6. The road ahead
It is intended that this background paper will lead to further conversations about the human rights,
ethical and legal questions raised by neurotechnology. Although it is not a comprehensive survey of
every human right and potential application of the technology, this background paper aims to provide
a high‑level summary of neurotechnology and associated challenges as a new and rapidly evolving form
of technology.
If Australia and the international community are to
respond to these challenges, more must be done.
Foremost, it must be decided if new neurorights
need to be created to protect the human mind – or
if we would be better placed to interpret and apply
existing rights more broadly to cover the spectrum
of challenges associated with neurotechnology.
Given that there is little consensus in academia
on the exact content of such rights, this is a
fundamental first step which must be taken to
ensure that human rights are at the forefront when
it comes to safeguarding the brain.
The Commission predicts that neurotechnology will
only become increasingly prevalent in our lives over
the coming years. Action now will ensure we can
harness the potential benefits whilst also mitigating
the potential harms resulting from the widespread
use of such technology before it is too late, and
more people are adversely impacted. It is essential
that human rights is kept at the forefront when
considering this developing technology.
Given the numerous potential applications of
neurotechnologies and the breadth of people who will
be impacted, an extensive regulatory gaps analysis
is required to determine legislative shortcomings
where harms may occur. Issues arising from
neurotechnology were not within the contemplation
of drafters at the time of that key laws were enacted
in Australia. Where shortcomings are found, concrete
recommendations must be made to address the
challenges faced by society in this modern age.
Waiting too long to address the implications of
emerging technologies may mean that it is even
more challenging to subsequently address the
implications and remedy harms that have occurred.
Technology develops at a rapid pace, which
government are unlikely to match. Accordingly,
solid evidence‑based work must be started
early and pro‑actively to ensure that Australia
understands and is able to address the potential
risks of neurotechnology as it enters the consumer
market and becomes increasingly accessible.
Australian Human Rights Commission
37