ReviewNature neuroscience2026
Reconciling global collaboration and data sovereignty in neuroscience.
Review in Nature neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The many interfaces of neurotechnology.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) elevates the economic and strategic value of data, governments are intensifying efforts to regulate the collection, use and cross-border transfer of personal information. Data are increasingly treated as national assets, subject to legal, economic and geopolitical controls. These shifts are reshaping scientific research, particularly in neuroscience and brain health, where progress depends on access to large, diverse and internationally distributed datasets. In parallel, advances in neuroimaging, neurotechnology and computational modeling are enabling population-scale neuroscience and the generation of AI-ready brain datasets. These developments further increase the strategic importance of neural data, amplifying both their scientific value and their governance complexity. The convergence of these trends exposes a fundamental tension between the need for an open science culture and data sovereignty. Without coordinated responses, these dynamics risk limiting representation, slowing innovation and reinforcing global inequities in brain health research. Here we argue that neuroscience requires an international data governance coordinating body capable of aligning research and regulatory priorities. In addition to outlining the distinct challenges posed by neural data, we propose strategies to support secure, equitable and sustainable global collaboration, as well as practical governance instruments to enable coordinated implementation across jurisdictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42786235What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.