Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance

Abstract

This paper analyses recent calls for so called “neurorights”, suggested novel human rights whose adoption is allegedly required because of advances in neuroscience, exemplified by a proposal of the Neurorights Initiative. Advances in neuroscience and technology are indeed impressive and pose a range of challenges for the law, and some novel applications give grounds for human rights concerns. But whether addressing these concerns requires adopting novel human rights, and whether the proposed neurorights are suitable candidates, are a different matter. This paper argues that the proposed rights, as individuals and a class, should not be adopted and lobbying on their behalf should stop. The proposal tends to promote rights inflationism, is tainted by neuroexceptionalism and neuroessentialism, and lacks grounding in relevant scholarship. None of the proposed individual rights passes quality criteria debated in the field. While understandable from a moral perspective, the proposal is fundamentally flawed from a legal perspective. Rather than conjuring up novel human rights, existing rights should be further developed in face of changing societal circumstances and technological possibilities.

The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance

“…Questions as to whether national governments should hold exclusive rights to the processing of brain data is also another dimension to answering the questions posed by adopting neurorights. The underrepresentation of neurorights might be problematic considering recent evidence that some countries like Chile have enacted a neurorights law [ 117 , 118 ]. With the emergence of data protection regulations around the world (such as GDPR, PIPEDA and HIPAA), the rights of data subjects have become more pronounced in theory and in practice [ 119 , 120 ] however, there still remains a dearth of literature on neuro (data) rights.…”

Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges

“…It has been argued elsewhere that brain data ought to be as protected as sensitive medical data is protected, regardless of the purpose for which they are collected [34,35]. Where 'neurorights' are conceived of as an umbrella term for specific legal protections afforded to brain data, this would serve to foreclose on the worst excesses of data-vampiric technology companies.…”

Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection: The imperative limits to criminal law

“…However, what is not so clear is whether neurorights are the best alternative. Bublitz (2022) has criticized the inflation of rights and their resulting devaluation. This author affirms that there has not been a real academic debate, nor has it been explained why the current rights are insufficient.…”