Neurorights: the new frontier of neuronal data protection and individual mental space

What exactly are Neurorights and why is there a need?

Neurorights are a set of proposed legal and ethical protections and rights for aspects such as mental privacy, cognitive liberty (freedom from involuntary manipulation) and the integrity of brain data. They are emerging legal instruments aimed at preventing misuse of neurotechnologies such as BCI (Brain - Computer Interfaces), neuronal digital therapeutics or advanced neuroimaging solutions that can access, interpret, or modulate brain activity and which are becoming more sophisticated and widely spread. As any (new) technology they run the risk of misuse, intended and unintended (we are now talking about dual-use risks of commercialisation) and cyber-attacks and stealing, with nefarious consequences for individual patients, healthcare systems and entire society.

Ancient civilisations (from Confucian China to Vedic India and to classical Greece and Rome) believed that our true life lies in the integrity of our soul – if that inner core is destroyed, all that makes us human is lost. Therefore, we should strive throughout our life to preserve the integrity of our soul and thoughts and such integrity also implies the availability of mental space for inner reflection and privacy, without external scrutiny or unreasonable pressures from the outside world.

But in recent years we are increasingly being faced with personal and data privacy violations, intrusive technologies and illicit clinical experiments that push the ethical boundaries of science, technology and medicine. Therefore academics, lawyers and human rights activists have been calling for the introduction of new brain (and mind) rights - the so-called neurorights.

Early calls for neurorights are often traced to Ienca and Andorno’s 2017 article “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology” published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy Journal proposing four core norms, including rights to cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity .

Civil society actors including the Neurorights Foundation (US based NGO advocacy group) issued a Neuro-Rights declaration of five rights in 2020 to cover rights to personal identity, free will, mental privacy, equal access to mental augmentation, and protection from algorithmic bias.

Internationally, several institutions such as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council and many legal professionals, academics and regulators started having intense debates on the topic.

Policy momentum has really increased since 2021 when Chile moved to enshrine neurorights in constitutional and legislative proposals, prohibiting trafficking or manipulation of neural data and information. Since then other countries in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador), some states in the US and France have had initiatives in this direction, introducing bills, policy proposals and parliamentary debates.

The civil society, artists and human rights activists have increasingly taken a stance on the topic - such as Roel Heremans, a Belgian artist exploring the intersections of art, science, AI ethics, and neurotechnology, often in relation to video game culture and interactive systems. His NeuroRight Arcade 2022 touring project (an interactive installation using arcade-style machines and real-time BCI headsets presenting the five key neurorights) was displayed in many galleries and festivals across several countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Mexico and others.

UNESCO adopts the first normative instrument on the ethics of neurotechnology on November 12th

The Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology was adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference at its 43rd session in November 2025, following an extensive consultation process with Member States for the past two years. This is a legal instrument formulating principles and norms for the international regulation of neurotechnologies, also proposing concrete policy actions to safeguard human dignity and rights, freedom,global justice and solidarity.

According to the UNESCO paper Neurotechnology "refers currently to devices, systems and procedures–encompassing both hardware and software–that directly measure, access, monitor, analyse, predict or modulate the nervous system to understand, influence, restore or anticipate its structure, activity and function." There is a recognition in this document that it includes both medical and non-medical solutions and "tools that measure, infer and influence nervous system activity, as well as mental states, whether through direct interaction with the nervous system (both invasive and non-invasive) or by interfacing it with devices and systems". It notes that "both open-loop (e.g. fixed-parameter brain stimulation) and closed-loop (e.g. state dependent stimulation) systems introduce complex ethical issues because they affect both physical and mental processes and may have delayed effects."

In scope there are also other technologies (not just fMRI and EEG) that collect biometric data and can indirectly inform about neural activity such as eye tracking, typing dynamics, voice and facial recognition and analysis, sleep movement monitoring, blood pressure measurement, microbiome measurement and others.

Key principles are promoted in the Recommendation such as autonomy and freedom of though, protection of direct and indirect neuronal data, transparency and accountability, epistemic justice and more. There are also entire sections dedicated to data policy and security.

The Recommendation is calling for an improved technology assessment process and involvement from all stakeholders (including patients and local community) with a focus on (but not limited to):

• human rights impact assessment

• economic and social impact assessment

• benefit - risk assessment

• privacy impact assessment

• ethical assessment.

Overall governments are called upon to incentivise privacy, cybersecurity standards and a code of ethics by design, including research and product development ethics.

This document represents an important milestone in law, human rights and neuroethics in particular since privacy no longer ends with personal data and protection is (or is meant to) be extended to mental privacy, which in many cultures still represents the core essence of humankind.

Yet many challenges remain

Neurorights can indeed be seen as a bridge that connects humanistic disciplines such as law and ethics with scientific disciplines such as medicine, neuroscience, data science and engineering.

Yet some neuroscientists, ethicists and lawmakers contested the need for new neurorights, considering there are already safeguards in place, enshrined in the “old” human rights and that courts, tribunals and other decision makers will likely struggle when they will need to adjudicate and balance neurorights against other kinds of human rights.

Some consider that neurorights need more specific definitions as they are for the moment quite high-level. Therefore implementation would not be without challenges, determining specific legal remedies for actions that constitute specific neuroright violations will require cooperation from many experts, especially given increasing regulatory complexity at both national and international levels. And there is also the issue that some neurorights conflict with each other.

Despite the difficulties, the need has never been greater. Neurotech market (including both medical and consumer devices and solutions) has seen spectacular growth in recent years, given not only the prevalence of stress and mental health disorders and an aging population, but also raising investments in BCI and cognitive enhancement research and development, which target younger people as well. Elon Musk's Neuralink is a well known case in point (where 30 y.o. Noland Arbaugh, a paralysed US man beame the first patient with a mind reading implant in January 2024, part of a 6 year trial) but the number of Neurotech companies stands at circa 700 in North America and 350 in Europe (these are just estimates as the definitions vary and are constantly changing) and the Neurotech device market is valued at c. USD15 - 17bn in 2025 but expected to reach USD 30bn by 2030.

The demand for neurostimulation therapies is surging as both non-invasive and implantable devices gain FDA and EMA approvals (not to mention the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in China) for conditions such as epilepsy, Alzheimer or Parkinson’ s disease where the technologies have proved so far effective. But there are increasing approvals for milder conditions as well such as depression treatment and stress management for which there are arguably other more traditional but efficient therapies and non-medical solutions that involve fewer risks.

Whilst many devices have real health benefits and can improve patients lives, some products can be dangerous - not just because there is a risk of injury and infections in invasive procedures but also because the technology may need updates or "servicing" or because the developer may go out of business leaving patients unsupported - as it happened with ATI’s Pulsante SPG Microstimulator (for the treatment of cluster headaches), when the company went out of business in 2019 abandoning 700 users with no spare parts.

With non-invasive technology these risks are lower, yet some devices can still influence neuronal activity and thought process or collect personal mental data that can then be processed in ways that the patients are often unaware of. Therefore seeking patient informed consent (and consumer consent - for Neurotech consumer devices), focussing on privacy (including not collecting more data that is actually needed), data protection and providing proper patient education become key and will likely make the difference in the future between unsuccessful and successful Neurotech companies that solve real problems for patients.

The NeuroRight Arcades 2022 Art Project by artist Roel Heremans

Further readings on this:

https://www.unesco.org/en/ethics-neurotech/recommendation

Ienca, M., Andorno, R. - Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology, 2017, Life Sci Soc Policy 13, 5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1

Walter G. Johnson, L. M. Tournas, R. M. Nadler - Implementing Neurorights: Legal and Regulatory Considerations, 2024, Neuroethics 18 (1), DOI:10.1007/s12152-024-09576-z

R. Yuste - Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation, 2023, Nature Protocols 18(10), DOI:10.1038/s41596-023-00873-0

https://www.neurorightsfoundation.org

https://www.roelheremans.com/works/the-neuroright-arcades

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/14/science/mind-captioning-translate-visual-thoughts-intl-scli

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/newsletter-19-neurotechnology-neurorights-new-ethics-luis-ricardo-agjwe/?trackingId=hfKnq%2BaaF3ns00v5%2Fx3B0g%3D%3D

https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/neurotech?srsltid=AfmBOoquW9kUq5RlIC9zgCA_XzA1xXrzFEby8Gn_XpxnWpOk4jlnRRL2

https://www.neurotech.com/charts

https://hospitalhealthcare.com/news/autonomic-technologies-patients-implanted-with-the-pulsantetm-microstimulator/

Omi - a consumer Neurotech device marketed as a wearable device for comprehensive memory assistance and real-time notifications