NeuroRights: Do We Really Need Them?

Abstract

.

The article explores the ongoing debate regarding the necessity of establishing "NeuroRights" in response to advances in neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Proponents argue that new human rights are needed to protect individuals from potential misuse of these technologies, similar to how new rights emerged to address digitalization and internet-related challenges. An example is the NeuroRights Initiative led by Rafael Yuste at Columbia University. However, critics believe that existing legal frameworks already protect essential values such as privacy, dignity, mental and physical integrity, and liberty, making new rights redundant. A European Parliament report from July 2024 reflects this skepticism, warning against rights inflation and emphasizing effective enforcement of existing rights over the creation of new ones. A moderate stance advocates for selective, well-justified new rights only when existing guarantees prove insufficient, similar to the evolution of data protection law with rights like the "right to be forgotten." The article concludes that caution and rigorous evaluation should guide legal innovation, avoiding unnecessary duplication that could dilute fundamental rights. Rather than creating an extensive catalogue of new NeuroRights, legal systems should adapt current rights to address emerging technological risks.