Roberto Andorno is Associate Professor of Biomedical Law and Bioethics at the University of Zurich’s School of Law and a researcher at its Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine.
Latin American countries appear to have been more receptive to neurorights and the need to operationalize them than other regions. Is that so? Why?
Latin American countries have indeed been especially receptive to neurorights. I think this is related to the region’s sensitivity to practices contrary to human rights, shaped by decades of non-democratic governments. This may explain concerns about access to mental data and its potential to generate unprecedented forms of human-rights violations.
High crime rates may also explain why specialists in criminal law and criminology are interested in the contribution neurotechnologies could make to the penal system, violence prevention, and estimates of recidivism. At the same time, experts insist that criminal justice systems should pay greater attention to the cognitive development of people who commit violent crimes, especially minors. This is particularly significant because the minimum age of criminal responsibility is comparatively low in parts of the region. There is also an expectation that neurotechnologies might contribute to understanding how poverty affects cognitive development and criminal behavior.
What two points would you highlight from your UNESCO report on neurotechnology and neurorights in Latin America?
First, neuroscience research and clinical activity are well established in several countries, especially Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. Advanced technologies are available and produce outcomes comparable to those found in more developed countries. However, medical care is concentrated mainly in private clinics in large cities. That raises questions of equity in a region characterized by high poverty and difficulty accessing good-quality basic health care.
Second, there is particular interest in criminal law and criminology: neuroscience’s contribution to juvenile justice, criminal responsibility, and neuroprediction. Latin American authors often criticize courts for disregarding evidence that the adolescent brain is not yet fully developed, particularly in areas involved in decision-making, risk assessment, and impulse control. They also call for caution when neuroimaging and artificial intelligence are used to assess recidivism risk in minors. When these systems rely on adult data, algorithmic bias may result in discriminatory practices against adolescents.