Legal Regulation of Neurotechnology: Unregulated or Heavily Controlled?
https://doi.org/10.17803/lexgen-2025-4-2-47-62
Abstract
A comparative legal analysis of judicial practice regarding the application of neurotechnologies reveals issues involved in the legal regulation of such novel technologies. The study considers the balance of current legislation in the Russian Federation to determine the need for creating specialized legal regulations for neurotechnologies at both international and national levels. The fragmentary nature of current Russian legislation, which addresses basic issues associated with the introduction of neurotechnologies used exclusively for medical purposes, does not fully reflect their existing potential. As shown by the comparative analysis of the regulatory acts of the Republic of Chile, France, and the USA, the active development of specialized legal regulation is already taking place in these countries. At the international level, UNESCO, UN, and OECD studies and guidelines are aimed at establishing a system of principles and measures to protect existing human rights while recognizing emerging neuro-rights. However, such sof t law instruments and ethical principles have limited impact on national regulators. Thus, due to the specific nature of their impact on human beings and the significant risks of violating individual rights, special regulation of neurotechnologies is necessary at both international and national levels. Such legislative innovations will contribute to establishing a fair balance between technological progress and human rights.
About the Authors
M. V. Posadkova
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University ; Sunflower Charity Foundation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maria V. Posadkova, Candidate of Science (Law), Associate Professor of Medical Law Department; Member of the Expert Council on Rare (Orphan) Diseases under the Health Protection Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation; Head of Legal Service
Moscow
E. A. Brezhneva
Sunflower Charity Foundation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina A. Brezhneva, Patient Advocate
Moscow
References
1. Briceño, J.D. (2024). Privacy in the Age of Neurotechnology: Guido Girardi Lavín v. Emotiv, Inc. Global Privacy Law Review, 5(2), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2024013
2. Davis, N.J. (2013). Neurodoping: brain stimulation as a performance-enhancing measure. Sports Medicine, 43, 649–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0027-z
3. Farinella, F., Gulyaeva, E.E. (2022). Human neuro-rights. Revista Quaestio Iuris, 15(1), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2022.64141
4. Flores Filho, E.G.J., Firmo, M.C. (2023). Human dignity and neurorights in the digital age. Brazilian Journal of Law, Technology and Innovation, 1(2), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.59224/bjlti.v1i2.87-107
5. Hertz, N. (2023). Neurorights–do we need new human rights? A reconsideration of the right to freedom of thought. Neuroethics, 16, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09511-0
6. Ienca, M., Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
7. International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. (2022). Ethical issues of neurotechnology: report, adopted in December 2021. https://doi.org/10.54678/QNKB6229
8. Jwa, A.S., Poldrack, R.A. (2022). Addressing privacy risk in neuroscience data: from data protection to harm prevention. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(2), lsac025. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac025
9. Kawala-Sterniuk, A., Browarska, N., Al-Bakri, A., Pelc, M., Zygarlicki, J., Sidikova, M., ... Gorzelanczyk, E.J. (2021). Summary of over fif ty years with brain-computer interfaces—a review. Brain Sciences, 11(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11010043
10. Li, Z.J., Zhang, L.B., Chen, Y.X., Hu, L. (2023). Advancements and challenges in neuromodulation technology: interdisciplinary opportunities and collaborative endeavors. Science Bulletin, 68(18), 1978–1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2023.08.019
11. Ligthart, S., Ienca, M., Meynen, G., Molnar-Gabor, F., Andorno, R., Bublitz, C., ... Kellmeyer, P. (2023).
12. Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of ‘neurorights’. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 32(4), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180123000245
13. Muñoz, J.M., Marinaro, J.Á. (2023). Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, 1322922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1322922
14. Murphy, E.R., Rissman, J. (2020). Evidence of memory from brain data. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa078. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa078
15. Pugh, J., Pycrof t, L., Sandberg, A., Aziz, T., Savulescu, J. (2018). Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy. Ethics and Information Technology, 20, 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9466-4
16. Pycroft, L., Boccard, S.G., Owen, S.L., Stein, J.F., Fitzgerald, J.J., Green, A.L., Aziz, T.Z. (2016). Brainjacking: implant security issues in invasive neuromodulation. World Neurosurgery, 92, 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.05.010
17. Tortora, L., Meynen, G., Bijlsma, J., Tronci, E., Ferracuti, S. (2020). Neuroprediction and AI in forensic psychiatry and criminal justice: A neurolaw perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00220
18. Yen, C., Lin, C.L., Chiang, M.C. (2023). Exploring the frontiers of neuroimaging: a review of recent advances in understanding brain functioning and disorders. Life, 13(7), 1472. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13071472
Review
For citations:
Posadkova M.V., Brezhneva E.A. Legal Regulation of Neurotechnology: Unregulated or Heavily Controlled? Lex Genetica. 2025;4(2):47-62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/lexgen-2025-4-2-47-62
Views:
42
Email this article 