Peace of mind: New report explores neurotechnology and human rights – Australian Human Rights Commission

Report on Neurotechnology, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Overview

A report issued by the Australian Human Rights Commission, titled “Peace of Mind: Navigating the Ethical Frontiers of Neurotechnology and Human Rights,” provides a comprehensive framework for aligning neurotechnological advancements with fundamental human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This analysis, the first of its kind by a National Human Rights Institution, examines the potential impacts of neurotechnology on rights such as privacy, freedom of thought, and expression. It directly addresses the need for strong institutions and justice (SDG 16) by ensuring that technological innovation promotes well-being and equality. The report further evaluates how these impacts may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including children and individuals with disabilities, thereby highlighting the imperative to reduce inequalities (SDG 10).

Project Background and Stakeholder Engagement

The Commission initiated a two-year project in 2023 focused on the intersection of neurotechnology and human rights. This initiative underscores a commitment to multi-stakeholder partnerships (SDG 17) and inclusive policymaking. Key project milestones include:

• Publication of the “Protecting Cognition: Background Paper on Neurotechnology and Human Rights” in March 2024.
• A collaborative symposium, “Neurotechnology and Human Rights: Opportunities, Challenges and the Pathway Forward,” hosted with the University of Melbourne Law School in mid-2024.
• Extensive consultations with over 100 stakeholders through roundtables, interviews, and feedback sessions, ensuring that policy development is participatory, inclusive, and responsive, in line with the principles of SDG 16.

Key Findings and Recommendations for Sustainable and Equitable Neurotechnology Governance

Upholding Human Dignity and Reducing Inequalities (SDG 10, SDG 16)

To ensure that neurotechnology contributes positively to societal development, the report recommends embedding human rights principles at every stage of the technology lifecycle. This approach supports the creation of just, peaceful, and inclusive societies.

1. Human Rights by Design: This principle calls for the integration of human rights protections into the design, development, and deployment of neurotechnology, mirroring the ‘safety by design’ approach and contributing to responsible innovation (SDG 9).
2. Privacy and Consent: Urgent reform of privacy legislation is recommended to explicitly protect neural data. This measure is critical for building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (SDG 16) by guaranteeing meaningful and informed user consent.
3. Freedom of Thought and Expression: The report mandates that neurotechnology must not be used for coercion or manipulation. It recommends a prohibition on neuromarketing for political and consumer purposes, particularly targeting children, to protect fundamental freedoms as outlined in SDG 16.10.

Promoting Decent Work and Consumer Protection (SDG 3, SDG 8)

The Commission addresses the economic and health implications of neurotechnology, advocating for regulations that protect individuals in both workplace and consumer contexts.

• Workplace Protections: A ban on workplace neurotechnology is recommended, with exceptions only for addressing critical health and safety risks in high-risk industries. This aligns with promoting safe and secure working environments for all workers (SDG 8) and ensuring healthy lives (SDG 3).
• Consumer Protections: The establishment of a specialist neurotechnology safety agency is proposed to oversee consumer products and establish effective safety standards, safeguarding public health and well-being (SDG 3).

Ensuring Inclusive Development for Vulnerable Groups (SDG 4, SDG 10)

A central theme of the report is the imperative to protect and empower vulnerable groups, ensuring that neurotechnology does not exacerbate existing disparities.

• Impacted Groups: The best interests of children, people with disabilities, and older people must be central to all neurotechnology policy. This focus is essential for achieving SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Safeguards: The Commission calls for mandatory child rights impact assessments and stronger safeguards against discrimination and coercion to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities (SDG 4).

Strengthening Peace, Justice, and Institutional Frameworks (SDG 16)

The report concludes with recommendations aimed at strengthening legal and institutional frameworks to govern the use of neurotechnology in sensitive sectors.

• Criminal Justice: A moratorium on the use of neurotechnology within the criminal justice system is recommended pending a formal inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission. This measure supports the goal of promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all (SDG 16.3).
• Military Use: The report calls for regular legal reviews of military applications of neurotechnology to ensure strict compliance with international law, reinforcing the commitment to promoting peaceful and inclusive societies (SDG 16).

Associated Documentation

1. Peace of Mind: Navigating the ethical frontiers of neurotechnology and human rights
2. Protecting Cognition: Background Paper on Neurotechnology and Human Rights (March 2024)

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on neurotechnology and human rights connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on governance, equality, health, and labor rights in the context of emerging technology.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominent SDG, as the article’s core theme is the protection of fundamental human rights (privacy, freedom of thought), the need for legal reform (privacy laws, moratorium in criminal justice), and the establishment of accountable institutions (a specialist neurotechnology safety agency) to govern neurotechnology.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article explicitly addresses the disproportionate impact of neurotechnology on vulnerable groups, calling for the interests of “children, people with disability and older people” to be central to policy and for safeguards against discrimination and coercion.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The report’s specific recommendations on “Workplace and consumer protections,” including a proposed ban on most forms of workplace neurotechnology, directly relate to protecting labor rights and ensuring safe and secure working environments.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: By advocating for safety standards for consumer neurotechnology and protecting individuals from coercion and manipulation, the article touches upon ensuring that technological advancements do not harm mental and physical well-being. The report’s title, “Peace of Mind,” reinforces this connection.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific SDG targets can be linked to the recommendations and findings discussed in the article.

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The call for a “moratorium on the use of neurotechnology in criminal justice until an inquiry is conducted” and for “regular legal reviews of military applications” directly supports this target.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The recommendation to create a “specialist neurotechnology safety agency to protect consumers and establish effective safety standards” is a direct effort to build such an institution.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The article’s emphasis on reforming privacy laws to protect neural data and safeguarding “freedom of thought and expression” aligns perfectly with this target.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The recommendation to implement “stronger safeguards against discrimination and coercion” for impacted groups like people with disability is a direct measure towards achieving this target.
3. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. The recommendation for a “ban on workplace neurotechnology other than for addressing the most serious work health and safety risks” is a clear action to protect labor rights from potential misuse of this technology.
4. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity of all countries… for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks. Establishing a safety agency and standards for consumer neurotechnology products serves as a mechanism for risk reduction associated with new technologies that can impact health.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it implies several practical measures that could serve as indicators of progress.

• For Target 16.3 (Rule of Law): An implied indicator is the existence of a legal moratorium or formal review process for the use of neurotechnology in the criminal justice and military sectors. Progress would be the initiation and completion of the recommended inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission.
• For Target 16.6 (Effective Institutions): A clear indicator is the establishment and operational status of a specialist neurotechnology safety agency. Its effectiveness could be measured by the number of safety standards developed and implemented.
• For Target 16.10 (Fundamental Freedoms): A key indicator would be the enactment of legislative reforms to Australia’s privacy laws that explicitly protect neural data. Another would be the existence of regulations prohibiting neuromarketing for political purposes, especially targeting children.
• For Target 10.3 (Equal Opportunity): An implied indicator is the integration of mandatory child rights and disability impact assessments into all neurotechnology policy and development processes. The existence of specific legal safeguards against discrimination based on neural data would also be a measurable indicator.
• For Target 8.8 (Labour Rights): A direct indicator is the existence of national legislation or workplace regulations that ban or severely restrict the use of neurotechnology for employee monitoring.
• For Target 3.d (Health Risk Reduction): A relevant indicator would be the number and scope of safety standards established for consumer neurotechnology products, which would be overseen by the proposed safety agency.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: humanrights.gov.au