علوم اعصاب و فناوری‌های عصبی در ترازوی حقوق بشر

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه حقوق، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران‏

چکیده

پیشرفت سریع در علوم اعصاب و فناوری‌های عصبی، ابزارها و تکنیک‌های جدیدی را برای نظارت، کنترل، رمزگشایی، به‌اشتراک‌گذاری و حتی دست‌کاری اطلاعات مغز انسان فراهم کرده است. توسعۀ فناوری‌های عصبی و رشد استفاده از آن، پیامدهای اخلاقی و حقوقی را به جهت سوءاستفاده از این فناوری ایجاد می‌نماید. سؤال اصلی آن است که آیا قوانین موجود در حوزۀ حقوق بشر در مواجهه با این فناوری، قادر به حفاظت کافی و مؤثر از انسان‌ها خواهند بود؟ برخی محققان معتقدند قوانین موجود برای حفاظت از بشر در رویارویی با فناوری عصبی کافی است، ولی باید دامنۀ این حقوق را به مسائل ناشی از فناوری عصبی تسری داد؛ در مقابل، عده‌ای بر این باورند که قوانین موجود برای محافظت بشر از این مداخلات، کافی نیست و باید حقوق جدیدی به حقوق موجود اضافه شود. نگارنده در پژوهش حاضر با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و با بررسی قوانین بین‌المللی و منطقه‌ای حقوق بشر به این نتیجه رسیده است که هیچ قانونی به‌صراحت از مغز و ذهن انسان به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین و خصوصی‌ترین بخش بدن انسان حفاظت نمی‌کند؛ لذا با تبعیت از نظر پژوهشگران اخیر به معرفی حقوق جدید بشر مشتمل بر حق حریم خصوصی ذهنی، حق آزادی شناختی، حق تمامیت ذهنی و حق پیوستگی روان‌شناختی می‌پردازد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Neurosciences and neurotechnologies in the scale of human rights

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohsen Vaseghi
Department of Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran‎
چکیده [English]

Rapid progress in neuroscience and neurotechnology has provided new tools and techniques for monitoring, controlling, decoding, sharing and even manipulating the information of the human brain. The development of neural technologies and the growth of its use creates moral and legal consequences for the misuse of this technology.The main question is whether the existing laws in the field of human rights have sufficient and effective protection of humans in the face of this technology? Some researchers believe that the existing laws are sufficient to protect humans in the face of neurotechnology, but the scope of these rights should be extended to issues arising from neurotechnology. New rights should be added to the existing rights. The present research has come to the conclusion with a descriptive and analytical method, by examining international and regional human rights laws, that no law explicitly protects the human brain and mind as the most important and private part of the human body. The new human being includes the right to mental privacy, the right to cognitive freedom, the right to mental integrity, and the right to psychological continuity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • human rights
  • ‎ neurorights
  • Neuroscience
  • ‎neural technology.‎

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. ابطحی، فاطمه؛ کوشا، ابوطالب؛ منتظرقائم، مهدی و میرشکاری، عباس (1401). «حریم خصوصی در اماکن عمومی با تکیه بر حق تصویربرداری». مجلۀ مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 13(1)، 3.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Abtahi, F.; koosha, A.; Montazrghaem,M.& Mirshekari, A. (2022). “Privacy in public places Based on the right to taking photos”, Comparative Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1: 1-22. (In Persian).
    2. Andrew, David Maynard (2019). “The Ethical and Responsible Development and Application of Advanced Brain Machine Interfaces”, journal of medical, 21, No 10 :1-16.
    3. Alegre, Susie (2017). “Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century” , H.R.L.R., Issue 3 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited and Contributors.
    4. Andorno, Roberto & Ienca, Marcello (2017). “Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology, Life Sciences”, Society and Policy , Vol. 13, No. 5: 1-13.
    5. Aloia, Antonio & Chiara Errigo, Maria (2020). Neuroscience and Law , Springer.
    6. Alston, P. (1984). “Conjuring Up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 78, No. 3: 607-621.
    7. Bublitz, Jan Christoph (2022). “Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance” , Neuroethics, 15, No. 5: 1-11.
    8. Bublitz, Christoph (2014). “Freedom of Thought in the Age of Neuroscience”, January . Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 100 (1), 1-25.
    9. Bublitz, Jan-Christoph (2013). “My Mind Is Mine!? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept”, Elisabeth Hildt & Andreas Francke (eds.), Cognitive Enhancement. Springer 2013, Chapter 19: 233-264.
    10. Bublitz, Jan-Christoph (2020). The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-Determination, The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights, Cambridge University Press.
    11. BechtelL, William, Huang ,inus Ta-Lun (2022). Philosophy of Neuroscience, Cambridge University Press, First published.
    12. Farah, M. J.; Illes, J.; Cook-Deegan, R.; Gardner, H.; Kandel, E.; King, P.& Wolpe, P. R. (2004). “Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(5), 421-425.
    13. Farahany, Nita A (2019). “The Costs of Changing Our Minds, Emory Law” KAW Journal, Vol. 69, Issue 1: 75-110.
    14. Fink, Andreas, and Benedek, Mathias (2019). “The Neuroscience of Creativity”, Neuroforum ; aop,de gruyter.
    15. Hertz, nora (2023). “Neurorights –Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought” , Neuroethics 16)5(, 153-178.
    16. Harrison dinniss & heather a. (2018). Legal Aspects of Human Enhancement Technologies, New Technologies and the Law in War and Peace, Published online by Cambridge University Press.
    17. Ienca, Marcello& Joseph J. Fins (2022). “Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data” , Neuroethics, Vol. 15, Article No. 201-9.
    18. Ienca, Marcello (2021). “On Neurorights” , Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2021 , Vol. 15, Article 701258: 1-6.
    19. Ienca, Marcello (2018). “The Right to Cognitive Liberty” , forum commentary on science in the news from the experts.Vol. 2: 1-8.
    20. Kandemir,Ahmet Levent; Litvak ,Vladimir Esther Florin (2020). “The comparative performance of DBS artefact rejection methods for MEG recordings”, Neuroimage.2020 Oct 1, 1, No. 219: 1-9.
    21. Kreitmair, KarolaV. (2022). “Dimensions of Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Neurotechnologies”, AJOB Neuroscience, , 10)4), 152-166.
    22. Ligthart, Sjors& Ienca, Marcello et al (2023). “Minding rights: Mapping eth ical and legal foundations of ‘neurorights’ ”, Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
    23. Liv, Nadine (2021). “Neurolaw: Brain-Computer Interfaces” , University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15, Issue 1 Neuroscience and the Law, 328-354.
    24. Lobban, Kendra (2022). “The Anomaly That Is Privacy: Data Privacy Concerns Related to the Rise of Microchip Implants in Humans”, Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology, 30, Issue 2, Spring 2022: 65-90.
    25. Ligthart, Sjors (2022). Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice: An Analysis of European Human Rights Law, September 2022, Cambridge University Press.
    26. Ligthart, Sjors (2023). “Mental Privacy as Part of the Human Right to Freedom of Thought?: Cognitive Liberty and Privacy” The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Though,Vol. 2: 1-9
    27. Lavazza, Andrea (2018). “Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis ” , Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018 | Vol. 12, | Article 82.
    28. McCarthy-Jones, Simon (2019). “The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in theTwenty-First Century” , Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, September | Vol. 2 | Article 19.
    29. Michalowski, Sabine (2020). Critical Reflections on the Need for a Right to Mental Self-Determination, The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, 404-415.
    30. Manuel, Henrique & martins, gil (2022). “the upper limit: an essay on mental integrity and mental enhancement”, medicine, law & society, Vol. 15, No. 2: 217–240.
    31. Oleksii M. Skriabin, Dmytro B. Sanakoiev(2021). “Neurotechnologies in the advertising industry: Legal and ethical aspects”, "Innovative Marketing" LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”, . Innovative Marketing, Vol. 17, Issue 2: 1-11.
    32. Pham U; Solbakk A-K; Skogseid I-M; Toft M, Pripp AH; Konglund AE & Dietrichs E. (2015). “Personality changes after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease”. Parkinson’s Disease. Neurosurg, 1: 1-7.
    33. Pycroft L; Boccard Sg ;Owen Slf, Stein JF; Fitzgerald JJ; Green AL& Aziz TZ. (2016). “Brainjacking: Implant Security Issues in Invasive Neuromodulation”. World Neurosurg. 92: 454–62.
    34. Rainey, Stephen (2023). “Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges” , Published online: 13 January.
    35. Recommendation of the Council on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology, OECD Legal Instrumentsm OECD 2022.
    36. report common human rights challenges raised by different applications of neurotechnologies in the biomedical field.
    37. Roelfsema, Pieter R.& Damiaan Denys, P.(2018). “Christiaan Klink Mind Reading and Writing: The Future of Neurotechnology” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, July 2018 ,Vol. 22, No. 7: 598-610.
    38. Ren, Fang (2019). “Influence Of Cognitive Neuroscience On Contemporary Philosophy Of Science”, Translational Neuroscience, No. 10: 37-43.
    39. Roskies A. (2022). “Neuroethics for the new millennium”. Neuron. 2002, 35, No. 2: 1-10.
    40. Slaby, Jan& Choudhury, Suparna (2018). Proposal for a Critical Neuroscience, The Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society, 341–370.
    41. Sumner, Philip J.; Bell, Imogen H. & Rossell, Susan L. (2018). “A Systematic Review of the Structural Neuroimaging Correlates of Thought Disorder, Neurosci” Biobehav Rev. 2018 Jan, No. 84: 299-315.
    42. Sententia, Wrye (2013). “Freedom by Design Transhumanist Values and Cognitive Liberty”, Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future.
    43. Shuster Arthur & Cappelletti, Adriana (2015). “Cognitive liberty Protecting the right to neuroenhancement”, ethics & law, UWOMJ, 84, No. 2: 1-9.
    44. Safire, W. (2002). “Visions for a new field of "neuroethics"” Paper presented at the Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proceedings, May 13-14, 2002, San Francisco, California.
    45. Shen, F. X. (2013). “Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law”. JL & Pub. Pol'y, No. 36: 653.
    46. Shen, F. X. (2016). “The overlooked history of neurolaw”. Fordham L. Rev, 85, No. 2: 667-680.
    47. Sommaggio, Paolo & Mazzocca, Marco (2020). “Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights”, Neuroscience and Law, Springer.
    48. Solarczyk Krausová ,Alžběta (2021). “Legal aspects of brain-computer interfaces” , Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2: 200-209.
    49. Smith, Charles (2008). Human Microchip Implantation, J.Te Manag. Innov. 2008, Vol. 3, Issue 3: 151-160.
    50. Von ,Arnauld Andreas & Theilen, Jens T. (2020). Rhetoric of Rights A Topical Perspective on the Functions of Claiming a ‘Human Right , The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rightsm, Cambridge University Press, 35-50.
    51. Walter G. Johnson, Catching Up with Convergence: Strategies for Bringing Together the Fragmented Regulatory Governance of Brain-Machine Interfaces in the United States, Annals of Health Law and Life Sciences, 30, Issue 1 Winter 2021: 177-206.
    52. Xue ,Gui; Chen, Chuansheng; LU, Zhong-Lin & Dong Qi (2010). “Brain Imaging Techniques and Their Applications in Decision-Making Research”, Xin Li Xue Bao. 2010 Feb 3; 42(1), 120–137.
    53. Yuste, Rafael;Genser, Jared, & Herrmann, Stephanie (2021). “It's Time for Neuro-Rights, New Human Rights for the Age of Neurotechnology” Horizons, 41, No. 4: 1-8.
    54. Zeng, Wanting (2022). “Ethical Issues of Human Chip Implantation Technology” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Vol. 638: 894-899.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 14، شماره 2
پاییز و زمستان 1402
دی 1402
صفحه 1069-1088

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار