Rethinking “neurorights”

How we should talk about the ethical, legal, and social issues involved in emerging neuroscience

Abstract

　This paper explores the theoretical and practical relevance of “neurorights,” an umbrella term to denote human rights to address the purported threats of emerging neuroscience and neurotechnology.Skeptics claim that “neurorights” is a redundant neologism, nothing more than a natural corollary of the existing human rights. The primary purpose of this paper is to revisit this skepticism and see the relevance of neurorights. First, some worries behind the advocates of neurorights include the apparent effect of deep brain stimulation on one’s personality. Since empirical observations do not always support this kind of potential threat, an overemphasis on this kind of potential threat would lead to unreasonable hype. However, it is invaluable to anticipate the impacts of emerging neurotechnology in a forwardlooking manner, which aligns with responsible research and innovation (RRI). Second, the recent call for neurorights has come into the picture in the context of the rapid emergence of neuroscience and its application worldwide, accompanied by a lacuna of effective regulatory schemes in this field. The notion of neurorights, thanks to its uncontroversial and clichéd nature, can serve as the first stepping stone to achieving any further productive agreement about worldwide governance on emerging neuroscience.