. 2009; 457(7233): 1080.
  20. Gardner J, Warren N, Addison C, Samuel G. Persuasive bodies: Testimonies of deep brain stimulation and Parkinson's on YouTube. Soc Sci Med. 2019; 222: 44-51.
  21. Jasanoff S. Perfecting the human: Posthuman imaginaries and technologies of reason. In Hurlbut JB, Tirosh-Samuelson H, editors. Perfecting human futures. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2016. p. 73-95.
  22. Cabrera LY, Bittlinger M, Lou H, Müller S, Illes J. The re-emergence of psychiatric neurosurgery: Insights from a cross-national study of newspaper and magazine coverage. Acta Neurochir. 2018;160(3): 625-635.
  23. Racine E. Neuroscience and the media: Ethical challenges and opportunities. In Illes J, Sahakian B, editors. Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 783-802.
  24. Yuste R, Goering S, Bi G, et al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nat News. 2017; 551(7679): 159-163.
  25. Sample M, Sattler S, Racine E, Blain-Moraes S, Rodriguez-Arias S. Do publics share experts' worries about neural technology? A trinational survey on the ethics of brain-computer interfaces. Under review. Sci Tech Hum Val.
  26. Racine E, Sample M. Two problematic foundations of neuroethics and pragmatist reconstructions. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018; 27(4): 566-577.
  27. Klein E, Peters B, Higger M. Ethical considerations in ending exploratory brain-computer interface research studies in locked-in syndrome. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018; 27(4): 660-674.
  28. Sparrow R. Implants and ethnocide: Learning from the cochlear implant controversy. Disabil Soc. 2010; 25(4): 455-466.
  29. Sample M, Aunos M, Blain-Moraes S, et al. Brain-computer interfaces and personhood: Interdisciplinary deliberations on neural technology. Under review. J Neur Eng.
  30. Edwards PN. The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1997.
  31. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019; 25(1): 44-56.
  32. Waldrop, MM. Artificial intelligence (I): into the world; AI has become a hot property in financial circles: but do the promises have anything to do with reality?. Science. 1984; 223: 802- 806.
  33. Anderson M, Anderson SL, editors. Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
  34. Calo R. Artificial Intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap. UCDL Rev. 2017; 51: 399.
  35. Courtland R. Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair. Nature. 2018; 558: 357-60.
  36. Brown N, Michael M. A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2003; 15(1): 3-18.
  37. Hilgartner S. Capturing the imaginary: Vanguards, visions and the synthetic biology revolution In Miller C, Hagendijk R, Hilgartner S, editors. Science and democracy: Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond. London: Routledge; 2015. p. 51-73.
  38. Jasanoff S, Kim SH, editors. Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2015.
  39. Gilbert F, Viaña JNM, Ineichen C. Deflating the "DBS causes personality changes" bubble. Neuroethics. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s12152-018-9373-8. · DOI
  40. Gilbert F, Ovadia D. Deep brain stimulation in the media: Over-optimistic portrayals call for a new strategy involving journalists and scientists in ethical debates. Front Integr Neurosci. 2011; 10(5): 16.
  41. Gilbert F, Viaña JNM, O'Connell CD, Dodds S. Enthusiastic portrayal of 3D bioprinting in the media: Ethical side effects. Bioethics. 2018; 32(2): 94-102.
  42. Wade L, Forlini C, Racine E. Generating genius: how an Alzheimer's drug became considered a 'cognitive enhancer' for healthy individuals. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 37.
  43. Forlini C, Racine E. Added stakeholders, added value(s) to the cognitive enhancement debate: Are academic discourse and professional policies sidestepping values of stakeholders? AJOB Prim Res. 2012; 3(1): 33-47.
  44. Forlini C, Racine E. Disagreements with implications: Diverging discourses on the ethics of non- medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement. BMC Med Ethics 2009; 10(1): 9.
  45. Racine E, Forlini C. Cognitive enhancement, lifestyle choice or misuse of prescription drugs? Ethics blind spots in current debates. Neuroethics. 2010; 3(1): 1-4.
  46. Dewey J. The public and its problems. Denver: Swallow Press; 1927.
  47. Pappas GF. John Dewey's ethics: Democracy as experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2008.
  48. Pekarsky D. Dewey's conception of growth reconsidered. Educ Theory. 1990; 40(9): 283-94.
  49. Gouinlock J. Dewey's theory of moral deliberation. Ethics. 1978; 88(1977-1978): 218-28.
  50. Evans JH. A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Cen Rep. 2000; 30(5): 31-39.
  51. Fiester AM. Weaponizing principles: clinical ethics consultations & the plight of the morally vulnerable. Bioethics. 2015; 29(5): 309-15.
  52. Racine E. Éthique de la discussion et génomique des populations. Éthique publique. 2002; 4(1): 77-90.
  53. Doucet H. Les méthodes empiriques, une nouveauté en bioéthique?. Revista Colombiana de Bioética. 2008; 3(2): 9-19.
  54. Doucet H. Le développement de la génétique: quelle tâche pour l'éthique? Isuma. 2001; 2(3): 38- 45.
  55. Voarino N, Dubljević V, Racine E. tDCS for memory enhancement: Analysis of the speculative aspects of ethical issues. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00678. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sample, M., & Racine, E.
Affiliations
Leibniz University Hannover (DE)
Corresponding author
Sample, Matthew
ORCID
Sample, Matthew
Venue
Advances in Neuroethics
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2021
Pages
81-100
ISSN
  • 2522-5677 (ISSN-L)
  • 2522-5685
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_7
OpenAlex
W3133757696
Cited by
5
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Advances in neuroethics (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
digital society, artificial intelligence, pragmatism, science and technology studies, research ethics, citizen participation, reflexivity, neuroethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review