The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) finalizes its “Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology” draft ahead of the 43rd Session of the General Conference in November.
After a week of revisions at the UNESCO Intergovernmental Meeting for the “Draft Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology,” participants unanimously agreed on a final draft, which is expected to be adopted at the General Conference, which takes place October 30 — November 13.
Being a multipurpose technology, neurotech has the ability to heal the impaired, enhance the healthy, create superhuman soldiers, and hack all of humanity in both beneficial and nefarious ways.
“Member States should, according to their specific contexts, governing structures and constitutional provisions, credibly and transparently advance the ethics of neurotechnology, in line with this Recommendation”
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, May 2025
But first, what is neurotechnology?
According to the recommendation, “Neurotechnology refers currently to devices, systems, and procedures—encompassing both hardware and software—that directly measure, access, monitor, analyze, predict or modulate the nervous system to understand, influence, restore, or anticipate its structure, activity, function, (speech, motor).”
“The ethical challenges raised by neurotechnology are deeply interconnected with human rights and human dignity, with concerns around autonomy, freedom of thought, mental privacy, personal integrity, data protection, security, safety, misuse, justice and solidarity, among others.
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, May 2025
“In this context, an international and coordinated effort is required to steer an ethical development of neurotechnology for the benefit of humankind, as a means for the full enjoyment of human rights, while mitigating its potential negative impacts on them”
Neurotechnology can be used to literally give voice to the voiceless; it can allow for more immersive experiences in gaming and the coming metaverse, and it can be used for total societal control by hacking into our brains and allowing governments and corporations to surveil the inner-most workings of our thoughts and feelings.
In the end UNESCO says that all member states should adopt the recommendation on the ethics of neurotechnology, and that the UN will be charged with monitoring its implementation by developing a full-fledged program consisting of:
- A UNESCO Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) to assist Member States in identifying their status at specific moments of their readiness trajectory along a continuum of dimensions;
- A UNESCO methodology for Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) of neurotechnology based on rigorous scientific research and grounded in international human rights law, along with specific guidance for its implementation in the whole neurotechnology lifecycle, and capacity-building tools and materials to support Member States’ efforts to train government officials, policy-makers and other relevant actors on the methodology;
- A UNESCO methodology to evaluate ex ante and ex post the effectiveness and the efficiency of the policies for the ethics of neurotechnology and incentives against defined objectives;
- A UNESCO research program that will focus on the ethics of neurotechnology, grounded on an appraisal that is informed by the current state of technological developments, to assess the current and future impact of neurotechnology on societies and the environment. This evidence-based analysis will be gathered in a UNESCO observatory, to become a shared pool of knowledge and awareness of good practices and innovations available to all Member States and actors, in the form of research reports, data, and statistics regarding policies for ethics of neurotechnology. The research program should take into consideration the converging developments of neurotechnology with other technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum technology, work to be conducted in collaboration with other relevant UNESCO initiatives.
- A UNESCO collaborative platform fostering meaningful exchanges and facilitating collaboration among Member States and among all actors to promote a global policy dialogue, including at Ministerial level in the context of a Global Forum on the ethics of Emerging Technologies. Supporting this effort, UNESCO shall establish a network of experts, with balanced representation of all UNESCO’s regional groups, on the neurotechnology
Last week, the RAND Corporation published an opinion piece on the ethics of neurotech — specifically Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) — warning of the dangers to society, ranging from monitoring an employee’s mental state in the workplace to measuring unconscious engagement with ads, and all the way to neuro-targeting individuals to manipulate their behavior at subconscious levels.
“The ethical implications are enormous. The same technology that restores voice could become a surveillance tool—reading neural patterns to influence decisions or behaviors without consent. The spectre of ‘neuro-targeting’ — manipulating people beneath the level of conscious awareness—will no longer be a dystopian fantasy, but become an emerging reality”
RAND, Silent Speech, Loud Questions: The Dawn of Brain-Computer Communication, May 2025
On BCIs, the RAND authors reflected, “These devices force a reconsideration of the nature of human expression. If thought can bypass language and emerge as direct action or speech, how will that reshape people’s inner lives? Will people censor themselves, knowing their thoughts could be captured or analyzed?“
The UNESCO draft recommendation on the ethics of neurotech also attempts to tackle the discernment between what is freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.
“Neurotechnology should never be used to exert undue influence or manipulation, whether through force, coercion, or other means that compromise autonomy and freedom of thought. This protection should cover both the internal processing of thoughts and their external expression”
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, May 2025
On Autonomy and Freedom of Thought, the UNESCO recommendation states:
- Throughout the whole lifecycle of neurotechnology, the protection and promotion of the rights of autonomy and freedom of thought must be secured and mental and physical integrity should be protected from any unwanted and harmful interference.
- Autonomy is not just individual but also relational, as it arises from and impacts one’s interactions and belonging with the community.
- Individuals should be able and empowered to make free, informed, and voluntary decisions about their engagement with neurotechnology throughout the whole lifecycle, in accordance with international law, including international human rights law, ethical and legal standards for informed consent and in line with other international standards. It is important to safeguard against any implicit and explicit coercion to use neurotechnology. Special attention should be given to children and adolescents and those in vulnerable situations.
- Consent should be prior, free and informed. Informed consent procedures should require opt-in and be affirmative, dynamic, iterative, comprehensive and transparent. These should provide detailed and accessible information about the purposes, risks, benefits, alternatives, and possible outcomes of the use of neurotechnology in all its application domains. Informed consent and assent should be adapted to and respectful of the individual’s age, decision-making capacity, culture, language, education level, and their mental and physical condition. In cases of persons with diminished or without capacity to consent, the authorization of their legal representatives or guardians is to be sought, and the best interest of the concerned individual should be pursued. Informed consent must always include the right to refuse or withdraw from using neurotechnology at any time particularly when individuals are in a power imbalance situation.
- Neurotechnology should never be used to exert undue influence or manipulation, whether through force, coercion, or other means that compromise autonomy and freedom of thought. This protection should cover both the internal processing of thoughts and their external expression.
“ENHANCEMENT: The use of neurotechnology to improve memory, attention, or other aspects of human mental performance beyond medical need introduces additional complex ethical, social, and legal challenges, which can create new kinds of disparities in the global world.
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, May 2025
“When neurotechnology is used in these contexts, it raises crucial questions about equity, consent, individual and community autonomy, and the nature of enhancement of the nervous system itself.
“Member States should ensure that any policies, law and regulatory frameworks that govern the whole lifecycle of neurotechnology in these contexts do not exacerbate social inequalities or lead to discrimination, address the potential risks (including to reversibility, invasiveness, and risks to autonomy, uphold human dignity and comply with international laws including international human rights law)”
Another recommendation has to do with the concept of “nudging” where governments and corporations could use unconscious brain signals to nudge individuals in certain directions, thus manipulating their behavior on a subconscious level.
Nudging can range from commercial neuromarketing ads to political messaging.
The UNESCO recommendation says that member states should adopt comprehensive policies and regulations concerning:
- Recommender systems: explicitly prohibit the use of neural data and non-neural data allowing cognitive states inferences in recommender systems for manipulative or deceptive purposes, including in political, medical and commercial contexts. These regulations should require that any use of such data within these systems be based on explicit, informed opt-in consent from users.
- Nudging: govern the use of neural data and non-neural data allowing cognitive states inferences for nudging—influencing individuals’ decisions or behaviors, often without their explicit awareness and understanding. This is particularly critical in sensitive areas such as political messaging and commercial advertisement where its use should not be accepted. If used in healthcare, the frameworks should require prior, free and informed consent for any use of such data to influence decisions or behavior, the right to opt out of these systems, and transparency and clear disclosures at the point of data collection, with strict limitations on using data for purposes beyond those explicitly disclosed.
- Marketing during sleep and dream: prohibit the use of neurotechnology that influences or manipulates individuals during sleep, such as marketing during sleep and dream. Regulations should strictly prohibit commercial, marketing, or political applications that target individuals during sleep, using neurotechnology or neural data and non-neural data allowing cognitive states inferences. Additionally, robust oversight mechanisms should be required to ensure that any research or application of such technologies prioritizes the well-being, privacy, and autonomy of individuals, with particular attention to the potential long-term psychological and cognitive impacts of manipulating sleep states.
- Neuromarketing: safeguard against unethical aims and practices in neuromarketing, including by requiring comprehensive disclosures to ensure that all neuromarketing activities are conducted transparently, with participants’ prior, free and informed consent. This includes ensuring that participants in neuromarketing research or campaigns are fully aware of methods, risks, and intentions and affirmatively opt-in to participation. The use, storage, and potential reuse of the collected data should be strictly regulated.
- Closed Loop Environments: provide clear regulatory guidelines on the design and use of closed-loop environments—such as immersive computing devices that adjust experiences based on detected neural data and non-neural data allowing cognitive states inferences. These policies should require clear and accessible disclosure about how neural data and non-neural data allowing cognitive states inferences are used in these environments, prohibit real-time behavioral modification or manipulation without prior, free and informed consent, and implement safeguards specifically designed to prevent abuses such as unauthorized surveillance, manipulative interventions, and practices that could influence ways of thinking, decision-making processor behavior, ranging from political to commercial choices, or exploit psychological and emotional vulnerabilities in real-time.
“Member States should address the profound ethical and human rights related questions regarding autonomy, consent, privacy, and the potential for manipulation raised by neurotechnology that arise in the contexts of recommender systems, priming and nudging, marketing during sleep and dream, neuromarketing, and closed-loop environments”
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, May 2025
The recommendation also delves into ethics concerning children, the elderly, and people with disabilities and mental health issues.
When it comes to government use and regulation of neurotech, the ethics draft states that:
- Member States should ensure that ethical and human rights due diligence, including regular, comprehensive human rights impact assessments are conducted for neurotechnology that they develop, design, deploy, use, sell, operate or procure, in order to prevent or mitigate their possible adverse human rights impacts.
- Member States should ensure that any use of neurotechnology in the justice system, including its consideration by the judiciary should be grounded in scientific evidence and implemented ethically in accordance with human rights and the rule of law. In this context, Member States should guarantee due process and fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, and that individuals are not compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt. Specifically, neurotechnology should not be used for purposes such as non-consensual interrogation in law enforcement.
- Neurotechnology should not be used for social control, attempts at coercive behavioral conformity based on personal beliefs or thoughts, political or other opinion, gender, or surveillance of mental states, as well as for torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Governments should ensure that neurotechnology is developed and deployed responsibly, with respect for human rights, with robust independent oversight mechanisms to foster adherence to these restrictions and protect mental privacy and freedom of thought for all individuals.
- Member States should ensure transparency and accountability in their support, oversight, and regulation of neurotechnology, particularly in publicly funded initiatives such as brain research and development programs.
- Member States should apply a comprehensive approach to regulatory and policy measures to protect against human rights related harms of neurotechnology developed, marketed, operated or used by the private sector.
- Member States should consider establishing comprehensive incentive structures, such as tax incentives, grants, and awards, to promote and enable innovation ecosystems participatory and transparent for neurotechnology development, to strengthen capabilities within public research institutions support public-private partnership to advance public research goals and contribute to societal benefits.
- Member States should promote equitable access to evidence-based, safe and reliable neurotechnology worldwide that fosters health and well-being.
- Member States should consider intellectual property (IP) management strategies that incentivize innovation and promote open-science and access to and dissemination of neurotechnology, as well as sharing of its benefits. The impact of IP policies on the neurotechnology sector should be continuously monitored.
The final text of the Recommendation will be presented for adoption in November at the 43rd session of the General Conference.
If and when adopted, UNESCO says that “the Recommendation will be the first global normative instrument in this critically important field.”
Image Source: AI generated by Grok
