↓ Skip to main content

A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: considerations for international relevance

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 234)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: considerations for international relevance
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-9-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

John R Shook, James Giordano

Abstract

Neuroethics applies cognitive neuroscience for prescribing alterations to conceptions of self and society, and for prescriptively judging the ethical applications of neurotechnologies. Plentiful normative premises are available to ground such prescriptivity, however prescriptive neuroethics may remain fragmented by social conventions, cultural ideologies, and ethical theories. Herein we offer that an objectively principled neuroethics for international relevance requires a new meta-ethics: understanding how morality works, and how humans manage and improve morality, as objectively based on the brain and social sciences. This new meta-ethics will simultaneously equip neuroethics for evaluating and revising older cultural ideologies and ethical theories, and direct neuroethics towards scientifically valid views of encultured humans intelligently managing moralities. Bypassing absolutism, cultural essentialisms, and unrealistic ethical philosophies, neuroethics arrives at a small set of principles about proper human flourishing that are more culturally inclusive and cosmopolitan in spirit. This cosmopolitanism in turn suggests augmentations to traditional medical ethics in the form of four principled guidelines for international consideration: empowerment, non-obsolescence, self-creativity, and citizenship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Other 14 28%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Philosophy 7 14%
Psychology 6 12%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,786,017
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#36
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,672
of 318,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.