However, it is not only possible, it is already transforming the lives of patients with severe disabilities.
In 2024, an audience at a UN conference in Geneva was amazed when a young man in Portugal with “locked-in syndrome” – a neurological disorder that left him unable to move any part of his body – was able to “speak” to them using a brain-computer interface (BCI) that translated his thoughts into words, spoke with his voice, and answered their questions.
This is a striking example of the growing field of neurotechnology, which offers great hope for those living with disabilities and mental disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and treatment-resistant depression.
Mental privacy: a lost battle?
But while the use of neurotechnology for the medical sector is strictly regulated, its use in other areas raises concerns.
Products such as headbands, watches and headphones that monitor heart rate, sleep patterns and other health indicators are increasingly popular. The data they collect can provide deep insights into our private thoughts, reactions and emotions, improving quality of life.
This raises ethical and human rights challenges, because currently manufacturers are free to sell or transmit it without restrictions. People face the possibility of having their most intimate mental privacy invaded, of having their thoughts exposed, monetized, and even controlled.
“This is about freedom of thought, agency and mental privacy,” says Dafna Feinholz, acting director of Research, Ethics and Inclusion at UNESCO.
He worries that the battle for mental privacy is being lost in the age of social media, in which users voluntarily upload their private lives to platforms owned by a handful of giant tech companies.
“People say ‘I have nothing to hide’, but they don’t understand what they are revealing,” he adds.
Assistive technologies can allow a person to write or move objects in space using their brain waves.
“We are already being profiled by AI, but now there is the possibility of inputting thoughts, directly measuring brain activity and inferring mental states. These technologies could even modify the structure of their nervous system, allowing them to be manipulated. People need to know that these tools are safe and that, if they wish, they can stop using them.”
People need to know that these tools are safe and that they can stop using them if they want.
The UN official insists that while we have to accept that we need to live with technology, we can ensure that humans remain in charge.
“The more we surrender to the power and superiority of these tools, the more they will dominate us. We need to control what they do and what we want them to achieve, because we are the ones who produce them. This is our responsibility for all the technology we create.”
It’s time to take an ethical approach
Mrs. Feinholz spoke with UN News from the ancient Uzbek city of Samarkand, where, on Wednesday, delegates from Member States of UNESCO – the United Nations agency for education, science and culture – formally adopted a “Recommendation” (non-binding guidance on principles and best practices that can form the basis of national policies) on the ethics of neurotechnology, with emphasis on the protection of human dignity, rights and freedoms.
The guide advocates the promotion of well-being and the avoidance of harm associated with technology, freedom of thought (ensuring that people maintain control over their mind and body), and that developers, researchers and users respect ethical standards and are responsible for their actions.
Member States are recommended to implement several measures, including the implementation of legal and ethical frameworks to monitor the use of neurotechnology, protect personal data and assess the impact on human rights and privacy.
“Human beings have to be aware,” says Feinholz. “There needs to be transparency, compensation and compensation, just like in other sectors. Take restaurants for example. If you eat out you don’t have to know how to cook. But if you order spaghetti carbonara and it makes you sick, you can complain to the owner. There is accountability. The same should apply to neurotechnology: even if you don’t understand how it works, there needs to be a chain of accountability.”