A New Frontier: The Fight for Neurorights

The rise of neurotechnology has far outpaced relevant governance, leading to an increased emphasis on the call for neurorights

Written by: Anirudh Murugesan and Ryan Hobbib. Edited by: Sherin Lajevardi

The modern world is vastly different from the one that witnessed the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The technological revolution has given rise to a plethora of groundbreaking fields, including the recent development of neurotechnology. With critical advancements in brain-computer interfaces, the potential for neurotechnology to introduce itself into our everyday lives has undoubtedly skyrocketed. However, this rapid growth has far outpaced the development of any relevant governance, leading to an urgent call to action for the establishment of neurorights.

What are Neurorights?

On a larger scale, neurorights serve to govern the legal and ethical outcomes of advancements in neurotechnology. For clarification, neurotechnology can simply be thought of as “any form of artificial influence in the function of the brain” (Saltik). With billions of dollars being poured into research every year, saying that this general oversight is necessary would be a clear understatement. More specifically, the fundamental idea of neurorights refers to the “normative rules for the protection and preservation of the human brain and mind” (Ienca). Dr. Ienca, a prominent researcher within the disciplines of neuroethics, artificial intelligence, and responsible neurotechnology, goes on to detail the history of neurorights.

The primary predecessor to neurorights was neuroethics, which gained notoriety around the turn of the century. Neuroethics is defined as “the examination of what is right and wrong, good and bad about the treatment of, perfection of, or unwelcome invasion and worrisome manipulation of the human brain,” (Safire). Essentially, neuroethics was concerned with just the moral rules of working with the brain, while neurorights expanded on that notion by fighting to introduce concrete legislation governing all technological interactions with the brain. The shift from neuroethics to neurorights was brought about by the notion of cognitive library, which is the “right and freedom to control one’s own consciousness and electrochemical thought process,” (Sententia, 2004). As advances in neurotechnology became more significant, this shift from neuroethics to neurorights gained more attention, ultimately evolving into the present-day call for neurorights.

Misconceptions About Neurotechnology

Before examining the need for neurorights, it is important to understand the reasons for misconceptions surrounding neurotechnology. For starters, neurotech is a relatively new field that involves rapidly evolving technology. While the field has existed since the 1960s, a majority of people have not heard of its virtues until recent years. Consequently, there is a lot of skepticism with regards to the validity and history of neurotechnology. An additional reason for misinformation is the complexity of the field itself. Neurotech can be described as a combination of neuroscience and engineering; two fields that are, in and of themselves, highly complex. The need for an advanced level of academic experience leads to an understandable sense of general confusion regarding the field.

A key misconception about neurotechnology is that it will lead to a complete lack of personal privacy in an increasingly digital age. With rapid advancements on the technological front, the general public has seen their privacy threatened in an everyday setting. For example, multiple scandals involving monumental companies, such as Facebook, have produced reports detailing the illegal collection of personal data. Taking this into account, it is understandable why people might be hesitant to support brain-computer interfaces and other prominent creations of neurotechnology that are meant to track and analyze brain signals. However, this should not be a widespread issue to dwell upon, as organizations such as The NeuroRights Foundation are already working to establish neurorights that will prevent private entities from collecting personal data for their own gain.

Dodging Dystopia

A key motive to establish neurorights on a global level is the objective of dodging a dystopian future. Jared Genser, a well-known human rights lawyer, is an expert in this regard. He has already expressed his concern about the implementation of brain-computer interfaces in certain situations. The primary example that Genser refers to is in China, where “several schools have been piloting a brain-computer interface that children are wearing” in the classroom (Genser). These BCI’s share information to the teacher in regards to the concentration level of the students based on their brainwaves. He also details how “technology has been deployed already in several Chinese factories to monitor the efficiency of workers” (Genser).

In order to fight the development of these human rights abuses, there are several groups who champion the need for neurorights. None of these organizations is more prominent than The NeuroRights Foundation, chaired by Columbia University’s Dr. Rafael Yuste. The foundation shares that their mission is to “engage the United Nations, regional organizations, companies, entrepreneurs, investors, scientists, and the public at large to raise awareness about the human rights and ethical implications of neurotechnology.” In their work, they have identified five sections that have become widely regarded as the ideal principles of neurorights. These five principles are mental privacy, personal identity, free will, fair access to mental augmentation, and protection from bias. With continued support from groups like The NeuroRights Foundation, we can hope to avoid the dystopian reality outlined by Genser and others.

Chile at the Forefront

While the call for neurorights may seem to be in its infancy, a country down south is blazing a significant trail for the world to follow. Chile was one of the first nations to recognize the risk of commercialized consumer markets and data. Dr. Yuste played a significant role in the initiative to “protect human beings from the intrusion of third parties into our brains” (Bosoer). This resulted in a Senate proposal in October of 2020, eventually leading to the groundbreaking passage of legislation in September of 2021. Senator Guido Girardi referred to the protection of the human psyche as the “last frontier” and expressed his happiness “that this is the start of a global assessment on how technology should be used for the good of humanity” (Girardi). The hope is that other nations around the globe take inspiration from the massive victory in Chile and create similar legislation to protect the neurorights of their own people.

The Call for UN Involvement

Ultimately, experts in the field believe that the end goal in the fight for neurorights is large-scale involvement from the United Nations. Dr. Yuste outlines that his “dream would be for the UN to take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…and bring it up to date to the 21st century incorporating protection for all these challenges.” John Krakauer, a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins, stands by Yuste’s view and refers to the fact that “deep down, what people want is consumer technology.” He highlights that advances to consumer neurotechnology can lead to “alter people’s preferences without their expressed consent” (Asher-Schapiro). With this in mind, it is critical that a higher body of power, specifically the United Nations, gets involved to regulate this highly volatile terrain.

Future Implications

The fact of the matter is simple: our actions right now in regards to neurorights will directly affect our future freedoms. Within the near future, it is integral that national governments use the recently-passed Chilean legislation as a blueprint to develop their own laws. This should, in theory, lead to a widespread push for universal governance of neurotechnology through UN involvement and summits for world leaders and experts in the field alike. With an emphasis on accountability for private companies, we as a society can resist their attempts to exploit neurotechnology for their own gain at the expense of human rights. Our future is in our hands, and it’s time to do something about it.

Works Cited

Al-Rodhan, Nayef. “The Rise of Neurotechnology Calls for a Parallel Focus on Neurorights.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 27 May 2021, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-neurotechnology-calls-for-a-parallel-focus-on-neurorights/.

Asher-Schapiro, Avi. “‘This Is Not Science Fiction,’ Say Scientists Pushing for ‘Neuro-Rights’.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 3 Dec. 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-tech-rights/this-is-not-science-fiction-say-scientists-pushing-for-neuro-rights-idUSKBN28D3HK.

Bosoer, Lucía. “Chile at the Forefront of Neurorights Protection.” Latin American Focus Group, 16 Sept. 2021, https://blogs.eui.eu/latin-american-working-group/opinion-chile-at-the-forefront-of-neurorights-protection/.

Ienca, Marcello. “On Neurorights.” Frontiers, Frontiers, 1 Jan. 1AD, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258/full.

“In the Face of Neurotechnology Advances, Chile Passes ‘Neuro Rights’ Law.” Tech Xplore — Technology and Engineering News, Tech Xplore, 30 Sept. 2021, https://techxplore.com/news/2021-09-neurotechnology-advances-chile-neuro-rights.html.

“It’s Time for Neuro — Rights.” CIRSD, https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-winter-2021-issue-no-18/its-time-for-neuro--rights?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_79N8tED37TRAliXFi4G7urcqgis8Utv4iJKhL3haHoI-1635737927-0-gqNtZGzNAmWjcnBszQqR.

Safire, W. (2002). “Visions for a new field of neuroethics,” in Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proceedings, May 13–14, 2002, (San Francisco: The Dana Press), 4–9.

Saltik, Rizgar. “What Is Neurotechnology?” LinkedIn, LinkedIn, 8 Mar. 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-neurotechnology-rizgar-saltik.

Sententia, W. (2004). Neuroethical considerations: cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1013, 221–228. doi: 10.1196/annals.1305.014

The NeuroRights Foundation, https://neurorightsfoundation.org/.

“Understanding-and Protecting-Neurorights.” The Tällberg Foundation, 3 Aug. 2021, https://tallbergfoundation.org/articles/understanding-protecting-neurorights/.