Contextual and Cultural Perspectives on Neurorights: Reflections Toward an International Consensus

Abstract

The development and use of advanced and innovative neuroscience, neurotechnology and some forms of artificial intelligence have exposed potential threats to the human condition, including human rights. As a result, reconceptualizing or creating human rights (i.e. neurorights) has been proposed to address specific brain and mind issues like free will, personal identity and cognitive liberty. However, perceptions, interpretations and meanings of these issues—and of neurorights—may vary between countries, contexts and cultures, all relevant for an international-consensus definition and implementation of neurorights. Thus, we encourage reflecting on the proactive inclusion of transnational, cross-cultural and contextual considerations and concerns to contribute to the global discourse. This inclusion does not mean endorsing ethical relativism but rather a call to foster a universal understanding of key concepts and concerns. Including contextual and cultural perspectives may truly anticipate global concerns which could be addressed while developing and implementing neurorights. Consequently, any ethical and/or legal regulatory framework(s) for the translational and transnational use of advanced neuroscience, neurotechnology and some forms of artificial intelligence intended to protect and safeguard human dignity should be contextually and culturally mindful, responsible, respectful and inclusive of not only human rights and fundamental freedoms but also of neurocognitive cultural diversity.

Keywords:

• Neurorights
• culture
• perspectives
• neuroscience
• neurotechnology
• artificial intelligence

This article is referred to by:

Designing New Neurorights: Tasking and Translating Them to All Humanity

Are Neurorights Global?

Re-Routing Along the Path to Enshrine Global Neurorights

Neurorights to Free Will: Remaining in Danger of Impossibility

Making the Cut: What Could Be Evidence for a ‘Minimal Definition of the Neurorights’?

The Difficulty of Universal Neurorights

In Defense of the Cultural Insensitivity of Neurorights

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Arleen Salles and Roberto Andorno for their invaluable insights and comments on our previous drafts, and Valeria Silva Ríos for the translation and proofreading.

FUNDING

JMM wants to thank the Tatiana Foundation (https://fundaciontatianapgb.org/) for its valuable support to his research. He also states that his contribution is framed within the following research projects:

• Derecho penal y comportamiento humano (MICINN-RTI2018-097838-B-100), granted by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE), program: “I+D+i orientada a los retos de la sociedad.” Principal Investigator: Prof. Eduardo Demetrio Crespo. Website: https://blog.uclm.es/proyectodpch/

• Espacios de progresión de las neurociencias en el derecho: aplicación en el campo de los derechos humanos, derecho penal, ejecución de la pena, neurociencia forense y neurotecnologias, Universidad Nacional de La Matanza (PROINCE Program, Argentine Ministry of Education). Principal Investigator: Prof. José Ángel Marinaro.

• Emoción, cognición, acción, Catholic University of Valencia, Spain. Principal Investigator: Prof. Alfredo Esteve.

Notes

1 For practical purposes, in this manuscript we will refer to (a) countries as geographical areas, (b) contexts as economical, legal, social, environmental (e.g. ecosystem), circumstantial (e.g. poverty, political instability, war, etc.) and individual (e.g. gender, age, health, migratory status, etc.) systems, and (c) culture as the set of beliefs, customs, attitudes, rituals and habits which characterize a specific group.