Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39428886›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024

Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics.

Sergio Ruiz, Luca Valera, Paulina Ramos, Ranganatha Sitaram

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Ethics of brain-computer interface in mental healthcare.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Neuroethics and Neurorights.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and politics.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  11. Neurofeedback: potential for abuse and regulatory frameworks in the United States.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sergio RuizPsychiatry Department, Interdisciplinary Center for Neurosciences, Medicine School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago de Chile 8330074, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-6963-4285
Luca ValeraDepartment of Philosophy, Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza Campus Universitario, Valladolid 47011, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1693-396X
Paulina RamosBioethics Centre, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago de Chile 8330074, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-4424
Ranganatha SitaramPsychiatry Department, Interdisciplinary Center for Neurosciences, Medicine School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, Santiago de Chile 8330074, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-8577-8035

Funding

Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoNational Agency for Research and Development Millennium Science Initiative
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging technologies such as brain-computer interfaces and neurofeedback have evolved rapidly as new tools for cognitive neuroscience and as potential clinical interventions. However, along with these developments, concern has grown based on the fear of the potential misuse of neurotechnology. In October 2021, Chile became the first country to include neurorights in its Constitution. The present article is divided into two parts. In the first section, we describe the path followed by neurorights that led to its inclusion in the Chilean Constitution, and the neurotechnologies usually involved in neurorights discussions. In the second part, we discuss two potential problems of neurorights. We begin by pointing out some epistemological concerns regarding neurorights, mainly referring to the ambiguity of the concepts used in neurolegislations, the difficult relationship between neuroscience and politics and the weak reasons for urgency in legislating. We then describe the dangers of overprotective laws in medical research, based on the detrimental effect of recent legislation in Chile and the potential risk posed by neurorights to the benefits of neuroscience development. This article aims to engage with the scientific community interested in neurotechnology and neurorights in an interdisciplinary reflection of the potential consequences of neurorights.This article is part of the theme issue 'Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation'.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesPoliticsBrain-Computer InterfacesChileHumansNeurofeedbackNeuroimagingChileConstitutionepistemologyneuroethicsneurorightsneurotechnology

Identifiers

PMID39428886
PMCPMC11491849

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.