↓ Skip to main content

Changing Memories: Between Ethics and Speculation

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Changing Memories: Between Ethics and Speculation
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.12.sect1-1612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Racine, William Affleck

Abstract

Over the past decade, a debate has emerged between those who believe that memory-modulating technologies are inherently dangerous and need to be regulated and those who believe these technologies present minimal risk and thus view concerns about their use as far-fetched and alarmist. This article tackles three questions central to this debate: (1) Do these technologies jeopardize personhood? (2) Are the risks of these technologies acceptable? (3) Do these technologies require special regulation or oversight? Although concerns about the unethical use of memory-modulating technologies are legitimate, these concerns should not override the responsible use of memory-modulating technologies in clinical contexts. Accordingly, we call for careful comparative analysis of their use on a case-by-case basis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 33%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 3 17%
Psychology 3 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 4 22%