From neurorights to neuroduties: the case of personal identity

<ns3:p>Background The neurorights initiative has been postulated as a way of ensuring the protection of individuals from the advances of neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI). With the advancement of neurotechnology, the human nervous system may be altered, modified, intervened with, or otherwise controlled. However, how do neurorights safeguard legal interests when an individual consciously chooses to modify their experiences using neurotechnology? Neurorights—the protection of cognitive liberty, psychological continuity, free will, personal identity, and mental privacy—are challenged when individuals opt for ‘artificial memories’, implanted experiences, etc., disrupting their natural cognitive dimensions. The present article examines these complex dilemmas through a legal and ethical lens. Furthermore, it introduces the concept of a ‘neuroduty’ to preserve identity, a moral obligation that stands in stark contrast to the individual’s right to self-determination. In the same way that neurorights protect us from external interference in our nervous system, is it possible to think of a neuroduty to preserve our identity? This article explores the tensions between neurorights, neuroduty, and the potential misuse of neurotechnology. Methods First, we explore these dilemmas, investigating the often-blurred lines between neurotechnology, neurorights, and personal autonomy. Secondly, we focus into the concept of voluntary alterations of one’s own brain, assessing the wider implications such actions could have on both individual and societal levels, in the light of the concept of neuroduty to preserve personal identity. Also, we examine the potential repercussions on personal identity and interpersonal relations. Finally, we advocate for a reassessment and potential reformulation of existing neurorights frameworks to account for the personal autonomy to use advancing neuroscientific capabilities. Results Our examination reveals a complex interplay between neurorights and neuroduty to preserve personal autonomy. Conclusions This analysis will provide valuable insights for stakeholders, policymakers, and society at large, guiding the responsible integration of neurotechnology into our lives.</ns3:p>