Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’

Ligthart, Sjors; Ienca, Marcello; Meynen, Gerben; Molnar-Gabor, Fruzsina; Andorno, Roberto; Bublitz, Christoph; Catley, Paul; Claydon, Lisa; Douglas, Thomas A.; Farahany, Nita A.; Fins, Joseph J.; Goering, Sara; Haselager, Pim; Jotterand, Fabrice; Lavazza, Andrea; McCay, Allan; Paz, Abel Wajnerman; Rainey, Stephen; Ryberg, Jesper; Kellmeyer, Philipp

doi:10.1017/s0963180123000245

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As underlined by the Girardi /Emotive Inc. judgment, “the development of new technologies involves more and more aspects of the human person—aspects that were unthinkable a few years ago.” The State is expected to act “in order to prevent and anticipate their possible effects, in addition to directly protecting human integrity in its totality, including privacy and confidentiality” (see paragraph 8 of the judgment). Therefore, the judgment points out that privacy is an (important) aspect of human integrity, or, in other words, of dignity and other human rights as cognitive liberty, freedom of thought and identity ( Andorno, 2023 ; Farahany, 2023 ; Lavazza and Giorgi, 2023 ; Ligtharts et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Protection Of Neurodata As a Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neurodata can affect mental integrity because, among other things, it can "control mental states, decode them by providing behavioral information... " (Zohny et al, 2023). For its part (Ligtharts et al, 2023) establishes the possibility that "thoughts and feelings can be observed, not only indirectly through behavior, but also through multimodal data analysis, in which data on brain states play an (Zohny et al, 2023). "Decoding brain data may 1 day reveal mental information," so neurodata affects not only mental privacy but also mental integrity.…”

Section: The "Neurorights" Within Chilean Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata

Cornejo-Plaza,

Cippitani,

Pasquino

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses a landmark ruling by the Chilean Supreme Court of August 9, 2023 dealing with the right to mental privacy, originated with an action for constitutional protection filed on behalf of Guido Girardi Lavin against Emotiv Inc., a North American company based in San Francisco, California that is commercializing the device “Insight.” This wireless device functions as a headset with sensors that collect information about the brain’s electrical activity (i.e., neurodata). The discussion revolves around whether neurodata can be considered personal data and whether they could be classified into a special category. The application of the present legislation on data (the most obsolete, such as the Chilean law, and the most recent EU law) does not seem adequate to protect neurodata. The use of neurodata raises ethical and legal concerns that are not fully addressed by current regulations on personal data protection. Despite not being necessarily considered personal data, neurodata represent the most intimate aspects of human personality and should be protected in light of potential new risks. The unique characteristics of neurodata, including their interpretive nature and potential for revealing thoughts and intentions, pose challenges for regulation. Current data protection laws do not differentiate between different types of data based on their informational content, which is relevant for protecting individual rights. The development of new technologies involving neurodata requires particular attention and careful consideration to prevent possible harm to human dignity. The regulation of neurodata must account for their specific characteristics and the potential risks they pose to privacy, confidentiality, and individual rights. The answer lies in the reconfiguration of human rights known as “neurorights” that goes beyond the protection of personal data.

show abstract

Section: Protection Of Neurodata As a Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The "Neurorights" Within Chilean Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata

Cornejo-Plaza,

Cippitani,

Pasquino

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The future application of neurotechnology in criminal justice raises a range of new legal questions [10]. The most fundamental concerns exist vis-avis protection of human rights, as recently underscored by UNESCO and the United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/RES/51/3) [11]. Human rights are protected by national constitutions, but also through international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.…”

Section: Requirements Concerning the Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other human rights, such as the right to freedom of thought and mental privacy, are also relevant and much is still unclear about the human rights issues attached to the application of neurotechnology in criminal justice [10,11]. These issues, as well as topics such as data protection, have to receive careful attention before neurotechnology can be applied in a criminal justice setting.…”

Section: Requirements Concerning the Protection Of Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurotechnology in criminal justice: key points for neuroscientists and engineers

Geukes,

Bijlsma,

Meynen

et al. 2024

J. Neural Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurotechnology encompasses any device (including hardware, testing/stimulation paradigms and data analysis/ interpretation algorithms) that interfaces with the central nervous system to modulate or monitor neural activity. Driven by continuous scientific advances, neurotechnology is increasingly applied in research, clinical and consumer settings. The recent considerable investments in neurotechnology from private sector parties such as Blackrock, Neuralink and Kernel, and the growing interest of policy makers, are likely to further accelerate this trend. One area of application for neurotechnology is the criminal justice system. Neurotechnology may provide legally relevant information about people’s past, present and future behavior. In addition, treatment programs in criminal justice may apply neurotechnological risk assessment and interventions. Currently, the use of neurotechnologies in criminal justice is mostly limited to the diagnosis of neurological conditions such as epilepsy, brain trauma, and dementia, incidentally aiding the assessment of fitness to stand trial and legal insanity1. Neurotechnologies have also sporadically been used for other applications in criminal justice2. Here, we identify concerns and priorities for responsible implementation of neurotechnology in the criminal justice system beyond its current use (BOX1). For that, we first consider areas where neurotechnology has potential value. Then, we identify key requirements that have to be met for the techniques to be usable in criminal justice settings. These requirements often deviate from standards typically applied in neuroscientific research. Using some of the most prominent developments of neurotechnology as examples, we briefly describe to what extent emerging neurotechnologies currently match these requirements. Finally, we assess human rights issues related to the implementation of neurotechnology in criminal justice. We conclude that responsible real-world implementation requires neurotechnologies to be effective, reliable and compliant with human rights, and argue that research and development of neurotechnologies for use in criminal justice should focus on the user-context and prioritize validation for intended use.

show abstract

“…If a country strictly regulates the use of neurotechnologies, could this limit scientific and technological progress to improve people's lives? The debate is still open, and there are many active authors providing a deeper insight into all the different positions (for an updated review on the topic, see Ligthart et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective

Cornejo-Plaza

Saracini

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so-called neurorights are emerging human rights, or rather reconfigurations of already existing human rights, seeking to address the impact of the possible misuse of neurotechnologies, which have the potential to become more invasive and harmful in the future if not regulated. The aim of specifying neurorights is to protect the dignity and autonomy of the individual in the face of neurotechnological advances. Recently, Chile proposed a Constitutional reform inspired by the neurorights, opening a debate. One of the proposed neurorights is fair and equitable access to cognitive enhancement, which will be the specific object of this perspective article. Starting from the legal proposal, we analyse and discuss some perspectives on cognitive enhancement, or “neuroenhancement”, which could be considered as part of enhancement neurotechnologies, pointing out that pharmacological enhancers, or “smart drugs”, might be considered as part of these enhancers. We present a classification of the different types of cognitive enhancements as it has been proposed in the literature, into which pharmacological cognitive enhancement can be included, concluding that there is currently no agreement amongst scholars and lawyers about the ethical consideration of pharmacological cognitive enhancement. We therefore argue that it is necessary for the legislator to explicitly address the issue in the proposed regulations, in order to take a clear position on the topic, as it has been done in the United Kingdom, where the pharmacological neuroenhancers have been explicitly excluded from the regulation. If pharmacological neuroenhancers are going to be considered neurotechnologies, then new law proposals should seek harmonization with the already existing legislation regulating pharmacological health and consumer rights (both globally, taking into account international drug laws, and locally, according to each country's internal regulations) and of course, with the whole system of fundamental rights. Finally, we briefly discuss the ethical problem of equitable access to this new type of neurotechnologies (as part of the neurorights) and leave the debate open for new insights from the scientific community on the possible consequences of including (or not) pharmacological neuroenhancers as neurotechnologies for cognitive enhancement in the framework of the ethical and legal debate.

show abstract

Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’

Cited by 22 publications

References 63 publications

Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata

Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata

Neurotechnology in criminal justice: key points for neuroscientists and engineers

On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights' pioneering legislation in Chile: a perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About