On the Necessity of Ethical Guidelines for Novel Neurotechnologies
Open accessAbstract
Because novel neurotechnologies may alter human identity and society in profound ways, we advocate for the early integration of ethics into neurotechnology. We recommend developing and adopting a set of guidelines, like the Belmont Report on human subject research, as a framework for development and use of brain-related technologies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Guidance exists for medical BCIs (e.g., FDA, EU), but presently consumer BCIs lack the same kind of regulation.
“Guidance exists for medical BCIs (for example, in the USA FDA, and also in the EU—see [48]); but presently consumer BCIs lack the same kind of regulation, although some progress is being made (see Box 2) [19].”
From Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
The passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) says novel neurotechnologies lack agreed-upon ethical guidelines and that commercial applications would require different regulation and oversight. It does not establish that consumer BCIs currently lack regulation comparable to medical BCIs. The FDA and EU guidance is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains
Pais-Vieira, M., Chiuffa, G., Lebedev, M., Yadav, A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep11869 · Cited by 99 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some experiments have demonstrated the capacity to connect neural activity of even three different experimental animals for a common purpose (Pais-Vieira et al., 2015).”
BackgroundStocco, A., Prat, C. S., Losey, D. M., Cronin, J. A., Wu, J., Abernethy, J. A., & Rao, R. P. N. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137303 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- [1]1. Aas, S. ∙ Wasserman, D. J. Med. Ethics. 2016; 42:37-40 Crossref Scopus (26) PubMed Google Scholar
- [2]2. Baylis, F. Neuroethics. 2013; 6:513-526 Crossref Scopus (147) PubMed Google Scholar
- [3]3. Carrillo-Reid, L. ∙ Yang, W. ∙ Bando, Y. ... Science. 2016; 353:691-694 Crossref Scopus (192) PubMed Google Scholar
- [4]4. Farah, M.J. ∙ Wolpe, P.R. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2004; 34:35-45 Crossref Scopus (132) PubMed Google Scholar
- [5]5. Farahany, N. Stanford Law Rev. 2012; 64:351-408 Google Scholar
- [6]6. Haselager, P. Minds Mach. 2013; 23:405-418 Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar
- [7]7. Hochberg, L.R. ∙ Serruya, M.D. ∙ Friehs, G.M. ... Nature. 2006; 442:164-171 Crossref Scopus (2603) PubMed Google Scholar
- [8]8. Kay, K.N. ∙ Naselaris, T. ∙ Prenger, R.J. ... Nature. 2008; 452:352-355 Crossref Scopus (930) PubMed Google Scholar
- [10]10. Pais-Vieira, M. ∙ Chiuffa, G. ∙ Lebedev, M. ... Sci. Rep. 2015; 5:11869 Crossref Scopus (67) PubMed Google Scholar
- [11]11. Ramirez, S. ∙ Liu, X. ∙ Lin, P.-A. ... Science. 2013; 341:387-391 Crossref Scopus (640) PubMed Google Scholar
- [12]12. Stocco, A. ∙ Prat, C.S. ∙ Losey, D.M. ... PLoS ONE. 2015; 10:e0137303 Crossref Scopus (33) Google Scholar
- [13]13. Vlek, R.J. ∙ Steines, D. ∙ Szibbo, D. ... J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2012; 36:94-99 Crossref Scopus (63) PubMed Google Scholar
- [14]14. Wolbring, G. ∙ Diep, L. Cognitive/Neuroenhancement Through an Ability Studies Lens Jotterand, F. ∙ Dubljevic, V. (Editors) Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives Oxford University Press, 2016; 57-75 Crossref Google Scholar
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement
Gordon, E. C., & Seth, A. K. (2024) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002899 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
- Authors
- Goering, S., & Yuste, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goering, Sara
- Yuste, Rafael
- Venue
- Cell
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 882-885
- ISSN
- 0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2548394795
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cell (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- neuroethics, moral norms, human identity, social impact, Belmont Report, human subjects research
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Humans, Human Experimentation, Neural Pathways, Neurology, Neurosciences
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
