Neurorights as an instrument for protecting individuals against advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology: When more can be worse

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.123.2025.45466

Keywords:

Fundamental rights, neuro-rights, living constitution, neuroscience, neurotechnology, freedom of thought, cognitive liberty, informed consent

Abstract

The immense development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies represents a hope for improving the lives and health of individuals. Accessing the brain can allow us to understand, for example, how certain neurological diseases develop, which currently have no curative treatment. Additionally, neurotechnologies can help repair or mitigate the physical and/ or psychological consequences of many diseases and disabilities. However, alongside these potential advantages, new risks to rights and freedoms arise, especially for one of the classical freedoms that, by its very nature, has been proclaimed since ancient times in constitutional texts but has been free from risk: freedom of thought. These risks, therefore, require a legal response, and within the framework of this debate, the proclamation of a kind of new rights linked to neuroscience and neurotechnology, which has been known for some years as neuro-rights, has been proposed as a preferred option. In this paper, we will essentially address whether the main way to address these risks should be through the creation of new rights. Despite its suggestive name, do we really need them?

1. INTRODUCTION: NEUROSCIENCE AND NEUROTECHNOLOGY; 2. THE SHADOWS OF NEUROTECHNOLOGY; 3. LAW FOR NEUROSCIENCES AND NEUROSCIENCE OF LAW; 4. NEUROSCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT AND FREEDOM OF THOUGHT; 5. DO WE NEED NEURORIGHTS?; 6. DO NEURORIGHTS PROTECT HUMAN DIGNITY?

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AMOEDO SOUTO, C. A., “El Derecho administrativo español ante las neurociencias y el neuroderecho: desarrollos y perspectivas”, Ius et Scientia, vol. 4, n.º 1, 2018.

ANGRISANI, L., ARPAIA, P. y CASINELLI, D., “Instrumentation and measurements for non-invasive EEG-based brain-computer interface”, 2017 IEEE International Workshop on Measurement and Networking (M&N), Naples, Italy, 2017.

ARAYA-PIZARRO, S. y ESPINOZA PASTÉN, L., “Aportes desde las neurociencias para la comprensión de los procesos de aprendizaje en los contextos educativos”, Propósitos y Representaciones, 8 (1) 2020.

BAYLIS, F., “I am who i am": On the perceived threats to personal identity from deep brain stimulation”, Neuroethics, vol. 6, núm. 3, año 2013.

BUBLITZ, J-C., “My Mind is Mine!? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept”, en HILDT, E. y FRANCKE, A. (eds.), Cognitive Enhancement. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013.

DATA-FRANCO, J. y BERCK, M., “The nocebo effect: A clinicians guide”, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 7, núm. 6, año 2012.

DE ASÍS, R., “Sobre la propuesta de los neuroderechos”, Derechos y Libertades, núm. 47, época II, junio 2022.

DE MONTALVO JAASKELAINEN, F., “We can read your mind. Freedom of thought and Law in the age of neurotechnology”, en PUYOL MONTERO, J.M. (coord.), Human dignity and law. Studies on the dignity of human life, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2021.

FEITO GRANDE, L., Neuroética, Dilemata, Madrid, 2019.

FINS, J. J., “The unintended consequences of Chile's neurorights constitutional reform: moving beyond negative rights to capabilities”, Neuroethics, vol. 15, núm. 3, año, 2022.

FOUCAULT, M., Nacimiento de la biopolítica, Akal, Madrid, 2016.

HÄUSER, W., HANSEN, E. y ENCK, P. “Nocebo phenomena in medicine: their relevance in everyday clinical practice”, Dtsch Arztebl Int, vol. 109, núm. 26, año 2012.

HERRÁN ORTIZ, A. I., “A vueltas con los neuroderechos: ¿es tiempo de configurar nuevos derechos constitucionales en españa?”, Revista General de Derecho Constitucional, núm. 38, año 2023.

IENCA, M. y ANDORNO, R., “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology”, Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 13, n.º 5, 2017.

KORNHUBER, H. H. y DEECKE, L., “Changes in brain potentials with willful and passive movements in humans: The readiness potential and reafferent potentials”, Pflugers Arch, 284, 1965.

LIBET, B. et al, “Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act”, Brain, 106, 1983.

LUPTON, D., The quantified self, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2016.

MIHARA, M. y MIYAI, I., “Review of functional near-infrared spectroscopy in neurorehabilitation”, Neurophotonics, vol. 3, núm. 3, año 2016.

MILL, J. S., On the Liberty, Batoche Books, Ontario, 2001.

MORENTE PARRA, V., “La inteligencia híbrida: ¿hacia el reconocimiento y garantía de los neuroderechos?”, en LLANO ALONSO, F. H. y GARRIDO MARTÍN, J. (Coord.), La inteligencia artificial y Derecho. El jurista ante los retos de la era digital, Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, 2021.

PRAINSACK, B., “The political economy of digital data: introduction to the special issue”, Policy Studies, vol. 41, núm. 5, año 2020.

RAWLS, J., A theory of justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971.

RECHE TELLO, N., Mens iura fundamentalia: la neurotecnología ante la Constitución, Colex, A Coruña, 2024.

REGUERA ANDRÉS, N. C. y CAYÓN DE LAS CUEVAS, J., “La garantía de los neuroderechos: a propósito de las iniciativas emprendidas para su reconocimiento”, Derecho y Salud, vol. 31, extraordinario, año 2021.

ROBERTS, R., “Neurotecnologías: los desafíos de conectar el cerebro humano y computadores”, Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, Asesoría Técnica Parlamentaria, Documento Frontera 1, 2019.

ROSKIES, A. L., “Neuroethics for a new millennium”, Neuron, Vol. 35, July 23, 2002.

ROTTER, S., “Neurotechnology: Current Developments and Ethical Issues”, Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 11, 93. 2017.

ROYO-BORDONADA, M.A. y ROMÁN-MAESTRE, B., “Towards public health ethics”, Public Health Reviews, vol. 36, núm. 3, año 2015.

RUBIA, F., “¿Es la libertad una ilusión?”, en LÓPEZ FRÍAS, F. J. et al (eds.), Bioética, neuroética, libertad y justicia, Comares, Granada, 2013.

SCHURGER, A., SITT, J. D. y DEHAENE, S., “An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences-PNAS, October 16, 2012, 109 (42).

SHIH, J. J. et al, “Brain-Computer Interfaces in Medicine”, Mayo Clin Proc, 2012 Mar; 87(3).

SOMAGGIO, P., “Neuroscience, Neurolaw, and Neurorights”, en LÓPEZ SILVA, P. y VARELA, L. (Edits), Protecting the mind, Springer, Amsterdam, 2022.

SOMMAGGIO, P. et al, “Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration”, BioLaw Journal-Rivista di BioDiritto, n.º 3, 2017.

VALCKE, P., CLIFFORD, D. y DESSERS, V. K., “Constitutional challenges in the emotional AI era”, en MICKLITZ, H. W. et al, Constitutional challenges in the algorithmic society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021.

YADAV, D., YADAV, S. y VEER, K., “A comprehensive assessment of Brain Computer Interfaces: Recent trends and challenges” Journal of Neuroscience Methods, vol. 346, año 2020.

YUAN, B. J., HSIEH, C. H. y CHANG, C. C., “National technology foresight research: a literature review from 1984 to 2005”, Int J Foresight Innov Policy, vol. 6, n.º 1, 2010.

YUSTE, R. y GOERINS, S., “Four ethical priorities for neurothecnologies and AI”, Nature, 9 November 2017, vol. 551.

Published

2025-06-16

How to Cite

De Montalvo J䨨askeläinen, F. (2025). Neurorights as an instrument for protecting individuals against advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology: When more can be worse . Revista de Derecho Político, (123), 41–82. https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.123.2025.45466

Issue

Section

ESTUDIOS/STUDIES

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.