Hi! In this thread, I would like to share some general introductory information about neurorights, before talking about their application around the world, and about how they are studied in neuroethics. Why are neurorights initiatives relevant? 1/11
During the last decade, government agencies around the world fueled a neurotechnological revolution: the US, China, Korea, the EU, Japan, Canada and Australia, among others, launched big research projects that led to an unprecedented development of neurotechnologies 2/11
Unprecedented how? Well, these technologies seemed to have an unprecedented ability (both in terms of scope and reliability) to “read” mental states by interpreting neural activity patterns and “write” mental states by modulating neural computation 3/11
(Actually, this is a very controversial statement within the neuroethics community, I’ll come back to this in another thread, but feel free discuss it here!). 4/11
This may be a little bit concerning per se, but a crucial issue is that these advancements have sparked the rapid development of non-invasive and potentially ubiquitous neurotechnologies oriented to healthy users. 5/11
Given that these technologies have various non-clinical (educational, work-related, military, etc.) applications which are not fully regulated by national laws or international treaties, the development of a regulatory framework has become a global priority. 6/11
In a response to this demand, the Morningside Group (an interdisciplinary team advocating for the ethical use of neurotechnology and AI) introduced a framework that articulates specific rights for the regulation of neurotechnology, also called 'neurorights'. 7/11
These are the right to personal identity, the right to free will, the right to mental privacy, the right to equal access to cognitive (or moral) enhancement technologies, and the right to protection from algorithmic bias. 8/11
These rights expand and/or refine existing international human rights (such as those for the protection of human dignity, liberty, security, nondiscrimination, equal protection, and privacy). 9/11
The underlying idea is that existing rights address some ethically relevant dimensions of human life in very generic terms, often subject to interpretation, and the regulation of the ramifications of neurotechnology requires greater specificity. 10/11
Of course, introducing new regulations is not the only way to address these ethical concerns, but these may be an important part of a broader strategy. What aspects of neurotechnological applications may require a deeper regulatory framework? 🤔 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
