Ethics of neurotechnologies and mental integrity 3800-ENMI26-S
The advancement of neurotechnologies—brain-computer interfaces, deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and other kinds of devices—is rapidly expanding the possibilities modern medicine has to treat various neurological, physical, and psychological conditions. At the same time, similar devices are being developed and marketed as consumer products that help increase focus and cognitive abilities. However, a current concern is that these devices interfere with our mental integrity through their capabilities to monitor, access, and change our mental states.
This seminar examines the ethics of such neuro-devices through the lens of mental integrity, as this is understood in the broader literature on Neurorights. With its specific focus on mental integrity, this course is deeply engaged with state-of-the-art research on whether our minds deserve special protections from technologies that can interfere with, manipulate, read, or change our thoughts.
The course is divided into four sections, each with its own specific theme and topics. Student presentations (group or individual, depending on the number of participants) are marked with SP. Please note that the final number of meetings may be reduced due to national holidays, Rector’s days, or unforeseen circumstances. In these cases, the lecturer will either organise make-up lessons or combine planned lessons.
(I) DECADE OF THE BRAIN, THE NEURO-REVOLUTION, AND NEURORIGHTS
1. Introduction to the course, its topic, requirements, aims, and ‘presentation group selection’ and introduction to neurorights.
(II) ETHICS OF NEUROTECHNOLOGIES AND NEURORIGHTS
2. What are mind rights? On Personhood, the Self, and Thoughts.
3. The Legal Realities of Mental Integrity.
4. Speculative Ethics or Real Threats?
(III) MENTAL INTEGRITY
5. The Foundations of Mental Integrity.
6. The Limits of Mental Integrity. SP.
7. Where Does the Mind End? SP.
8. Beyond Protection, mental health and integrity. SP.
9. Agency and the interfered with mind. SP.
10. Brain (mind) data, who owns it? SP.
(IV) PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF NEUROTECHNOLOGIES
11. Brain Stimulation. SP.
12. Criminal justice. SP.
13. Consumer devices. SP.
14. Dual-use dilemmas.
15. AI and brain/mind decoding, as well as 30 minutes for questions about the written assignment.
The course will use the following teaching methods: lectures, student-led presentations, plenary discussions, and, for the final part of the course, problem-based learning methodology.
Koordynatorzy przedmiotu
Rodzaj przedmiotu
Założenia (opisowo)
Efekty kształcenia
KNOWLEDGE
- In-depth understanding of the role of neuroethics and mental integrity in relation to neurotechnologies (K_W02).
- Professional command of subject-relevant vocabulary and terminology in English (K_W03).
- In-depth understanding of the issues, challenges and state-of-the-art discussions and research on neurorights and mental integrity in the specific area of neuroethics (K_W12).
SKILLS
- Identify ethical issues arising in the rapidly developing field of neuroethics and in everyday life (K_U01).
- Analyse oral and written statements of authors in the fields of ethics and neuroethics; reconstruct their position, identify their factual and normative assumptions, and critically evaluate the validity and strength of their arguments (K_U02).
- Prepare a written argumentative paper in the field of bioethics or neuroethics in accordance with scientific standards within these disciplines and subdisciplines. I.e., write in accordance with the principles of academic writing for such works; clearly formulate written arguments using correct terminology, language and editing, as well as compiling a bibliography and references accordingly (K_U13).
- Prepare and deliver an oral presentation (paper), in the fields of bioethics, neuroethics, or related scientific disciplines and subdisciplines (K_U14).
- Communicate professionally in English at a B2+ level and use specialised terminology in the field of bioethics, neuroethics, and related scientific disciplines and subdisciplines (K_U15).
SOCIAL COMPETENCES
- Evaluate existing knowledge, critically evaluate the acquired information and content (K_K01).
- Recognise the importance of knowledge in the fields of ethics, bioethics, neuroethics, and other related disciplines or subdisciplines in relation to addressing social, political, and other challenges posed by the neurotechnologies, and seeking expert advice when facing difficulties in resolving these issues independently (K_K02).
- Reliably and responsibly advance the body of work in neuroethics as both a theoretical discipline and a social practice (K_K05).
- Recognise the ethical, legal, economic, and socio-cultural problems and challenges associated with one’s own research and professional work, to develop and promote ethical standards in relevant scientific disciplines and social settings (K_K06).
Kryteria oceniania
Grade weighting: 1. Attendance and participation (30%), 2. Oral presentation (30%), and 3. Written assignment (40%).
Grading scale: 90-100% – 5.0 | 85-89% – 4.5 | 75-84% – 4.0 | 70-74% – 3.5 | 60-69% – 3.0 | 0-59% – 2.0.
1: Attendance and participation. Insightful participation in seminar discussions and group work that demonstrates knowledge of the terminology, problems, core concepts, principles, and arguments discussed, as well as familiarity with the assigned readings.
2: Oral presentation. Group or individual presentation (depending on participants) selected from compulsory readings. Students will be grouped (randomly), and each group must select readings (≈15 pages) to present at the start of the lesson. The presentation must last ≈15 minutes to explain the arguments in the paper, followed by ≈10 minutes for questions and a plenary discussion. The presentation may also contextualise the text in relation to previous readings or discussions. Presentations will be scored based on the following criteria: argumentative reconstruction, communication/explanation, critical evaluation, and facilitation of audience engagement during Q&A. The final score reflects the lecturer’s professional judgment of the overall academic quality and depth of the presentation, as well as the participation of individual group members. Should a student be excusably absent from their presentation, they will be given a final chance to present during the last lesson of the course.
3: Written assignment. Students are expected to write an argumentative essay (6-7 standard academic pages (strona znormalizowana)—1,800 characters, including spaces, but excluding abstract and bibliography) in English.
Following consultations with the lecturer, PhD students may opt to increase their paper to 9-12 standard pages, select a journal for submission, and submit it as if it were an academic journal (however, these students should be aware that their paper will then be graded on higher expectations regarding novelty, argumentation, and formatting).
The paper should be formatted consistently throughout, with in-text citations and a full bibliography at the end. Before lesson 7, the lecturer will provide a .doc template together with a list of 3 possible topics. Students are encouraged to select their own topics if these align with the course topic and their dissertation, field of study, or broader professional or personal interests. The paper is graded based on its critical assessment of core texts from the readings, as well as its argumentation and academic rigour.
Before lesson 7, students must send the lecturer an extended abstract (max. 1 standard academic page) and a tentative bibliography (max. 6 sources). The abstract should outline the critical argumentative essay they plan to hand in at the end of the course. The bibliography must list the primary sources they intend to use (including readings from the course). Before lesson 9, students will receive topic approval or, where necessary, specific requirements for revisions to their abstract or bibliography. Following approval, the topics are unchangeable.
The deadline for the final written assignment will be announced during the first class (and sent electronically thereafter). Resubmission (resit exam) is only allowed for students who either failed to hand in their assignment on time or received a score of no more than 2.0. The resit exam will be organised after the final grades are released. Students taking the resit exam will be asked to write an argumentative essay (under the same conditions as the regular exam) on one of three provided topics. These topics will be distinct from the earlier topics and will be sent to the respective students after they confirm (via email to the lecturer) if they will resit their exam.
Permitted number of excusable absences: Two. Attendance is monitored weekly within the first 15 minutes of each lesson.
Literatura
Pre-readings (suggested readings for students without prior knowledge of ethics)
- Bartneck, C., Lütge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4. Suggested minimum readings: chapters 2 and 3.
- Højme, P. (2026). An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI (Five Years Later). Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 36(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v36i1.229.
Compulsory readings
1. International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. (2022). Ethical issues of neurotechnology. https://doi.org/10.54678/QNKB6229. Read pp. 17-42.
1. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
1. Yuste, R., et al. (2017). Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature, 551(7679), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/551159a.
2. Ligthart, S., Ienca, M., G, & et al. (2023). Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’ (Pt 461-481). Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180123000245.
2. Istace, T. (2023). Protecting the mental realm: What does human rights law bring to the table? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 41(4), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519231211823.
3. Muñoz, J. M., & Marinaro, J. Á. (2023). Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights. Frontiers in Political Science, Volume 5-2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023.1322922.
3. Cornejo-Plaza, M. I., Cippitani, R., & Pasquino, V. (2024). Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: Neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodata. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 15. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1330439.
3. Fuselli, S. (2020). Mental integrity protection in the neuro-era. Legal challenges and philosophical background. BioLaw Journal - Rivista Di BioDiritto, (1), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.15168/2284-4503-534.
4. Gilbert, F., & Russo, I. (2024). Neurorights: The Land of Speculative Ethics and Alarming Claims? AJOB Neuroscience, 15(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2024.2328244.
4. Herrera-Ferrá, K., et al. (2023). Contextual and Cultural Perspectives on Neurorights: Reflections Toward an International Consensus. AJOB Neuroscience, 14(4), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2022.2048722. Access available through BUW’s online catalogue.
4. Bublitz, J. C. (2022). Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance. Neuroethics, 15(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09481-3.
5. Lavazza, A., & Giorgi, R. (2023). Philosophical foundation of the right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 16(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09517-2.
5. Douglas, T., & Forsberg, L. (2021). Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity. In S. Ligthart, et al. (Eds), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice and Security (pp. 179–201). Palgrave-Macmillan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351362380_Three_Rationales_for_a_Legal_Right_to_Mental_Integrity.
5. Zuk, P. (2024). Mental integrity, autonomy, and fundamental interests. Journal of Medical Ethics, 50(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109732.
6. Zohny, H., Lyreskog, D. M., Singh, I., & Savulescu, J. (2023). The Mystery of Mental Integrity: Clarifying Its Relevance to Neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 16(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09525-2.
6. Blumenthal-Barby, J., & Ubel, P. (2024). Neurorights in question: Rethinking the concept of mental integrity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 50(10), 670–675. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109683.
6. Hertz, N. (2022). Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought. Neuroethics, 16(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09511-0.
7. Tesink, V., Douglas, T., Forsberg, L., Ligthart, S., & Meynen, G. (2024). Right to mental integrity and neurotechnologies: Implications of the extended mind thesis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 50(10), 656. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109645.
7. Lavazza, A. (2018). Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, Volume 12-2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00082.
7. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. Access through the BUW catalogue.
8. Wajnerman-Paz, A., Aboitiz, F., Álamos, F., & Ramos Vergara, P. (2024). A healthcare approach to mental integrity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 50(10), 664. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109682.
8. Martins, H. M. G. (2022). The Upper Limit: An Essay on Mental Integrity and Mental Enhancement. Medicine, Law & Society, 15(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.15.2.217-240.2022.
8. Cornejo-Plaza, M. I., & Saracini, C. (2023). On pharmacological neuroenhancement as part of the new neurorights’ pioneering legislation in Chile: A perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 14-2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177720
9. Ligthart, S. (2025). The right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnology: Constructing scope and exploring permissible limitations. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 12(1), lsaf010. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaf010.
9. De Marco, G. (2019). Brain Interventions, Moral Responsibility, and Control over One’s Mental Life. Neuroethics, 12(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09414-7.
9. Cassinadri, G. (2025). The Right to Mental Integrity: Multidimensional, Multilayered and Extended. Neuroethics, 18(16). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-025-09585-6.
10. Wajnerman Paz, A. (2022). Is Your Neural Data Part of Your Mind? Exploring the Conceptual Basis of Mental Privacy. Minds and Machines, 32(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09574-7.
10. Susser, D., & Cabrera, L. Y. (2024). Brain Data in Context: Are New Rights the Way to Mental and Brain Privacy? AJOB Neuroscience, 15(2), 122–133. https://philarchive.org/archive/SUSBDI.
11. Antczak, J., Rusin, G., & Słowik, A. (2021). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Diagnostic and Therapeutic Tool in Various Types of Dementia. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132875.
11. Gilbert, F., Ienca, M., & Cook, M. (2023). How I became myself after merging with a computer: Does human-machine symbiosis raise human rights issues? Brain Stimulation, 16(3), 783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.016.
12. Barn, G. (2019). Can Medical Interventions Serve as ‘Criminal Rehabilitation’? Neuroethics, 12(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9264-9.
12. Shaw, E. (2019). The Right to Bodily Integrity and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Through Medical Interventions: A Reply to Thomas Douglas. Neuroethics, 12(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9277-4
12. Douglas, T. (2019). Nonconsensual Neurocorrectives and Bodily Integrity: A Reply to Shaw and Barn. Neuroethics, 12(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9275-6.
13. Borbón, D. A., Borbón, L. F., & Bustamante, M. A. L. (2021). NeuroRight to Equal Access to Mental Augmentation: Analysis from Posthumanism, Law and Bioethics. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (16), 01–15. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i16.y2021.006.
13. Lavazza, A., et al. (2025). Neuralink’s brain-computer interfaces: Medical innovations and ethical challenges (Pt 1553905). Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2025.1553905.
13. Yang, J. (2024). Personal autonomy in memory modification technology: A critical assessment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1225. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03736-5
14. Gielas, A. M. (2025). Soldier Enhancement through Brain–Computer Interfaces: The Risks of Changing the Human Condition. The RUSI Journal, 170(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2025.2449894. Accessible through the BUW online catalogue.
14. Munyon, C. N. (2018). Neuroethics of Non-primary Brain Computer Interface: Focus on Potential Military Applications. Frontiers in Neuroscience, Volume 12-2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00696.
15. Lucivero, F., & Tamburrini, G. (2008). Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces. AI & SOCIETY, 22(3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0146-x.
15. Gilbert, F., & Russo, I. (2024). Mind-reading in AI and neurotechnology: Evaluating claims, hype, and ethical implications for neurorights. AI and Ethics, 4(3), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00514-6.