Cognitive liberty: Difference between revisions

Line 25:

===Freedom from interference===

This first obligation, to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, seeks to protect individuals from having their mental processes altered or monitored without their consent or knowledge, "setting up a defensive wall against unwanted intrusions".<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60</ref> Ongoing improvements to neurotechnologies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (or "brain fingerprinting"); and to pharmacology in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] (SSRIs), [[nootropics]], [[modafinil]] and other [[psychoactive substances]], are continuing to increase the ability to both monitor and directly influence human cognition.<ref>Sententia (2004), 223-224</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Blitz|first=Marc Jonathan|title=Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution|journal=Wisconsin Law Review|date=2010|issue=1049|pages=1053–1055, 1058–1060|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=marc_jonathan_blitz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|title=The Brain on the Stand|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html|accessdate=3 May 2014|newspaper=New York Times Magazine|date=11 March 2007}}</ref> As a result, many theorists have emphasized the importance of recognizing cognitive liberty in order to protect individuals from the state using such technologies to alter those individuals’ mental processes: "states must be barred from invading the inner sphere of persons, from accessing their thoughts, modulating their emotions or manipulating their personal preferences."<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 61</ref> These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Roskies|first=Adina L.|title=Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy|date=2015|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|work=Handbook of Neuroethics|pages=679–695|editor-last=Clausen|editor-first=Jens|publisher=Springer Netherlands~~|language=en~~|doi=10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|isbn=9789400747074|access-date=2019-08-15|editor2-last=Levy|editor2-first=Neil}}</ref>

This first obligation, to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, seeks to protect individuals from having their mental processes altered or monitored without their consent or knowledge, "setting up a defensive wall against unwanted intrusions".<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60</ref> Ongoing improvements to neurotechnologies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (or "brain fingerprinting"); and to pharmacology in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] (SSRIs), [[nootropics]], [[modafinil]] and other [[psychoactive substances]], are continuing to increase the ability to both monitor and directly influence human cognition.<ref>Sententia (2004), 223-224</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Blitz|first=Marc Jonathan|title=Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution|journal=Wisconsin Law Review|date=2010|issue=1049|pages=1053–1055, 1058–1060|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=marc_jonathan_blitz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|title=The Brain on the Stand|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html|accessdate=3 May 2014|newspaper=New York Times Magazine|date=11 March 2007}}</ref> As a result, many theorists have emphasized the importance of recognizing cognitive liberty in order to protect individuals from the state using such technologies to alter those individuals’ mental processes: "states must be barred from invading the inner sphere of persons, from accessing their thoughts, modulating their emotions or manipulating their personal preferences."<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 61</ref> These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Roskies|first=Adina L.|title=Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy|date=2015|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|work=Handbook of Neuroethics|pages=679–695|editor-last=Clausen|editor-first=Jens|publisher=Springer Netherlands|doi=10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|isbn=9789400747074|access-date=2019-08-15|editor2-last=Levy|editor2-first=Neil}}</ref>

This element of cognitive liberty has been raised in relation to a number of state-sanctioned interventions in individual cognition, from the mandatory psychiatric 'treatment' of homosexuals in the US before the 1970s, to the non-consensual administration of psychoactive drugs to unwitting US citizens during [[CIA]] [[Project MKUltra]], to the forcible administration of mind-altering drugs on individuals to make them competent to stand trial.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Boire|first=Richard Glen|title=On Cognitive Liberty Part I|journal=Journal of Cognitive Liberties|date=1999|volume=1|issue=1|url=http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/curriculum/oncoglib_123.htm}}</ref><ref>Boire, Richard Glen, (2002). ''[http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/pdf/sell_ussc_merits.pdf Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty & Ethics In Support Of The Petition]'', in the case of ''Sell v United States''</ref> Futurist and bioethicist George Dvorsky, Chair of the Board of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has identified this element of cognitive liberty as being of relevance to the debate around the curing of autism spectrum conditions.<ref>{{cite web|last=Dvorsky|first=George|title=Cognitive liberty and the right to one's mind|url=http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20091020|publisher=Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies|accessdate=3 May 2014}}</ref> Duke University School of Law Professor Nita A. Farahany has also proposed legislative protection of cognitive liberty as a way of safeguarding the protection from self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, in the light of the increasing ability to access human memory.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Farahany|first=Nita|title=Incriminating Thoughts|journal=Stanford Law Review|date=February 2012|volume=64|pages=405–406|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5321&context=faculty_scholarship}}</ref>

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ===Freedom from interference===
-This first obligation, to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, seeks to protect individuals from having their mental processes altered or monitored without their consent or knowledge, "setting up a defensive wall against unwanted intrusions".<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60</ref>  Ongoing improvements to neurotechnologies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (or "brain fingerprinting"); and to pharmacology in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] (SSRIs), [[nootropics]], [[modafinil]] and other [[psychoactive substances]], are continuing to increase the ability to both monitor and directly influence human cognition.<ref>Sententia (2004), 223-224</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Blitz|first=Marc Jonathan|title=Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution|journal=Wisconsin Law Review|date=2010|issue=1049|pages=1053–1055, 1058–1060|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=marc_jonathan_blitz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|title=The Brain on the Stand|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html|accessdate=3 May 2014|newspaper=New York Times Magazine|date=11 March 2007}}</ref> As a result, many theorists have emphasized the importance of recognizing cognitive liberty in order to protect individuals from the state using such technologies to alter those individuals’ mental processes: "states must be barred from invading the inner sphere of persons, from accessing their thoughts, modulating their emotions or manipulating their personal preferences."<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 61</ref>  These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Roskies|first=Adina L.|title=Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy|date=2015|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|work=Handbook of Neuroethics|pages=679–695|editor-last=Clausen|editor-first=Jens|publisher=Springer Netherlands|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|isbn=9789400747074|access-date=2019-08-15|editor2-last=Levy|editor2-first=Neil}}</ref>
+This first obligation, to refrain from non-consensually interfering with an individual's cognitive processes, seeks to protect individuals from having their mental processes altered or monitored without their consent or knowledge, "setting up a defensive wall against unwanted intrusions".<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 60</ref>  Ongoing improvements to neurotechnologies such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (or "brain fingerprinting"); and to pharmacology in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] (SSRIs), [[nootropics]], [[modafinil]] and other [[psychoactive substances]], are continuing to increase the ability to both monitor and directly influence human cognition.<ref>Sententia (2004), 223-224</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Blitz|first=Marc Jonathan|title=Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution|journal=Wisconsin Law Review|date=2010|issue=1049|pages=1053–1055, 1058–1060|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=marc_jonathan_blitz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rosen|first=Jeffrey|title=The Brain on the Stand|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11Neurolaw.t.html|accessdate=3 May 2014|newspaper=New York Times Magazine|date=11 March 2007}}</ref> As a result, many theorists have emphasized the importance of recognizing cognitive liberty in order to protect individuals from the state using such technologies to alter those individuals’ mental processes: "states must be barred from invading the inner sphere of persons, from accessing their thoughts, modulating their emotions or manipulating their personal preferences."<ref>Bublitz and Merkel, 61</ref>  These specific ethical concerns regarding the use of neuroscience technologies to interfere or invade the brain form the fields of neuroethics and neuroprivacy.<ref>{{Citation|last=Roskies|first=Adina L.|title=Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy|date=2015|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|work=Handbook of Neuroethics|pages=679–695|editor-last=Clausen|editor-first=Jens|publisher=Springer Netherlands|doi=10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_123|isbn=9789400747074|access-date=2019-08-15|editor2-last=Levy|editor2-first=Neil}}</ref>
 This element of cognitive liberty has been raised in relation to a number of state-sanctioned interventions in individual cognition, from the mandatory psychiatric 'treatment' of homosexuals in the US before the 1970s, to the non-consensual administration of psychoactive drugs to unwitting US citizens during [[CIA]] [[Project MKUltra]], to the forcible administration of mind-altering drugs on individuals to make them competent to stand trial.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Boire|first=Richard Glen|title=On Cognitive Liberty Part I|journal=Journal of Cognitive Liberties|date=1999|volume=1|issue=1|url=http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/curriculum/oncoglib_123.htm}}</ref><ref>Boire, Richard Glen, (2002). ''[http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/pdf/sell_ussc_merits.pdf Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Center For Cognitive Liberty & Ethics In Support Of The Petition]'', in the case of ''Sell v United States''</ref> Futurist and bioethicist George Dvorsky, Chair of the Board of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has identified this element of cognitive liberty as being of relevance to the debate around the curing of autism spectrum conditions.<ref>{{cite web|last=Dvorsky|first=George|title=Cognitive liberty and the right to one's mind|url=http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20091020|publisher=Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies|accessdate=3 May 2014}}</ref> Duke University School of Law Professor Nita A. Farahany has also proposed legislative protection of cognitive liberty as a way of safeguarding the protection from self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, in the light of the increasing ability to access human memory.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Farahany|first=Nita|title=Incriminating Thoughts|journal=Stanford Law Review|date=February 2012|volume=64|pages=405–406|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5321&context=faculty_scholarship}}</ref>