At the Crossroads of Neuroethics and Policy: Navigating Neurorights and Neurotechnology Governance

This issue’s target articles cover some of the most hotly debated topics in neuroethics: neurorights and the potential establishment of international governance frameworks for neurotechnology. The timeliness of these discussions is underscored by recent legislative action, with Chile amending its constitution to specifically mention the protection of brain activity (Strickland 2021). Other countries in Latin America may be poised to follow suit, largely spurred by the advocacy efforts of the Neurorights Foundation (Schapiro and Baptista 2023). In parallel, organizations such as UNESCO, the OECD, and the United Nations Human Rights Council have actively engaged in stakeholder meetings and some have published reports on neurotechnology governance (Ligthart et al. 2023). In sum: this is an exciting time to be a neuroethicist, as the issues we regularly think about are being deliberated at the highest levels of international governance.

Given that the discussions of neurorights and neurotechnology governance have clear and immediate implications for society at large, it is crucial that the field of neuroethics engage in robust debates. The AJOB Neuroscience format, with target articles accompanied by open peer commentaries (OPCs), is particularly well suited for such conversations. The target articles in this issue address complementary dimensions of the discourse, each from a distinct vantage point: Susser and Cabrera (2024) question whether neurorights represents the most fruitful approach for protecting mental privacy, while Bublitz (2024) sets forth a number of topics that a neurotechnology governance framework should cover. The accompanying OPCs illustrate a diversity of perspectives on these topics, probing whether there is anything exceptional or unique about neural data, what brain data can (or cannot) reveal, and which governance frameworks should be employed to protect mental privacy.

Susser and Cabrera (2024) address the neurorights debate head-on, arguing that the privacy issues associated with neural data may not present significantly different concerns from those posed by other kinds of data collection. They suggest that theories of information privacy, such as Helen Nissenbaum’s concept of “contextual integrity” that focuses on the flow of information rather than on what it can reveal, offer an optimal lens for framing neurotechnology privacy risks. Ultimately, they conclude that the privacy concerns raised by neurotechnologies are “urgent but not novel, justifying attention and action, but not new, unique rights.” In arguing such a position, they join other scholars who have critiqued the neurorights approach (e.g., (Borbón and Borbón 2021; Ligthart et al. 2021; Bublitz 2022; Fins 2022), but do so from the unique perspective of information ethics.

Some OPC authors concurred with Susser and Cabrera (2024), either by extending their critiques of neuroexceptionalism (Morar and Klein 2024) or by elaborating on what a non-human rights framework for privacy protection might look like (Greenbaum and Liv 2024). Others argued that the contextual integrity framework may not be applicable due to the increasingly indistinct nature of usage contexts (Goering et al. 2024) or contended that the nature of the neural data itself is more important than context in which it is used (Terris 2024). Additionally, several OPCs argued that while current neurotechnologies may not yet reveal particularly sensitive information, future methods of collecting or interpreting neural data could (Gavina and Lafrentz 2024; Meynen et al. 2024), a concern amplified by the potential integration of neural data with artificial intelligence (Spino 2024). Finally, Johnson (2024) pointed to the importance of practical considerations, stressing the necessity of attending not only to debates about whether neurorights are needed, but to logistical questions of implementation, such as who would administer governance frameworks and how they would do so.

Bublitz, who has elsewhere taken a clear stance on neurorights (Bublitz 2022), adopts a broader perspective on neurotechnology governance in his target article (Bublitz 2024). He outlines a series of “considerations and desiderata” essential for the development of a future soft law instrument on neurotechnology. His analysis ranges from overarching principles, such as the need for frameworks to prioritize human subjectivity, to more targeted recommendations, such as suggesting that brain data be afforded the same regulatory protections as medical or health data. Throughout, Bublitz offers several important commentaries, such as critiques of processes to develop soft law instruments, highlighting the exclusion of key communities in neuroscience, neurotechnology, and neuroethics. He also addresses misconceptions about the regulatory landscape of neurotechnology, clarifying that it is not a regulatory void but is subject to existing medical device laws and human rights conventions. Concluding with a compelling call to action, Bublitz emphasizes the unsettled future of non-medical neurotechnologies and advocates for an inclusive, pluralistic conversation about their governance—an opportunity, he argues, that “neuroethics and civil society should not let pass.”

In his open peer commentary, Brown (2024) takes up and extends Bublitz’s plea for a pluralist dialogue by advocating for the inclusion of insights from disciplines such as anthropology and science, technology, and society (STS) studies, emphasizing their value for discussions of human subjectivity. Kreiling and Winickoff (2024) elaborate on the OECD’s “Recommendations on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology” and suggest how a future UNESCO framework could address its gaps and limitations. Finally, Gilbert (2024) argues that calls for new rights to protect mental integrity may be based on overly speculative claims about the capabilities of neurotechnology. In doing so, he finds common ground with Susser and Cabrera (2024) and joins a broader discourse that has cautioned against the potential for overhype and unwarranted speculation within neuroethics (e.g., Racine et al. 2014; Wexler 2019; Hansson 2020).

The coming years portend future developments in neuroethics policy at international, national, and even state levels. The diverse range of viewpoints presented here—from critiques of neurorights to forward-looking considerations for neurotechnology governance—emphasize the importance of inclusive, interdisciplinary approaches that not only interrogate the uniqueness and potential privacy risks of neural data but also pragmatically address the realities of implementing regulatory frameworks. As we move forward, it is critical that we heed Bublitz’s call for additional pluralist dialogue and debate as we navigate the evolving intersection of neurotechnology, ethics, and policy.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.