Search

In the article 'Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology', published in 2017, Ienca and Andorno review the current stage of neuroscience and neurotechnology development, proposing four new human rights that shall protect the individual from the dangers arising from said development. The authors accept the idea of infiltration into our interior castle -- the mind -- requiring only the proper level of protection against the described probable misuse of techniques, especially their use against the individual's will. Although their proposal seems a needed addition to the human rights system, it raises doubts as to the very definition of human it was designed to protect. Is the whole concept of the technical infiltration of the brain to alter the mind processes reconcilable with human freedom, especially with freedom of thought, conscience, and religion? In the article, the authors deliberate the inadequacy of two visions of human: the one that was the foundation of the human rights system and another emerging from Ienca and Andorno's article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]