Abstract
In this paper we explore the emerging field of neurorights, which has gained significance due to the advancements in neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence. The once-fictional notion of mind invasion or manipulation by technological devices has now become a pressing concern, necessitating further study and legal regulation. Neurorights encompass a range of rights associated with the interface between neuroscience and law, including brain-machine interfaces, wearable and implantable devices, and advanced algorithms. This article seeks to define and classify neurorights, providing a systematic framework for their study. It also delves into the complex concept of human dignity, examining how neurorights relate to this fundamental principle. The paper begins by tracing the evolution of neurorights studies and classifications, highlighting the global research movement in this area. It then explores existing and proposed regulations concerning neurorights, with a specific focus on the innovative Charter of Digital Rights being developed in Spain. The authors argue that human dignity serves as the foundational principle for neurorights, emphasizing its importance in shaping the discourse and implementation of these rights. Although this article presents an introductory approach to the topic, it contributes to the ongoing discussion on neurorights. By addressing the need for further research and regulation, this paper aims to raise awareness and foster a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by the intersection of neuroscience and law.
References
Arendt, Florian, Sebastian Scherr, and Daniel Romer. Effects of exposure to self-harm on social media: Evidence from a two-wave panel study among young adults. New Media & Society, v. 21, n. 11-12, p. 2422-2442, 2019.
Bandura, Albert. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological science, v. 1, n. 2, p. 164-180, 2006.
Brazil. Federal Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus No. 204422/DF. Rapporteur: Justice Roberto Barroso. Judgment: July 13, 2021. Deciding Body: Full Court. Available at: https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/pages/search/despacho1220267/false. Accessed on August 10, 2021.
Bublitz, Jan Christoph, and Reinhard Merkel. Autonomy and authenticity of enhanced personality traits. Bioethics, v. 23, n. 6, p. 360-374, 2009
Bublitz, Jan Christoph, and Reinhard Merkel. Crimes against minds: on mental manipulations, harms, and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy, v. 8, n. 1, p. 51-77, 2014.
Büchi, Moritz et al. The chilling effects of algorithmic profiling: Mapping the issues. Computer law & security review, v. 36, p. 105367, 2020.
Europe. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: Declaration on the manipulative capabilities of algorithmic processes. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13.2.2019 at the 1337th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies). Available at https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=090000168092dd4b
Farahany, Nita A. Incriminating thoughts. Stan. L. Rev., v. 64, p. 351, 2012.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. "The law and neuroscience." Neuron 60, no. 3 (2008): 412-415.
Hertz, Nora. Neurorights–Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought. Neuroethics, v. 16, n. 1, p. 5, 2023.
Ienca, Marcello, and Roberto Andorno. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life sciences, society and policy, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-27, 2017.
Ienca, Marcello. On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, v. 15, p. 701258, 2021.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology”, 11 December 2019: https://www.oecd.org/science/recommendation-on-responsible-innovation-in-neurotechnology.htm
Rosen, Jeffrey. The Brain on the Stand, N.Y. Times Magazine. (Mar. 11, 2007) Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html
Schermer, Bart. Risks of profiling and the limits of data protection law. In: Discrimination and privacy in the information society. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. p. 137-152.
Shen, Francis X. Law, and neuroscience 2.0. Ariz. St. LJ, v. 48, p. 1043, 2016.
Shiner, Bethany, and Patrick O'Callaghan. The right to freedom of thought in the European Convention of Human Rights. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 2021.
Sunstein, Cass, and Richard Thaler. Nudge: O Empurrão Para a Escolha Certa (translated by Marcello Lino). Elsevier Brasil, 2008.
Susser, Daniel, Beate Roessler, and Helen Nissenbaum. Online Manipulation: Hidden Influences in a Digital World (December 23, 2018). 4 Georgetown Law Technology Review 1 (2019), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3306006
Wachter, Sandra, and Brent Mittelstadt. A right to reasonable inferences: re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Colum. Bus. L. Rev., p. 494, 2019.
Yuste, Rafael, Jared Genser, Jared, and Stephanie Herrmann. It's Time for Neuro-Rights. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, n. 18, p. 154-165, 2021.
Yuste, Rafael, Sara Goering et. al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, Londres, 8 nov 2017.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Edgar Gastón Jacobs Flores Filho, Marina Castro Firmo