Neurorights, Neurotechnologies and Personal Data: Review of the Challenges of Mental Autonomy

Objective: to present the results of a systematic review of research on the impact of neurotechnology on legal concepts and regulatory frameworks, addressing ethical and social issues related to the protection of individual rights, privacy and mental autonomy.

Methods: The systematic literature review was based on the methodology proposed by a renowned British scholar, a professor emerita of computer science at Keele University Barbara Kitchenham, chosen for its flexibility and effectiveness in obtaining results for publication. Thorough searches were carried out with the search terms “neurotechnology”, “personal data”, “mental privacy”, “neuro-rights”, “neurotechnological interventions”, and “neurotechnological discrimination” on both English and Spanish sites, using search engines like Google Scholar and Redib as well as databases including Scielo, Dialnet, Redalyc, Lilacs, Scopus, Medline, and Pubmed. The focus of this research is bibliometric data and its design is non-experimental with a cross-sectional and descriptive, using content analysis based on PRISMA model.

Results: the study emphasizes the need to establish clear ethical principles to protect individual rights and promote responsible use of neurotechnologies; a number of problems of mental autonomy were identified, such as improper handling of information, lack of legal security guarantees, violation of rights and freedoms in the medical sphere. The author shows the need to adapt the existing regulatory legal framework to address the ethical and social problems arising from the new neurotechnologies. It is noted that a broad study of neurotechnology issues will contribute to the protection of human rights.

Scientific novelty: an expanded understanding of the five neurorights within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proposed; neurorights are viewed as a new category of rights aimed at protecting mental integrity against the misuse of neurotechnologies. The author justifies the adoption of such technocratic principles as personal identity, free will, mental privacy, equal access and protection against bias.

Practical significance: the obtained results are relevant for understanding modern legal concepts related to neurorights and for adapting the existing normative legal acts to solve ethical and social problems arising from the emergence of new technologies, protection of human neurorights and liability for their violation. The study of these issues is key for provision of further responsible development and use of neurotechnologies.