Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42011910›Full record

ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2026

Ethical Precision in Nanoscale Brain Interfacing.

Guilherme Wood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Guilherme WoodInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5055-5336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in nanotechnological brain interfacing are transforming precision from a technical achievement into a new form of intimate access to neural and mental life. Nanoscale sensors and stimulators approach synaptic resolution while reducing anatomical invasiveness, yet this same refinement increases moral invasiveness by enabling inferences about states, dispositions, and traits that individuals may not intend to disclose. To clarify the ethical implications of this shift, the recovery-discovery framework is applied, which conceptualizes neurotechnological uses along two continuous dimensions: restoring prior function (recovery) and generating new knowledge or capacities (discovery). At the nanoscale, these orientations become probabilistically entangled: recovery requires unprecedented characterization of neural pathways, while discovery introduces uncertainty and potential perturbation, creating new or unforeseen needs for recovery. This entanglement undermines device-centric and episodic models of oversight, requiring ethics to become continuous, operation-sensitive, and context-aware. Drawing on insights from science and technology studies and safety cultures such as aviation, the article proposes an architecture of ethical precision, including purpose-bound operation, capability pre-registration, epistemic firewalls, intimacy indices, reversibility budgets, and ethics telemetry-to govern intimate neural access with proportionality and accountability. Precision brain interfacing will advance not only through technical refinement but through the precision of the ethical practices.

Indexed as

continuous oversightethical precisionmoral invasivenessnanoscale brain interfacingrecovery–discovery framework

Identifiers

PMID42011910
PMCPMC13334873

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.