What an International Declaration on Neurotechnologies and Human Rights Could Look like: Ideas, Suggestions, Desiderata

REFERENCES

• Akmazoglu, T., and J. A. Chandler. 2021. Mapping the emerging legal landscape for neuroprostheses: Human interests and legal resources. In Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics, ed. M. Hevia, vol. 4, 63–98. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.dnb.2021.08.002.
   Google Scholar
• Alegre, S. 2017. Rethinking freedom of thought for the 21st century. European Human Rights Law Review 3:221–33.
   Google Scholar
• Andorno, R. 2012. Intergovernmental declarations relating to bioethics: Are they legal in nature or merely ethical? In Standing Tall. Hommages à Csaba Varga, 15–23. Budapest, Hungary: Pazmany Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baeken, C., M. Arns, J. Brunelin, L. Chanes, I. Filipcic, A. Ganho-Ávila, M. Hirnstein, F. Rachid, A. T. Sack, J. O’shea, et al. 2023. European reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation as class III medical devices: A call to action. Brain Stimulation 16 (2):564–6. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.02.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blitz, M. J. 2017. Searching minds by scanning brains: Neuroscience technology and constitutional privacy protection. London, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Boire, R. G. 2001. On cognitive liberty. The Journal of Cognitive Liberties 2 (1):7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Borbón, D., and L. Borbón. 2021. A critical perspective on neuro rights: Comments regarding ethics and law. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15:703121. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.703121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2013. My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In Cognitive Enhancement, ed. Elisabeth Hildt, 233–264. Doerdrecht, NL: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2020a. Objectification: Ethical and epistemic concern of neurobiological approaches to the mind. In Psychiatry reborn: Biopsychosocial psychiatry in modern medicine, ed. Will Davies, Julian Savulescu, Rebecca Roache, and J. Pierre Loebe, 325–360. Oxford, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2020b. Means matter: On the legal relevance of the distinction between direct and indirect mind-interventions. In Neuro-interventions and the law: Regulating human mental capacity, ed. Nicole Vincent. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2020c. The nascent right to psychological integrity and mental self-determination. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights: Recognition, novelty, rhetoric, ed. Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken, and Mart Susi, 1st ed., 387–403. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2022a. The body of law: Boundaries, extensions, and the human right to physical integrity in the biotechnical age. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 9 (2):lsac032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2022b. Might artificial intelligence become part of the person, and what are the key ethical and legal implications? AI & SOCIETY. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01584-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2021. Freedom of thought as an international human right: Elements of a theory of a living right. In The law and ethics of freedom of thought, Volume 1: Neuroscience, autonomy, and individual rights, ed. Marc Jonathan Blitz and Christoph Bublitz. London, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. 2022c. Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance. Neuroethics 15 (1):7. doi:10.1007/s12152-022-09481-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C., and R. Merkel. 2014. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):51–77. doi:10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, D. J. 1995. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (3):200–19.
   Google Scholar
• Collingridge, D. 1981. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 1997. Convention on human rights and biomedicine (Oviedo Convention). Adopted 04 April 1997.
   Google Scholar
• de Haan, S., E. Rietveld, M. Stokhof, and D. Denys. 2015. Effects of deep brain stimulation on the lived experience of obsessive-compulsive disorder patients: In-depth interviews with 18 patients. PLOS One 10 (8):e0135524. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado, J. M. R. 1964. Free behavior and brain stimulation. International Review of Neurobiology 6:349–449. doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(08)60773-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eich, S., O. Müller, and A. Schulze-Bonhage. 2019. Changes in self-perception in patients treated with neurostimulating devices. Epilepsy & Behavior 90 (January):25–30. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.10.012.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eke, D. O., A. Bernard, J. G. Bjaalie, R. Chavarriaga, T. Hanakawa, A. J. Hannan, S. L. Hill, M. E. Martone, A. McMahon, O. Ruebel, et al. 2022. International data governance for neuroscience. Neuron 110 (4):600–12. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.11.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Board. 2020. Guidelines on consent version 1.1. https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_202005_consent_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. 2017. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017. Document 32017R0745.
   Google Scholar
• Farah, M. J. 2018. Socioeconomic status and the brain: Prospects for neuroscience-informed policy. Nature Reviews-Neuroscience 19 (7):428–38. doi:10.1038/s41583-018-0023-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farahany, N. A. 2012. Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review 64:352–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farahany, N. A. 2019. The Costs of Changing Our Minds. Emory Law Journal 69:75–110.
   Google Scholar
• Genser, J., S. Herrmann, and R. Yuste. 2022. International human rights protection gaps in the age of neurotechnology. https://neurorightsfoundation.org/publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F. 2015. Self-estrangement & deep brain stimulation: Ethical issues related to forced explantation. Neuroethics 8 (2):107–14. doi:10.1007/s12152-014-9224-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F. 2018. Deep brain stimulation: Inducing self-estrangement. Neuroethics 11 (2):157–65. doi:10.1007/s12152-017-9334-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F., M. Cook, T. O'Brien, and J. Illes. 2019. Embodiment and estrangement: Results from a first-in-human “intelligent BCI” trial. Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (1):83–96. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-0001-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F., M. Ienca, and M. Cook. 2023. How I became myself after merging with a computer: Does human-machine symbiosis raise human rights issues? Brain Stimulation 16 (3):783–9. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goering, S., E. Klein, L. Specker Sullivan, A. Wexler, B. Agüera Y Arcas, G. Bi, J. M. Carmena, J. J. Fins, P. Friesen, J. Gallant, et al. 2021. Recommendations for responsible development and application of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 14 (3):365–86. doi:10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, R. C. Kessler, M. Gazzaniga, P. Campbell, and M. J. Farah. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456 (7223):702–5. doi:10.1038/456702a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greely, H. T., C. Grady, K. M. Ramos, W. Chiong, J. Eberwine, N. A. Farahany, L. S. M. Johnson, B. T. Hyman, S. E. Hyman, K. S. Rommelfanger, et al. 2018. Neuroethics guiding principles for the NIH brain initiative. The Journal of Neuroscience 38 (50):10586–8. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2077-18.2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 2007. The language game of responsible agency and the problem of free will: How can epistemic dualism be reconciled with ontological monism? Philosophical Explorations 10 (1):13–50. doi:10.1080/13869790601170128.
   Google Scholar
• Hagemann, R., and J. H. Skees. 2018. Soft law for hard problems: The governance of emerging technologies in an uncertain future. Colorado Technology Law Journal 17:37–130.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2021. The ethics of explantation. BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):121. doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00690-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, G. A. 2013. Treating yourself as an object: Self-objectification and the ethical dimensions of antidepressant use. Neuroethics 6 (1):165–78. doi:10.1007/s12152-012-9162-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, K., Shover, C. L., Andrews, C. M., Bohnert, A. S., Brandeau, M. L., Caulkins, J. P., et al. 2022. Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford–Lancet Commission. The Lancet, 399 (10324):555–604.
   Google Scholar
• Ienca, M. 2021. Common human rights challenges raised by different applications of neurotechnologies in the biomedical field. Report for the Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/report-final-en/1680a429f3.
   Google Scholar
• Ienca, M., and R. Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13 (1):5. doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ienca, M., J. J. Fins, R. J. Jox, F. Jotterand, S. Voeneky, R. Andorno, T. Ball, C. Castelluccia, R. Chavarriaga, H. Chneiweiss, et al. 2022. Towards a governance framework for brain data. Neuroethics 15 (2):1–14. doi:10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ienca, M., and P. Haselager. 2016. Hacking the brain: Brain–computer interfacing technology and the ethics of neurosecurity. Ethics and Information Technology 18 (2):117–29. doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9398-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. 2021. Report on the ethical issues of neurotechnology. UNESCO Doc. SHS/BIO/IBC-28/2021/3 Rev.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. 2018. Philosophy of mind. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kolber, A. 2008. Freedom of memory today. Neuroethics 1 (2):145–8. doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9011-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer, P. D. 1994. Listening to Prozac. London: Fourth Estate London.
   Google Scholar
• Leuenberger, M. 2021. Losing meaning: Philosophical reflections on neural interventions and their influence on narrative identity. Neuroethics 14 (3):491–505. doi:10.1007/s12152-021-09469-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, J. 1983. Materialism and Qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (4):354–61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.1983.tb00207.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S. 2022. Coercive brain-reading in criminal justice: An analysis of European human rights law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S. 2023. Mental privacy as part of the human right to freedom of thought? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4464655.
   Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S., T. Douglas, C. Bublitz, T. Kooijmans, and G. Meynen. 2021. Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in European human rights law: Foundations and challenges. Neuroethics 14 (2):191–203. doi:10.1007/s12152-020-09438-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ligthart, S., M. Ienca, G. Meynen, F. Molnar-Gabor, R. Andorno, C. Bublitz, P. Catley, L. Claydon, T. Douglas, N. Farahany, et al. 2023. Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of “Neurorights.” Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 32:461–81. doi:10.1017/S0963180123000245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linden, D. E. J. 2006. How psychotherapy changes the brain–the contribution of functional neuroimaging. Molecular Psychiatry 11 (6):528–38. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F., and K. Ketcham. 1996. The myth of repressed memory: False memories and allegations of sexual abuse. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maguire, E. A., D. G. Gadian, I. S. Johnsrude, C. D. Good, J. Ashburner, R. S. Frackowiak, and C. D. Frith. 2000. Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97 (8):4398–403. doi:10.1073/pnas.070039597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchant, G., and L. Tournas. 2019. Filling the governance gap: International principles for responsible development of neurotechnologies. AJOB Neuroscience 10 (4):176–8. doi:10.1080/21507740.2019.1665135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marshall, J. 2008. Personal freedom through human rights law?: Autonomy, identity and integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden, NL: Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Merkel, R., G. Boer, T. Fegert, D. Hartmann, S. Nuttin, and S. Roshal, eds. 2007. Intervening in the brain: Changing psyche and society. Berlin; New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Metzinger, T. 2009. The ego tunnel: The science of the mind and the myth of the self. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Moriarty, J. C. 2008. Flickering admissibility: Neuroimaging evidence in the US courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26 (1):29–49. doi:10.1002/bsl.795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. C. 1995. Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs 24 (4):249–91. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2017. Neurotechnology and society. OECD science, technology and industry policy papers. DSTI/STP/BNCT(2016)9/FINAL. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/neurotechnology-and-society_f31e10ab-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2019. Recommendation of the Council on responsible innovation in neurotechnology. OECD/LEGAL/0457. https://www.oecd.org/science/recommendation-on-responsible-innovation-in-neurotechnology.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Pfotenhauer, S. M., N. Frahm, D. Winickoff, D. Benrimoh, J. Illes, and G. Marchant. 2021. Mobilizing the private sector for responsible innovation in neurotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 39 (6):661–4. doi:10.1038/s41587-021-00947-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pycroft, L., S. G. Boccard, S. L. F. Owen, J. F. Stein, J. J. Fitzgerald, A. L. Green, and T. Z. Aziz. 2016. Brainjacking: Implant security issues in invasive neuromodulation. World Neurosurgery 92 (August):454–62. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.05.010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quigley, M., and S. Ayihongbe. 2018. Everyday cyborgs: On integrated persons and integrated goods. Medical Law Review 26 (2):276–308. doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwy003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainey, S., K. McGillivray, S. Akintoye, T. Fothergill, C. Bublitz, and B. Stahl. 2020. Is the European data protection regulation Su Cient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7 (1):lsaa051. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsaa051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez, S., X. Liu, P.-A. Lin, J. Suh, M. Pignatelli, R. L. Redondo, T. J. Ryan, and S. Tonegawa. 2013. Creating a false memory in the hippocampus. Science 341 (6144):387–91. doi:10.1126/science.1239073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rommelfanger, K. S., A. Pustilnik, and A. Salles. 2022. Mind the gap: Lessons learned from neurorights. Science & Diplomacy doi:10.1126/scidip.ade6797.
   Google Scholar
• Rommelfanger, K. S., S.-J. Jeong, A. Ema, T. Fukushi, K. Kasai, K. M. Ramos, A. Salles, I. Singh, J. Amadio, G.-Q. Bi, et al. 2018. Neuroethics questions to guide ethical research in the international brain initiatives. Neuron 100 (1):19–36. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.09.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, N., and J. Abi-Rached. 2014. Governing through the brain: Neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 32 (1):3–32. doi:10.3167/ca.2014.320102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shahmoon, S., J. A. Smith, and M. Jahanshahi. 2019. The lived experiences of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Parkinson’s Disease 2019 (February):1–7. doi:10.1155/2019/1937235.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, D. 2008. Soft law. In Handbook of international law, ed. Armstrong, D., Brunee, J., Jackson, J, and D. Kennedy, 68–81. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Soekadar, S., J. Chandler, M. Ienca, and C. Bublitz. 2021. On the verge of the hybrid mind. Morals & Machines 1 (1):30–43. doi:10.5771/2747-5174-2021-1-30.
   Google Scholar
• Sosa N., M. Salvador Dura-Bernal, G. Carla Maria, and S. Clare, eds. 2022. The risks and challenges of neurotechnologies for human rights. UNESCO Report. doi:10.54678/POGS7778.
   Google Scholar
• Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Belief or Religion. 2021. Annual report to the general assembly on freedom of thought. UN Doc. A/76/380.
   Google Scholar
• Strawson, G. 2009. Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 13:10–1.
   Google Scholar
• Sudimac, S., V. Sale, and S. Kühn. 2022. How nature nurtures: Amygdala activity decreases as the result of a one-hour walk in nature. Molecular Psychiatry. 27:4446–52.
   Google Scholar
• Synofzik, M., T. E. Schlaepfer, and J. J. Fins. 2012. How happy is too happy? Euphoria, neuroethics, and deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens. AJOB Neuroscience 3 (1):30–6. doi:10.1080/21507740.2011.635633.
   Google Scholar
• Talwar, S. K., S. Xu, E. S. Hawley, S. A. Weiss, K. A. Moxon, and J. K. Chapin. 2002. Rat navigation guided by remote control. Nature 417 (6884):37–8. doi:10.1038/417037a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, K. E. 2017. Brainwashing: The science of thought control. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford Landmark Science, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tbalvandany, S. S., B. S. Harhangi, A. W. Prins, and M. H. N. Schermer. 2019. Embodiment in neuro-engineering endeavors: Phenomenological considerations and practical implications. Neuroethics 12 (3):231–42. doi:10.1007/s12152-018-9383-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UN General Assembly. 1986. Resolution on Setting international standards in the field of human rights. Adopted 4 December 1986. UN Doc. A/RES/41/120.
   Google Scholar
• UN Human Rights Council. 2011. Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework. UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31.
   Google Scholar
• UN Human Rights Council. 2022. Neurotechnology and human rights. UN Doc. A/HRC/51/L.3.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. General Conference SHS/BIO/PI/2021/1.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal, F. 2009. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22 (1):5–36. doi:10.1177/0952695108099133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser-Vandewalle, V.,. P. Andrade, P. E. Mosley, B. D. Greenberg, R. Schuurman, N. C. McLaughlin, V. Voon, P. Krack, K. D. Foote, H. S. Mayberg, et al. 2022. Deep brain stimulation for obsessive–compulsive disorder: A crisis of access. Nature Medicine 28 (8):1529–32. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01879-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuste, R., S. Goering, B. A. Y. Arcas, G. Bi, J. M. Carmena, A. Carter, J. J. Fins, P. Friesen, J. Gallant, J. E. Huggins, et al. 2017. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551 (7679):159–63. doi:10.1038/551159a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zúñiga-Fajuri, A., L. V. Miranda, D. Z. Miralles, and R. S. Venegas. 2021. Neurorights in Chile: Between neuroscience and legal science. In Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics, ed. M. Hevia, vol. 4:165–179. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.dnb.2021.06.001.
   Google Scholar