GPD responds to consultation on the first draft of UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology 

We welcome the opportunity to respond to a consultation on the first draft of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology.

The consultation aims to collect views from a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of the world’s first normative global framework to address neurotechnology, and is expected to define shared values, principles and concrete policy actions and recommendations for neurotechnology.

This consultation follows previous efforts by UNESCO to address new and emerging forms of technology, such as the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. GPD contributed to this process, which resulted in the first-ever global standard on AI in November 2021, and has since been adopted by all 193 member states. 

The stakes here are just as high. Neurotechnology is a rapidly expanding form of emerging technology, and there is no comprehensive or neurotechnology-specific legal framework. Efforts to address governance are now underway at UNESCO, but this first draft leaves much to be desired and is in need of significant revision in terms of its overall approach, policy areas and terminology.  

Our response focused on a range of key points, including:

• The importance of grounding the document in the international human rights framework, and clearly distinguishing between human rights and ethical considerations. While the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI was also framed as a recommendation on “ethics”, this framework was more clearly grounded in a rights-based approach, and made clear that its aim was the protection of human rights and human dignity, as opposed to simply ethics.
• Pushing back against efforts to develop new rights or “neurorights” as there is no consensus regarding the normative boundaries and terminology of neurorights, nor has there been sufficient evidence to suggest that the existing international human rights framework is not adaptable for such technologies. We cautioned that such efforts could dilute or undermine existing obligations and protections. 
• Providing stronger language on existing recommendations, including the need for safeguards against the misuse of such technologies, particularly for coercive “rehabilitation” of immutable characteristics such as sexual orientation, which is only mentioned once throughout the entire document.
• Advocating for the insertion of a principle on the need for a multistakeholder approach to the use and governance of neurotechnology. 

GPD looks forward to engaging further in this process to advance a rights-respecting approach to neurotechnology, as we have with other forms of emerging tech. By continuing to collaborate with UNESCO and other stakeholders, we aim to ensure that the final framework robustly protects human rights and addresses relevant implications of neurotechnology.