Hello everyone! Today’s thread is a teaser for tomorrow’s Webinar. Samir Das, Stephen Rainey ( @krummemholze), Fruszina Molnár-Gábor and Philipp Kellmeyer ( @neuroastics) will discuss different aspects of #braindata governance and #neurorights. 1/24

Free Registration to attend:  https://www.bigmarker.com/neuroethics-society/governance-neurorights 2/24

As yesterday I introduced some ideas regarding why neurorights initiatives may be important, I would like to share today some information about how these initiatives are unfolding around the world and the specific challenges that this development raises. 3/24

The Morningside Group proposal described yesterday deeply shaped the iberoamerican approach to neurotechnology regulations. For instance, the pioneer legislation of the Chilean Senate “Challenges of the Future” Commission is directly inspired by this framework. 4/24

This proposal was developed by the Commission during 2020 and consists of a constitutional reform bill - Bulletin 13.827-19 - and a bill on neuro-protection - Bulletin 13.828-19). 5/24

After some modifications (requested by the Senate during December 2020), a few days ago the Commission approved the final version of the constitutional reform bill, which amends Article 19.1 of the Chilean Constitution. 6/24

The constitutional reform bill affirms that "Scientific and technological development […] shall tend to safeguard brain activity, as well as the information derived from it". Just yesterday the Senate unanimously approved this text and sent it to the Chamber of Deputies  7/24

In turn, Article 24 of the Spanish Charter of Digital Rights, recently announced by the Secretary of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence of the Government of Spain, is a second pioneering effort in the articulation neurorights 8/24

It is interesting that this proposal, also inspired by the Morningside framework, is presented as a part of (and is integrated with) AI regulation, rather than being an independent initiative. 9/24

As a next step, Rafael Yuste and international law attorney Jared Genser have taken this proposal to the United Nations. 10/24

They propose that UN Secretary General António Guterres and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet create an International Commission constituted by experts in law, neuroscience and neuroethics. 11/24

This Commission is supposed to develop an international consensus definition of neurorights. Crucially, Yuste and Genser suggest that the Commission should accomplish this goal by holding regular consultations with different countries. 12/24

These should be countries that have advanced neurotechnology research programs and countries that already have neuroprotection regulations, such as Chile and Spain.  13/24

Why may this be important for Chile and Spain? While their legislative proposals ensure that neurotechnological developments have a positive social impact, it is critical for their scientific and economic development achieving international consensus on neurorights. 14/24

As @AndreaLavazza pointed out in a recent Workshop, aligning these proposals with international legislation may be necessary for these countries not to be at a strategic disadvantage with respect to others (with fewer restrictions) in terms of potential private investors. 15/24

This is particularly relevant given that neurotechnology development is increasingly taking place in industry. For instance, Rafael Yuste pointed out that in the United States the private sector is largely outpacing federal neurotechnology funding. 16/24

In 2020 alone and only in the US, whereas there is an estimated federal funding of 560 million dollars, neurotechnology companies have invested approximately 3 billion. In turn, the global neurotechnology market is expected to reach $13.3 billion by 2022. 17/24

Reaching a consensus definition of neurorights is a complex task that requires addressing legal, neuroscientific and philosophical issues, and developing a coherent vision that integrates not only discipline-specific concerns, but also (and primarily) cultural differences. 18/24

In this sense, it is crucial that the neurorights in the Chilean and Spanish legislation are based on human rights that resulted from previous international agreements, articulated by different treaties. 19/24

However, these previous agreements may not be sufficient, as there are many different ways of framing specific neurorights, which may be inconsistent with each other. 20/24

For instance, regarding mental privacy, Article 7 of the Chilean neuroprotection bill requires treating neural data as a body organ (i.e., opting out of sharing neural data is the default choice, and we can only consent to its donation, not to its commercialization). 21/24

As @MarcelloIenca pointed out, this approach could be seen by other countries as too restrictive, perhaps being in conflict with other prioritized neurorights, such as cognitive liberty.  22/24

Thus, the possibility of reaching international consensus requires to explore how (or whether!) different approaches to neurorights may conceptually overlap. 23/24

If you are interested in these and other related issues, don't miss the INS Brain Data Governance and Neurorights webinar tomorrow,
Fri Apr 23 at 12:00 PM EDT | Eastern Time (US & Canada) 24/24