[论文解读] Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of 'neurorights'

Sjors Ligthart, Marcello Ienca+18 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 13, 2023

Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations被引用 28

一句话总结

一项跨学科分析，阐明心理隐私、心理完整性和认知自由，作为神经权利的最小概念基础，为学术、法律和政策讨论提供指引。

ABSTRACT

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with AI-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty - often framed as 'neurorights' in ethical, legal and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including 'neurorights' into their constitutional legal frameworks and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of 'neurorights' the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or are in conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work here is to provide conceptual, ethical and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal and policy discussions.

研究动机与目标

• 澄清 neurorights 的概念基础（心理隐私、心理完整性、认知自由）。
• 提供一个极简、通用的框架，以对齐伦理、哲学和法律观点。
• 促进关于神经技术治理的学术、法律和政策讨论。

提出的方法

• 对 neurorights 的伦理、法律和哲学文献进行多学科综合。
• 跨学科映射概念，以建立共同的最小理解。
• 识别现有解释中的潜在冲突或模糊之处，并提供澄清性的基础。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 支撑 neurorights 的本质伦理与法律基础是什么？
• RQ2 如何将心理隐私、心理完整性和认知自由定义为最小且可互操作的概念？
• RQ3 将哲学假设与 neurorights 的法律解释相结合时会出现哪些挑战？
• RQ4 共同框架如何促进关于神经技术的政策与治理讨论？

主要发现

• 该工作为学术与政策讨论提供了心理隐私、心理完整性和认知自由的最小、共识性概念理解。
• 它强调哲学、伦理学和法律对 neurorights 的解释往往缺乏明确的一致性，或可能存在冲突。
• 它提供了跨学科映射，以支持制定关于神经技术的法律和政策指导。