Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey.
Paper
Loaded from Europe PMC by your browser, not stored by OSCR: doi.org · Europe PMC
The paper is loaded when this pane is shown.
The authors' code
Markdown · 9 lines · 564 B · no license
- # Divergent-philosophical-attitudes-of-neuroscientists
- This repository contains the data and code of the paper "Divergent Philosophical Commitments in Neuroscience: Evidence from a Global Survey"
- This repository is provided exclusively for scientific research, verification, and reproducibility of the associated publication.
- Commercial use is prohibited.
- Redistribution of modified versions must preserve attribution to the original authors.
- Any reuse of this work in another publication must appropriately cite both the repository and the associated article.
README.md at commit f0bc623, no license · at the source
Overview
- Mind-Brain Group, Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra, Pamplona 31006, Spain
- Research Center on Animal Cognition, Center for Integrative Biology, CNRS, Toulouse University, Toulouse 31062, France
- International Center for Neuroscience and Ethics, Tatiana Foundation, Madrid 28010, Spain
Abstract
The mind–brain relationship is a foundational yet underexplored dimension of contemporary neuroscience, shaping research framing, data interpretation, and public communication. We conducted a large-scale international survey of 2,657 neuroscientists to assess their views on the mind–brain problem, free will, and the future of the discipline. Our results reveal a complex and sometimes paradoxical worldview. While 64% of participants endorse reductive physicalism—the view that mental activity is fully reducible to brain function—only 17.5% reject free will. Despite estimating that current knowledge covers only a limited portion of brain structure and function (30%), respondents express marked optimism about the future of neuroscience, including the prospect of fully understanding the human being and mental disorders through neuroscience, and even achieving mind reading and mental uploading. A principal component analysis identified five latent dimensions, some of which vary systematically across sociodemographic and disciplinary factors. These findings indicate that neuroscientists hold diverse philosophical commitments that diverge from common narratives of hard determinism. The prevalence of neuroessentialist views further highlights the need for sustained interdisciplinary dialogue to address the conceptual, ethical, and societal implications of neuroscientific progress.
Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.
Repository
Its files are read in the Code ↔ Paper reader above.
jbernacer/Divergent-philosophical-attitudes-of-neuroscientists
f0bc623e455e7d3fce43c6a93fa581cfb6120f85, 6 July 2026Availability: 1 check, the latest on 27 September 2026: the link answers
- 27 September 2026: the link answers
1 file
- README.md, Text, 9 lines
The paper's code and data availability statement is in the Data section.
Tracing map
Proposed by the machine: these links were found in the paper and verified at the source, without human review. The map will receive a Zenodo DOI once one of the paper's authors has validated it with their ORCID.
What the map holds:
- 1 repository of the authors' code, each at its verified commit, with its license and how the link was found in the paper;
- 0 scripts, each with its path and the digest of its content;
- no match between paragraphs and code yet;
- neither the text of the paper nor the code itself.
Its JSON (tracing-map.json) is deposited on Zenodo with its DOI once the map is validated.
Data
No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.
Data, Materials, and Software Availability
Anonymized Database and analyses scripts data have been deposited in Github (https://
Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.
Versions
The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.
Version 1, 27 September 2026: the first record
Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 8 authors, 4 keywords, 4 MeSH terms, 2 funders, 16 references.
Cite
This paper
Navarro-Peña, F., Arrondo, G., Barrett, N. F., Güell, F., Madirolas, G., Murillo, J. I., Sánchez-Cañizares, J., & Bernacer, J. (2026). Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 123(29), e2610776123. https://
BibTeX
@article{navarropena2026
author = {Navarro-Peña, Fabián and Arrondo, Gonzalo and Barrett, Nathaniel F. and Güell, Francisco and Madirolas, Gabriel and Murillo, José Ignacio and Sánchez-Cañizares, Javier and Bernacer, Javier},
title = {{Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey}},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
volume = {123},
number = {29},
pages = {e2610776123},
publisher = {National Academy of Sciences},
issn = {0027-8424},
doi = {10.1073/
url = {https://
pmid = {42455665},
pmcid = {PMC13389498}
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
AU - Navarro-Peña, Fabián
AU - Arrondo, Gonzalo
AU - Barrett, Nathaniel F.
AU - Güell, Francisco
AU - Madirolas, Gabriel
AU - Murillo, José Ignacio
AU - Sánchez-Cañizares, Javier
AU - Bernacer, Javier
TI - Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey
T2 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
J2 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/
VL - 123
IS - 29
SP - e2610776123
SN - 0027-8424
PB - National Academy of Sciences
DO - 10.1073/
UR - https://
LA - en
ER -
CSL-JSON
{
"id": "10.1073/
"type": "article-journal",
"title": "Divergent philosophical commitments in neuroscience: Evidence from a global survey",
"container-title": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America",
"author": [
{
"family": "Navarro-Peña",
"given": "Fabián"
},
{
"family": "Arrondo",
"given": "Gonzalo"
},
{
"family": "Barrett",
"given": "Nathaniel F."
},
{
"family": "Güell",
"given": "Francisco"
},
{
"family": "Madirolas",
"given": "Gabriel"
},
{
"family": "Murillo",
"given": "José Ignacio"
},
{
"family": "Sánchez-Cañizares",
"given": "Javier"
},
{
"family": "Bernacer",
"given": "Javier"
}
],
"container-title-short":
"volume": "123",
"issue": "29",
"page": "e2610776123",
"DOI": "10.1073/
"PMID": "42455665",
"PMCID": "PMC13389498",
"ISSN": "0027-8424",
"publisher": "National Academy of Sciences",
"URL": "https://
"language": "en",
"issued": {
"date-parts": [
[
2026,
7,
15
]
]
}
}
The tracing map gets a citation of its own once an author has validated it and it has a DOI.
Similar papers
The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.
- [1] doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003982 [code]
- No evidence for modulation of the readiness potential by respiratory phase during natural breathing.Journal: PLoS biologyIn common: 1 reference
- [2] doi:10.1093/nc/niag023
- Views on the distribution of consciousness influence ethical judgements toward brain organoids as biological computers: an exploratory study.Journal: Neuroscience of consciousnessIn common: 1 reference
- [3] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-57714-9 [code]
- Moderate electrical muscle stimulation during voluntary movement does not disrupt the sense of agency or ownership.Journal: Scientific reportsIn common: 1 reference
- [4] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-50969-2 [code]
- Disrupted neural response timing and duration during hand movement preparation in schizophrenia spectrum disorder: An fMRI study.Journal: Scientific reportsIn common: 1 reference
- [5] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-71961-4 [code]
- Spatiotemporal asymmetries on brain energy landscape uncover system entrapment related to depression severity.Journal: Nature communicationsIn common: 1 reference
- [6] doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02614-5 [code]
- Pursuit of biomarkers of brain diseases: beyond cohort comparisons.Journal: NPJ digital medicineIn common: 1 reference
- [7] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-75959-w [code]
- Charting higher-order models of brain function beyond pairwise interactions.Journal: Nature communicationsIn common: 1 reference
- [8] doi:10.1007/s12021-026-09803-3 [code]
- NeuroFusion: A Unified Framework for Generalized Visual Stimulus Decoding from fMRI Across Datasets and Subjects.Journal: NeuroinformaticsIn common: 1 reference
- [9] doi:10.1111/ejn.70601 [code]
- Optimising Analysis Choices for Multivariate Decoding: Creating Pseudotrials Using Trial Averaging and Resampling.Journal: The European journal of neuroscienceIn common: 1 reference
- [10] doi:10.1038/s41380-026-03640-1
- Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty track distinct neurobehavioral dimensions of avoidance in anxiety-related disorders.Journal: Molecular psychiatryIn common: 1 reference
Contribute
The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.
Sign in with ORCID to claim this paper as one of its authors, correct its record or validate its tracing map: when the paper's metadata lists your ORCID iD, you are recognized at once. Maintainers of its code: sign in with GitHub, then claim the repository on your account page.
Claim this paper
Correct its record
Say what each link of this record is, remove the ones that are not the paper's, add the ones that are missing. The correction becomes a new version of the record, in its Versions section.
Validate its tracing map
You validate the map as this page shows it: 1 repository of the authors' code, each at its verified commit and with its license, 0 scripts, and 0 matches between paragraphs and code (see the Code and Map sections). It then receives a DOI on Zenodo, with you (your ORCID iD) and OSCR as its creators; the code itself is not deposited.
The map's fingerprint: sha256:87390445cc8068cd…
Add the badge to its README
The badge links the code to this page. Copy one of these into the README of the paper's code: only you decide where it goes, and nothing is changed for you.
Markdown
[, paste the snippet at the top, then “Commit changes…” and, to review it first, “Create a new branch and start a pull request”. You open the pull request; OSCR asks for no permission.
Request its removal
To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).
Discussion, reproductions, activity
Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.
Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.
Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.