Advancements in science and technology are rapidly turning science-fiction concepts, such as mind-reading, into reality. However, these breakthroughs raise ethical concerns, particularly regarding regulating brain-reading techniques to protect human rights, including privacy. In response to these challenges, neuroscientists, ethicists, and government officials they were gathered at a Paris meeting organized by UNESCO, the United Nations’ scientific and cultural agency, on 13th July to discuss the governance of neurotechnology—techniques, and devices that directly interact with the brain to monitor or alter its activity.
Neurotechnology includes a wide range of methods, from neuroimaging techniques capable of decoding people’s thoughts to brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that convert thoughts of handwriting into text. These neurotechnology use electrical or imaging techniques and vary from medically approved devices like brain implants for treating Parkinson’s disease to commercial products such as wearables used in virtual reality (VR) for gathering brain data or enabling users to control software. The study was published in Nature.
Gabriela Ramos, UNESCO’s assistant director-general for social and human sciences, emphasized that the regulation of neurotechnology is not just a technological discussion but a societal and legal one. With the field increasing, UNESCO’s latest report on neurotechnology showed that the number of neurotechnology-related patents filed annually worldwide doubled between 2015 and 2020, with a 22-fold increase in investment over the same period. Neurotechnology has now become a $33-billion industry.
One of the critical areas requiring regulation is the potential use of neurotechnology for profiling individuals and manipulating people’s thoughts and behavior. Mass-market brain-monitoring devices could become a powerful tool for corporate and political actors seeking to exploit personal data for political or commercial gain. Policymakers must establish regulations that protect against potential harm while not stifling research into the benefits of neurotechnology. Medical and consumer products pose distinct challenges in terms of regulation.
Existing regulations for drugs and medical devices generally govern clinical neurotechnology products. For instance, systems monitoring brain activity in people with epilepsy and stimulating their brains to suppress seizures are already in clinical use. Advanced devices like implanted BCIs, enabling paralyzed individuals to control external devices using their thoughts, are currently in trials. However, commercial neurotechnology devices, such as wearable headsets, earbuds, and wristbands recording neural activity, are of more immediate concern to ethicists. Companies are developing these wearable devices for widespread use, granting them access to users’ neural data and raising significant privacy issues.
Rafael Yuste, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, revealed that an unpublished analysis by the Neuro rights Foundation, which he co-founded, found that many companies offering consumer neurotechnology require users to give up ownership of their brain data and reserve the right to share that data with third parties. This lack of regulation has raised concerns among ethicists.
The meeting also highlighted the challenge of protecting human rights considering advancements in recording and manipulating neural activity. Some speakers argued that existing human rights, like the right to privacy, cover these innovations, while others suggested the need for specific changes. The concept of ‘neuro rights’ was discussed, focusing on protecting individuals from third-party access and manipulation of their neural activity.
Marcello Ienca, a philosopher at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, outlined five central neuro rights: the right to mental privacy, protection against personality-changing manipulations, protected free will and decision-making, fair access to mental augmentation, and protection from biases in algorithms central to neurotechnology. These proposed neuro rights aim to inform the debate about brain-reading regulation and safeguard human rights treaties.
Some countries, including Chile, Spain, Slovenia, and Saudi Arabia, have developed regulations in response to these concerns. Chile took a significant step by updating its constitution in 2021 to acknowledge the need for legal oversight of neurotechnology. Carolina Gainza Cortés, Chile’s under-secretary for science and technology, stated that the country is currently working on new legislation to balance preserving human rights with promoting research into the benefits of neurotechnology.
Moving forward, UNESCO member states will vote in November on whether to produce global guidelines for neurotechnology, like the guidelines being finalized for artificial intelligence. The hope is that concrete and legally binding frameworks can be established to address the ethical challenges posed by neurotechnology. While the field of neurotechnology is rapidly evolving, there is still time to implement necessary regulations and protect the rights and privacy of individuals before these technologies become ubiquitous across society.
