Neuro-rights are the next evolution of the legal protection of the individual. An interdisciplinary approach is needed

"The acceleration ofneuroscience is opening up a new frontier in the relationship between humans and technology.

Devices capable of recording or modulating brain activity originated for therapeutic purposes, such as motor recovery after a stroke or the treatment of neurological diseases. But the evolution of these tools makes the possibility of accessing cognitive processes and influencing them a reality. This gives rise to a question that is destined to become central: how to protect the mind in the age of neurotechnology? The international debate has introduced the concept of neurorights: principles and guarantees aimed at protecting the mental integrity of the individual.

The neurorights

Among the most discussed are the protection of mental privacy, the right to personal identity, the preservation of free will, non-discrimination based on brain data and equal access to cognitive enhancement technologies. The idea stems from the insight that neural data possess a qualitatively different nature compared to other personal information. While digital data describe behaviour or preferences, neuronal data reveal emotions, intentions and decision-making processes. The mind thus becomes a new space of legal vulnerability. Not surprisingly, some legal systems have started to question specific means of protection: Chile was the first country to introduce an explicit reference to the protection of brain activity in its constitution.

However, the issue is not only normative. On a philosophical level, neuro-law questions fundamental categories of modern law. If technology can directly intervene in cognitive processes, the distinction between inner freedom and outer control becomes more uncertain, with the risk of a control of personality.

At stake is not only privacy, but autonomy and the possibility of self-determination. The implications are also economic. Neurotechnology could enter work environments to monitor attention and fatigue or to improve cognitive skills. While this could increase productivity and safety, it also opens up questions about new forms of surveillance and inequalities between 'empowered' and 'non-empowered' workers.

Individual responsibility

Neurolaw also challenges a principle that modern law has always taken for granted: individual responsibility. If it is technically possible to intervene in the cognitive processes that precede a decision, who is responsible for that decision? The question will become a procedural one when the defence invokes the interference of a neural device as the exclusionary cause of guilt. Theregulatory answer requires an interdisciplinary approach: law, neurosciences, ethics, economics, and cannot chase innovation after years, as happened with big data and artificial intelligence.

The window for preventive intervention is open, but it is closing. Neuro-rights represent the next evolution of the legal protection of the person. The difference is that here the protected object is not an external datum, but the person in its most intimate dimension. Those who arrive late will have handed over their cognitive architecture to the market. The challenge will be to construct a regulatory framework capable of accompanying innovation without sacrificing what most profoundly defines the human experience: the freedom of the mind." link