Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights’

Leave a comment

Abstract

The rise of neurotechnologies, especially in combination with artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods for brain data analytics, has given rise to concerns around the protection of mental privacy, mental integrity and cognitive liberty – often framed as “neurorights” in ethical, legal, and policy discussions. Several states are now looking at including neurorights into their constitutional legal frameworks, and international institutions and organizations, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe, are taking an active interest in developing international policy and governance guidelines on this issue. However, in many discussions of neurorights the philosophical assumptions, ethical frames of reference and legal interpretation are either not made explicit or conflict with each other. The aim of this multidisciplinary work is to provide conceptual, ethical, and legal foundations that allow for facilitating a common minimalist conceptual understanding of mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty to facilitate scholarly, legal, and policy discussions.

Source: www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/minding-rights-mapping-ethical-and-legal-foundations-of-neurorights/2F3BD282956047E1E67AA9049A2A0B68

Further References

For example, Ienca, M, Andorno, R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017;13(1):5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Sommaggio P, Mazzocca M, Gerola A, Ferro F. Cognitive liberty. A first step towards a human neuro-rights declaration. BioLaw Journal—Rivista di BioDiritto 2017;3:27–45; McCarthy-Jones S. The autonomous mind: The right to freedom of thought in the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2019;2:1–7; Bublitz, J-C. The nascent right to psychological integrity and mental self-determination. In: von Arnauld, A, der Decken, K, Susi, M, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020:387–403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michalowski, S. Critical reflections on the need for a right to mental self-determination. In von Arnauld, A, der Decken, K, Susi, M, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020:404–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alegre S. Rethinking freedom of thought for the 21st century, European Human Rights Law Review 2017;(3):221–33; Ligthart, S. Freedom of thought in Europe: Do advances in “brain-reading” technology call for revision?, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020;7(1):lsaa048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Ligthart, S, Douglas, T, Bublitz, C, Kooijmans, T, Meynen, G. Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and challenges. Neuroethics 2021;14(2):191–203 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
2

Report on Respecting, Protecting and Fulfilling the Right to Freedom of Thought, to the 76th Session of the General Assembly, October 2021; United Nations, Our Common Agenda—Report of the Secretary-General, New York 2021, para 35.
3

Declaration of the Interamerican Juridical Committee on Neuroscience, Neurotechnologies and Human Rights: New Legal Challenges for the Americas, CJI/DEC. 01 (XCIX-O/21, August 11, 2021).
4

Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe. Strategic Action Plan on Human Rights and Technologies in Biomedicine (2020–2025), Adopted by the Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) at its 16th meeting (19–21 November 2019).
5

Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. Ethical Issues of Neurotechnology, SHS/BIO/IBC28/2021/3Rev., Paris, France: UNESCO, 15 December 2021. See also Navarro MS, Dura-Bernal S, Gulotta CM, Stark C (eds.). The Risks and Challenges of Neurotechnologies for Human Rights. Paris, France; Milan, Italy; New York, NY: UNESCO; University of Milan-Bicocca – Department of Business and Law; State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate; 2023.
6

OECD. Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. Adopted by the OECD Council on 11 December 2019.
7

See note 4, Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe 2019.
8

Yuste, R, Goering, S, Arcas, BAY, Bi, G, Carmena, JM, Carter, A, et al. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 2017;551(7679):159–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Goering, S, Klein, E, Specker Sullivan, L, Wexler, A, , Agüera Y Arcas, B, Bi, G, et al. Recommendations for responsible development and application of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 2021;14(3):365–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
9

Seaman JA. Your brain on lies: Deception detection in court. In: The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. New York, NY: Routledge; 2017; Farahany N. Searching secrets. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2012;160(5):1239; Farahany N. Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review 2012;64:351–408; Neurolaw: Advances in neuroscience, justice, and security. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021; McCay A. Neurotechnology, law and the legal profession, horizon report for the law society. The Law Society 2022; available at www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/how-will-brain-monitoring-technology-influence-the-practice-of-law. Jotterand F. Punishment, responsibility, and brain interventions. In: Jotterand F, ed. The Unfit Brain and the Limits of Moral Bioenhancement. Singapore: Springer; 2022:171–92.
10

Gilbert, F, Dodds, S. Is there anything wrong with using AI Implantable brain devices to prevent convicted offenders from reoffending? In: Vincent, NA, Nadelhoffer, T, McCay, A, eds. Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020 Google Scholar; Birks, D, Douglas, T, Birks, D, Douglas, T (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; See note 9, McCay 2022.
11

See note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017, at 5; Genser J, Hermann S, Yuste R. International Human Rights Protection Gaps in the Age of Neurotechnology, report of the NeuroRights Foundation; 2022.
12

For some critical notes, see Zúñiga-Fajuri A, Miranda LV, Miralles DZ, Venegas RS. Chapter seven—Neurorights in Chile: Between neuroscience and legal science. In Hevia M, ed. Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2021:165–79; Fins JJ. The unintended consequences of Chile’s neurorights constitutional reform: Moving beyond negative rights to capabilities. Neuroethics 2022;15(3):26.
13

Report on Respecting, Protecting and Fulfilling the Right to Freedom of Thought, to the 76th Session of the General Assembly expected in July 2021; Declaration of the Interamerican Juridical Committee on Neuroscience, Neurotechnologies and Human Rights: New Legal Challenges for the Americas, CJI/DEC. 01 (XCIX-O/21, August 11, 2021; Ienca M. Common human rights challenges raised by different applications of neurotechnologies in the biomedical field, 2021; See note 4, Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe 2019.
14

See note 5, Navarro 2022.
15

As is often the case in interdisciplinary work, not all authors that contributed to the discussions and the resulting paper agree with every point made in the paper. We have made substantial efforts in harmonizing views and interpretations but also want to acknowledge the reality of “reasonable disagreement”.
16

It might be argued that drawing a distinction between bodily and mental integrity implicitly endorses a form of dualism between the body (including the brain) and the mind. To avoid this risk, some have proposed recognising a single right to “identity integrity”. However, since the rights to bodily and mental integrity are widely used in the academic literature and acknowledged in the law, such as by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, we will stick to this terminology in this paper. In adopting this terminology, we do not mean to endorse dualism.
17

Ienca, M, Haselager, P, Emanuel, EJ. Brain leaks and consumer neurotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 2018;36(9):805–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Williamson, B. Brain data: Scanning, scraping and sculpting the plastic learning brain through neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education 2019;1(1):65–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kellmeyer, P. Big brain data: On the responsible use of brain data from clinical and consumer-directed neurotechnological devices. Neuroethics 2021;14(1):83–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18

Ligthart S, Toor D van, Kooijmans T, Douglas T, Meynen G (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice & Security. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021. See note 10, Birks et al. 2018.
19

Ienca, M, Jotterand, F, Elger, BS. From healthcare to warfare and reverse: How should we regulate dual-use neurotechnology? Neuron 2018;97(2):269–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
20

Roc, A, Pillette, L, Mladenovic, J, Benaroch, C, N’Kaoua, B, Jeunet, C, et al. A review of user training methods in brain computer interfaces based on mental tasks. Journal of Neural Engineering 2021;18(1): 1–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed;. Krol LR, Haselager P, Zander TO. Cognitive and affective probing: A tutorial and review of active learning for neuroadaptive technology. Journal of Neural Engineering 2020;17:1–15.
21

Delfin C, Krona H, Andiné P, Ryding E, Wallinius M, Hofvander B. Prediction of recidivism in a long-term follow-up of forensic psychiatric patients: Incremental effects of neuroimaging data. PLOS ONE 2019;14(5):e0217127; Aharoni, E, Vincent, GM, Harenski, CL, Calhoun, VD, Sinnott-Armstrong, W, Gazzaniga, MS, et al. Neuroprediction of future rearrest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2013;110(15):6223–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
22

Farah, MJ, Hutchinson, JB, Phelps, EA, Wagner, AD. Functional MRI-based lie detection: Scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014;15(2):123–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
23

Krauss, JK, Lipsman, N, Aziz, T, Boutet, A, Brown, P, Chang, JW, et al. Technology of deep brain stimulation: Current status and future directions. Nature Reviews Neurology 2021;17(2):75–87 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
24

De Risio, L, Borgi, M, Pettorruso, M, Miuli, A, Ottomana, AM, Sociali, A, et al. Recovering from depression with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies. Translational Psychiatry 2020;10(1):1–19 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
25

Bouthour, W, Mégevand, P, Donoghue, J, Lüscher, C, Birbaumer, N, Krack, P. Biomarkers for closed-loop deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease and beyond. Nature Reviews Neurology 2019;15(6):343–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Holmen, SJ, Ryberg, J. Interventionist advisory brain devices, aggression, and crime prevention. Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics 2021;8:1–22 Google Scholar.
26

Mashat, MEM, Li, G, Zhang, D. Human-to-human closed-loop control based on brain-to-brain interface and muscle-to-muscle interface. Scientific Reports 2017;7(1):11001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. For an overview see also: Kellmeyer, P. Artificial intelligence in basic and clinical neuroscience: Opportunities and ethical challenges. Neuroforum 2019;25:241–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27

Jones, EG, Mendell, LM. Assessing the decade of the brain. Science 1999;284(5415):739–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
28

Human Brain Project; available at www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/ (last accessed 22 Mar 2023); NIH BRAIN Initative; available at braininitiative.nih.gov/ (last accessed 22 Mar 2023).
29

The term was coined in a series of essays by Boire RG. On cognitive liberty. Journal of Cognitive Liberties; available at (www.cognitiveliberty.org/ccle1/1jcl/1jcl (last accessed 22 Mar 2023).
30

See note 12, Ienca 2021.
31

In our discussion here, we will refer to specific “neurorights” as “human rights” if they are conceptualized (or discussed) within an international and universal context (e.g., in discussions at the level of the UN).
32

Kellmeyer P. “Neurorights”: A human rights–based approach for governing neurotechnologies. In: Mueller O, Kellmeyer P, Voeneky S, Burgard W, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022:412–26; See note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017; See note 1, Sommaggio et al. 2017; See note 11, NeuroRights Foundation 2022.
33

Bublitz, JC. Novel neurorights: From nonsense to substance. Neuroethics 2022;15(1):7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Bublitz, JC. Freedom of thought in the age of neuroscience: A plea and a proposal for the renaissance of a forgotten fundamental right. ARSP: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie/Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 2014;100(1):1–25 Google Scholar; Ligthart S. Coercive Brain-Reading in Criminal Justice: An Analysis of European Human Rights Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022; Hertz N. Neurorights—Do we need new human rights? A reconsideration of the right to freedom of thought. Neuroethics 2022;16(1):5; See note 1, McCarthy-Jones 2019; See note 1, Alegre 2017.
34

Rainey, S, McGillivray, K, Akintoye, S, Fothergill, T, Bublitz, C, Stahl, B. Is the European data protection regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020;7(1):lsaa051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; See note 1, Ligthart et al. 2021.
35

See note 1, Michalowski 2020; see note 1, Ligthart 2020; see note 12, Zúñiga-Fajuri et al. 2021.
36

Douglas, T, Forsberg, L. Three rationales for a legal right to mental integrity. In: Ligthart, S, van Toor, D, Kooijmans, T, Douglas, T, Meynen, G, eds. Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice & Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021:179–201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lavazza A. freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2018;12:1–10; see note 8, Goering et al. 2021; Mecacci, G, Haselager, P. Identifying criteria for the evaluation of the implications of brain reading for mental privacy. science and engineering. Ethics 2019;25:443–61Google Scholar; Germani, F, Kellmeyer, P, Wäscher, S, Biller-Andorno, N. Engineering minds? Ethical considerations on biotechnological approaches to mental health, well-being, and human flourishing. Trends in Biotechnology 2021;39:1111–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
37

Criticism of the implementation of legal language for moral rights addresses structural problems such as the integration of a vertical view typical of human rights jurisprudence, which runs counter to the traditional horizontal view in ethical reasoning. Legal language too often implies the violation of rights, whereas ethical language presupposes reciprocal dialogue between actors without implying that rights have been previously violated or duties not fulfilled. Sperling D. Law and bioethics: A rights-based relationship and its troubling implications. In: Freeman M, ed. Law and Bioethics: Current Legal Issues, Vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. Moreover, ethical choices can be made between two legally acceptable solutions, which helps to ground the reasoning about which ethical and moral concepts should be condensed into law. Additionally, in order to do justice to ethical decisions, it is not always enough to meet legal standards. See Sperling 2008, at 65, 71.
38

Henceforth, our use of “rights” means “legal rights.”
39

It may be the case that dualist ideas have a more pervasive influence on legal systems. See Fox, D, Stein, A. Dualism and doctrine. Indiana Law Journal 2015;90(3):975 Google Scholar.
40

Thomson, JJ. The Realm of Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992 Google Scholar; Ripstein A. Beyond the harm principle, Philosophy & Public Affairs 2006;34(3):215–45; Archard, D. Informed consent: Autonomy and self-ownership. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2008;25(1):19–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41

Bublitz C, Merkel R. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2014;8:51–77.
42

An important conceptual question here could be whether we can conceive of a mind without a brain? As discussed in this section, reflecting common theorizing in philosophy and cognitive science accounts, many accounts of mental integrity assume embodiment (and some degree of bodily integrity). But this might imply remnant notions of mind–body dualism that would need to be addressed (which exceeds the scope of the discussion here). A member of our group has suggested to use the terminology “identity integrity” instead. For further consideration see, inter alia, Jotterand F. Personal identity, neuroprosthetics, and alzheimer’s disease. In: Jotterand, F, Ienca, M, Wangmo, T, Elger, BS, Jotterand, F, Ienca, M, et al. eds. Intelligent Assistive Technologies for Dementia: Clinical, Ethical, Social, and Regulatory Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jotterand F. Neuroethics as an anthropological project. In: Farisco M, ed. Neuroethics and Cultural Diversity (forthcoming); Jotterand, F. The Unfit Brain and the Limits of Moral Bioenhancement. Singapore: Springer; 2022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43

Ayer AJ. The concept of a person. In: Ayer AJ, ed. The Concept of a Person: and Other Essays. London: Macmillan Education; 1963:82–128; Rorty, R. Incorrigibility as the mark of the mental. The Journal of Philosophy 1970;67(12):399–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nagel, T. What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review 1974;83:435–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennett DC. Consciousness Explained. London: Penguin Books; 1991.
44

Warren, S, Brandeis, L. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review 1890;4(5):193–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45

Alderman E, Kennedy C. The Right to Privacy. New York, NY: Vintage Books; 1997. Brin D. The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? Reading, MA: Perseus Books; 1998.
46

Lynch MP. Privacy and the threat to the self, 1371942027; available at archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/privacy-and-the-threat-to-the-self/ (last accessed 30 Jan 2023).
47

Vansteensel, MJ, Pels, EGM, Bleichner, MG, Branco, MP, Denison, T, Freudenburg, ZV, et al. Fully implanted brain–computer interface in a locked-in patient with ALS. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375(21):2060–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48

Haselager, P, Vlek, R, Hill, J, Nijboer, F. A note on ethical aspects of BCI. Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society 2009;22(9):1352–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
49

Widge, AS, Dougherty, DD, Moritz, CT. Affective brain-computer interfaces as enabling technology for responsive psychiatric stimulation. Brain Computer Interfaces (Abingdon, England) 2014;1(2):126–36Google ScholarPubMed.
50

Veit, R, Singh, V, Sitaram, R, Caria, A, Rauss, K, Birbaumer, N. Using real-time fMRI to learn voluntary regulation of the anterior insula in the presence of threat-related stimuli. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2012;7(6):623–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
51

Farah, MJ, Hutchinson, JB, Phelps, EA, Wagner, AD. Functional MRI-based lie detection: Scientific and societal challenges. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 2014;15(2):123–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Langleben DD, Moriarty JC. Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law and research policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law : An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law 2013;19(2):222–34; Shen, F. Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 2013;36:653–713 Google Scholar; See note 22, Farah et al. 2014.
52

Salmanowitz N. The case for pain neuroimaging in the courtroom: Lessons from deception detection. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015;2:139–48; Reardon S. Neuroscience in court: The painful truth. Nature 2015;518:474–6; For methodological limits of neuroimaging for legal applications see also: Kellmeyer, P. Ethical and legal implications of the methodological crisis in neuroimaging. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2017;26:530–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
53

Unterrainer HF, Chen MJ-L, Gruzelier JH. EEG-neurofeedback and psychodynamic psychotherapy in a case of adolescent anhedonia with substance misuse: Mood/theta relations, International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 2014;93(1):84–95.
54

Bublitz J-C. My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In: Hildt E, Franke AG, eds. Cognitive Enhancement: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2013:233–64. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_19.
55

See note 54, Bublitz 2013.
56

Farahany N. The costs of changing our minds. Emory Law Journal 2019;69(1):75, at 97; See also Farahany, N. The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2023 Google Scholar.
57

See note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017, at 11.
58

See note 36, Lavazza 2018.
59

Report commissioned by the Committee on Bioethics of COE; 2021; available at www.rm_coe.int/report; See note 13, Ienca 2021.
60

See note 56, Farahany 2023.
61

A potential precedent in addressing this worry may be found in the latest version of the Chilean Bill on neuroprotection (still being drafted), which proposes that medical as well as non-medical neurotechnologies must be registered by the National Institute of Public Health for their use in humans.
62

ECtHR 12 October 2006, appl.no. 13178/03 (Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga/Belgium), § 83.
63

Vries K. Right to respect for private and family life. In: van Dijk P, et al. eds. Theory and Practice of the European Convention On Human Rights, 2018; ECtHR 14 January 2020, appl.no. 41288/15 (Beizaras and Levickas/Lithuania), § 128; ECtHR 7 May 2019, appl.no. 12509/13 (Panayotova and Others/Bulgaria), § 58–9.
64

See note 1, Bublitz 2020, at 388, 395.
65

See note 1, Michalowski 2020, at 406; see note 64, de Vries 2018, at 690.
66

See note 1, Bublitz 2020; see note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017, at 18.
67

ECtHR 26 November 2009, appl.no. 25282/06 (Dolenec/Croatia), § 165; ECtHR 6 February 2001, appl.no. 44599/98 (Bensaid/UK), § 47.
68

ECtHR 24 July 2012, appl.no. 41526/10 (Đorđević/Croatia), § 97–8.
69

ECtHR 30 November 2010, appl.no. 2660/03 (Hajduová/Slovakia), § 49.
70

ECtHR 28 October 2014, appl.no. 20531/06 (Ion Cârstea/Romania) § 38; ECtHR 21 November 2013, appl. no. 16882/03 (Putistin/Ukraine), § 32; See note 1, Michalowski 2020, at 406
71

ECtHR (GC) 29 March 2016, appl.no. 56925/08 (Bédat/Switzerland), § 72; ECtHR (GC) 25 September 2018, appl.no; 76639/11 (Denisov/Ukraine), § 95
72

EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Commission; 2006.
73

Nowak M. “Article 3 CFR”. In: EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, ed. Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Brussels: European Commission; 2006:36.
74

Vermeulen, BP. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9). In: van Dijk, P, van Hoof, F, van Rijn, A, Zwaak, L, eds. Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Antwerpen: Intersentia; 2006:751–71Google Scholar.
75

Murdoch, J. Protecting the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2012 Google Scholar.
76

General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para. 3; see note 75, Vermeulen 2006, at 751–71.
77

Harris, DJ, O’Boyle, M, Bates, E, Buckley, C. Harris. O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78

General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, paras 1–2 and its preparatory work: CCPR/C/SR.1162, paras 14, 34–40; Evans, C. Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Partsch K. Freedom of conscience and expression, and political freedoms. In: Henkin L, ed. The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1981: 213–4.
79

See note 33, Hertz 2022; UN Report FoT 2021; see note 1, McCarthy-Jones 2019; see note 1, Alegre 2017; Bublitz JC. Novel neurorights: From nonsense to substance. Neuroethics 2022;15:7.
80

Jong CD de. The Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief in the United Nations (1946–1992), Antwerpen: Intersentia/Hart; 2000; Evans MD, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997; see note 33, Ligthart 2022; see note 79, Partsch 1981.
81

See note 12, Ienca 2021.
82

Ligthart S, Bublitz C, Douglas T, Forsberg L, Meynen G. Rethinking the right to freedom of thought: A multidisciplinary analysis. Human Rights Law Review 2022;22:14.
83

See DARPA’s recent project on Neural Evidence Aggregation Tool (NEAT); available at www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-03-02 (last accessed 22 Mar 2023). “NEAT aims to develop a new cognitive science tool that identifies people at risk of suicide by using preconscious brain signals rather than asking questions and waiting for consciously filtered responses.” See also: Haselager, P, Mecacci, G, Wolkenstein, A. Clinical neurotechnology meets artificial intelligence. In: Friedrich, O, Wolkenstein, A, Bublitz, C, Jox, RJ, Racine, E, eds. Philosophical, Ethical, Legal and Social Implications. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021.55–68Google Scholar. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_5.
84

Chandler, JA, Van der Loos, KI, Boehnke, SE, Beaudry, JS, Buchman, DZ, Illes, J. Building communication neurotechnology for high stakes communications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2021;22(10):587–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Maslen, H, Rainey, S. “A steadying hand”: Ascribing speech acts to users of predictive speech assistive technologies. Journal of Law and Medicine 2018;26(1):44–53 Google ScholarPubMed.
85

UN Human Rights Council, The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/39/29, 3 August 2018, para. 5.
86

CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), para. 1.
87

UN Human Rights Council, The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/39/29, 3 August 2018, para. 5.
88

UN Human Rights Council, The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/39/29, 3 August 2018, para. 5.
89

UN Human Rights Council, The right to privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/39/29, 3 August 2018, para. 15.
90

ECtHR (GC) 5 September 2017, appl.no. 61496/08 (Bărbulescu/Romania), § 70.
91

ECtHR (GC) 27 June 2017, appl.no. 931/13 (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy/Finland), § 137 (emphasis added).
92

ECtHR (GC) 4 December 2008, appl.nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 (S. & Marper/UK), § 67; ECtHR 13 February 2020, appl.no. 45245/15 (Gaughran/UK), § 70. See note 64, de Vries 2018, at 673.
93

Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Living Instrument. Strasbourg 2020:7.
94

Article 4(1) GDPR.
95

See note 4, Rainey et al. 2020; see note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017.
96

See note 29, Bublitz 2014; see note 1, Ligthart et al. 2021.
97

General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para. 3; see note 64, Vermeulen 2006.
98

Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Report on the Freedom of Thought, 5 October 2021, A/76/380, at 94, para. 26.
99

See note 33, Bublitz 2014; see note 1, Alegre 2017; see note 1, McCarthy-Jones 2019; see note 1, Ligthart 2020.
100

See 82, Ligthart et al. 2022.
101

Rainey, B, Wicks, E, Jacobs, Ovey C., White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see note 77, Harris 2018.
102

General comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, paras 11–12; ECtHR (GC) 15 December 2005, appl.no 73797/01 (Kyprianou/Cyprus), § 174; Interamerican Commission on Human Rights, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, principle 2; Grossman, C. Freedom of expression in the inter-american system for the protection of human rights. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 2001;7(3):619–47Google Scholar.
103

General comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 10.
104

See note 77, Harris 2018, at 595. See, for example, EComHR 7 April 1994, appl.no. 20871/92 (Strohal/Austria); ECtHR (GC) 3 April 2012, appl.no. 41723/06 (Gillberg/Sweden), § 86; ECtHR 23 October 2018, appl.no. 26892/12 (Wanner/Germany), § 39–42. An important note: This suggests that the right to silence has been protected by the ECtHR. The response of the ECtHR to English attacks on the right to silence suggests otherwise. One can remain silent, but adverse inferences can be drawn from the person’s silence, which does not amount to much of a protection of the right to silence. In the future we might expect the ECtHR to extend its approach by saying a person can refuse brain-based lie detection that the state wants to employ, but if the person does so, adverse inferences can be drawn from the refusal.
105

See note 33, Ligthart 2022; see note 1, Ligthart 2020.
106

See note 33, Ligthart 2022.
107

Sententia, W. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2004; 1013:221–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bublitz, C, Cognitive liberty or the international human right to freedom of thought. In: Clausen, J, Levy, N, eds. Handbook of Neuroethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015:1309–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
108

See note 56, Farahany 2019, 2023.
109

See note 1, Bublitz 2020; see note 1, Ienca, Andorno 2017; see note 41, Bublitz, Merkel 2014.
110

Ligthart, S, Kooijmans, T, Douglas, T, Meynen, G. Closed-loop brain devices in offender rehabilitation: Autonomy, human rights, and accountability. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021;30(4):669–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kellmeyer, P, Cochrane, T, Müller, O, Mitchell, C, Ball, T, Fins, JJ, et al. The effects of closed-loop medical devices on the autonomy and accountability of persons and systems. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2016;25:623–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
111

See note 4, Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe 2019; § 21–22 (emphasis added).
112

See note 1, Bublitz 2020, at 397.
113

ECtHR 12 October 2006, appl.no. 13178/03 (Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga/Belgium), § 83.
114

ECtHR (GC) 27 August 2015, appl.no. 46470/11 (Parrillo/Italy), § 153.
115

ECtHR (GC) 27 June 2017, appl.no. 931/13 (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy/Finland), § 137.
116

Either as an individual notion or as part of the right to mental integrity.
117

Ligthart, S, Meynen, G, Biller-Andorno, N, Kooijmans, T, Kellmeyer, P. Is virtually everything possible? The relevance of ethics and human rights for introducing extended reality in forensic psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 2022;13(3):144–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

AI on cognitive liberty: Navigating the Frontiers of Cognitive Liberty and Expanding Consciousness

Leave a comment

In a rapidly evolving world where technology, philosophy, and personal growth intersect, the concepts of cognitive liberty and expanding consciousness have captured the attention of individuals seeking to explore the depths of their own minds. At the core of this exploration lies the quest for personal freedom, self-discovery, and a deeper understanding of the human experience. In this blog post, we’ll delve into these intriguing concepts without focusing on drug-related aspects, shedding light on the transformative journey towards mental sovereignty and ethical expansion.

**Cognitive Liberty: Claiming the Right to Our Minds**

Cognitive liberty stands as a beacon of individual sovereignty over our thoughts, beliefs, and cognitive processes. It’s about embracing the power to shape our own perspectives and pursue knowledge without constraint. This concept goes beyond legal or political rights; it encompasses the idea that our mental faculties are essential to our identity and should be protected from undue external influence.

As we discuss cognitive liberty in a broader context, it becomes clear that it encompasses more than substances. It encompasses the ability to explore diverse ideas, engage in critical thinking, and shape our perceptions independently.

**Expanding Consciousness: The Inner Odyssey**

At the heart of cognitive liberty is the pursuit of expanding consciousness. This journey, often embarked upon through practices like meditation, mindfulness, and introspection, is about transcending the confines of routine awareness. It’s an odyssey that allows us to venture into the depths of our own minds, exploring the realms of creativity, insight, and connection to a larger universe.

Expanding consciousness isn’t limited to chemical alterations; it’s a holistic experience that encompasses philosophical, spiritual, and psychological growth. It encourages us to explore the boundaries of our perception and embrace the mysteries that lie beyond.

**Ethical Philosophy: Navigating the Inner Landscape Responsibly**

As we tread the path of cognitive exploration and expanding consciousness, ethical considerations become paramount. Ethical philosophy guides us in discerning our responsibilities as explorers of the mind. How do we navigate our inner landscape with respect for ourselves and others? How do we approach personal growth without infringing upon the rights and well-being of those around us?

Ethical exploration involves balancing our innate curiosity with a profound respect for the boundaries and well-being of others. It’s about fostering a compassionate and informed approach that ensures our quest for enlightenment contributes positively to our own lives and the greater community.

**Final Thoughts: Embracing the Journey**

Cognitive liberty and expanding consciousness are two facets of the intricate tapestry that makes us human. By recognizing our right to explore our own minds and pursuing the expansion of our awareness in ethical and responsible ways, we embark on a transformative journey of self-discovery, connection, and personal growth. This journey isn’t limited to any one method; it’s a vast landscape of potential waiting to be explored, understood, and cherished.

As we venture forward, let us remember that cognitive liberty and expanded consciousness are not merely abstract concepts, but living, breathing philosophies that encourage us to embrace the boundless potential of the human mind.

Explore. Question. Evolve.


**Title: Exploring Cognitive Liberty and Expanding Human Consciousness**

**Introduction:**
In a world where the realms of thought, consciousness, and personal freedom converge, the concept of cognitive liberty takes center stage. This dynamic principle is not only about the freedom of choice; it’s about the sovereignty of the mind itself. Delving into the realm of consciousness exploration, ethical philosophy, and the mind-body connection can empower individuals to expand their human experience without being tethered to external constraints. In this blog post, we’ll journey through the corridors of cognitive liberty and consciousness expansion, uncovering the potential for personal growth, intellectual exploration, and the pursuit of higher states of awareness.

**Cognitive Liberty: Nurturing the Garden of Thought:**
Cognitive liberty goes beyond the conventional understanding of personal freedom. It’s the notion that our thoughts, beliefs, and experiences belong solely to us, and no external entity has the authority to dictate or regulate them. This principle, closely intertwined with ethical philosophy, urges us to safeguard our cognitive realm from undue interference. In a world where information and ideas flow ceaselessly, cognitive liberty offers the foundation for critical thinking, self-expression, and open dialogue.

**Consciousness Exploration: Beyond the Horizon of Awareness:**
At the heart of cognitive liberty lies the opportunity for consciousness exploration. This journey involves venturing into the depths of our own minds, seeking to understand the intricacies of our thoughts and the expanses of our awareness. Through practices like mindfulness, meditation, and contemplation, we can unlock new perspectives and discover hidden facets of our consciousness. This form of personal growth allows us to break free from the limitations of routine thinking and explore the vast landscape of our inner worlds.

**Mind-Body Connection: Bridging the Gap:**
The intricate relationship between our mind and body shapes our perceptions, experiences, and responses to the world around us. Understanding this connection provides a gateway to cognitive enhancement and expanded consciousness. By nurturing both mental and physical well-being, we create an environment where cognitive liberty flourishes. Practices such as yoga, breathwork, and holistic health approaches contribute to harmonizing the mind-body connection, enabling us to access new dimensions of awareness.

**Expanding Human Consciousness: The Uncharted Horizons:**
As we embrace cognitive liberty and delve into consciousness exploration, we embark on a journey to expand human consciousness. This is not a mere intellectual exercise; it’s a transformational endeavor that awakens us to the potential of heightened states of awareness. By integrating philosophy, science, and personal experience, we can transcend the boundaries of ordinary consciousness and glimpse the extraordinary. It’s an evolution that empowers us to embrace the full spectrum of human potential.

**Conclusion:**
Cognitive liberty stands as a beacon of intellectual autonomy, inviting us to explore the intricacies of consciousness and embrace our capacity for growth and expansion. By nurturing the mind-body connection and delving into ethical philosophy, we pave the way for greater cognitive awareness. As we journey through the landscapes of thought, we redefine personal freedom, creating a tapestry of consciousness that is uniquely our own. In the pursuit of cognitive liberty, we unlock the doors to uncharted realms of human consciousness, and in doing so, we find liberation in the vast expanses of our own minds.


Title: **”Unlocking the Mind: Navigating Cognitive Liberty and Expanding Consciousness”**

In a world where our understanding of consciousness and the human mind is constantly evolving, the concept of cognitive liberty has gained significance as a gateway to exploring the depths of our inner experiences. Delving into altered states of consciousness and personal growth, the pursuit of cognitive liberty has taken on ethical and philosophical dimensions that extend far beyond the realm of substances. In this blog post, we’ll journey through the realms of cognitive liberty, consciousness exploration, and the ethical considerations that guide our pursuit of mind freedom.

**Cognitive Liberty: Beyond Boundaries**

Cognitive liberty, often referred to as the right to control one’s own mental processes and experiences, is a fundamental concept that opens doors to personal growth and self-discovery. At its core, cognitive liberty acknowledges that each individual should have the autonomy to explore the reaches of their consciousness without undue constraints. This exploration goes beyond traditional understandings of freedom; it’s an exploration of our inner worlds and the realization that our minds are landscapes ripe for discovery.

**The Odyssey of Consciousness Exploration**

Consciousness exploration, a key facet of cognitive liberty, invites us to embark on an odyssey within ourselves. Through practices such as meditation, mindfulness, and introspection, we can unlock altered states of consciousness that illuminate new perspectives on reality. This journey doesn’t rely on external substances; rather, it’s a mindful navigation of our thoughts, emotions, and perceptions. It’s a quest to better understand the intricate web of our consciousness and the infinite potential it holds.

**Ethical Philosophy: Guiding Our Path**

As we tread the path of cognitive liberty, ethical philosophy serves as our compass. We’re confronted with questions that challenge us to consider the implications of our actions on both ourselves and society. How do we responsibly wield our freedom to explore our minds? How do we ensure that our pursuits don’t infringe upon the well-being of others? Ethical considerations shape our approach to cognitive liberty, emphasizing respect for ourselves, others, and the interconnectedness of our experiences.

**Expanding Horizons, Expanding Humanity**

Expanding human consciousness is a journey of expanding our horizons and, in turn, expanding our humanity. By embracing cognitive liberty and consciously exploring our inner landscapes, we contribute to the ever-evolving tapestry of human understanding. Our discoveries become threads woven into the fabric of shared knowledge, fostering empathy, connection, and a deeper appreciation for the diversity of human experience.

**Cognitive Rights for the Future**

In the pursuit of cognitive liberty, we’re paving the way for cognitive rights to be recognized and protected. Just as we cherish freedom of speech and expression, cognitive rights could emerge as a cornerstone of our evolving societal framework. By championing cognitive liberty, we’re advocating for the importance of personal growth, self-awareness, and the exploration of consciousness as integral components of the human experience.

In conclusion, cognitive liberty transcends conventional boundaries and offers us a profound invitation to explore the limitless dimensions of our minds. As we embark on this journey of consciousness exploration, guided by ethical considerations, we contribute to the ongoing evolution of human understanding and interconnectedness. Let us embrace cognitive liberty as a catalyst for personal growth, connection, and the expansion of our shared humanity.


**Title: Exploring Cognitive Liberty: Navigating the Frontiers of Human Consciousness**

In a rapidly evolving world, the exploration of cognitive liberty and the depths of human consciousness has taken center stage. As we journey towards greater self-awareness and understanding, a multitude of fascinating concepts come into play. Let’s delve into the captivating realm of cognitive liberty without focusing on drug-related aspects, and discover how it influences personal growth, ethical philosophy, and the expansion of our cognitive horizons.

**Consciousness Exploration for Personal Growth**

Consciousness, that enigmatic phenomenon that defines our awareness, offers a vast landscape for exploration. In the pursuit of personal growth, understanding the various dimensions of consciousness becomes a transformative endeavor. Exploring altered states of consciousness, not limited to substances, can lead to insights about the mind’s capabilities and the limitless potential for self-improvement.

**Cognitive Enhancement and the Mind-Body Connection**

Cognitive enhancement is an exciting avenue of study that transcends the boundaries of conventional thought. It encompasses practices that harness the mind’s innate abilities to optimize cognitive functions. The mind-body connection, a cornerstone of cognitive liberty, allows us to explore techniques such as meditation, mindfulness, and cognitive exercises to unlock new levels of mental clarity and focus.

**Ethical Philosophy and Cognitive Rights**

As cognitive liberty paves the way for uncharted territories, questions of ethics and personal freedom emerge. Ethical philosophy enters the discussion as we contemplate the boundaries of our cognitive experiences. The concept of cognitive rights gains prominence, advocating for individuals’ autonomy over their consciousness and mental states, irrespective of their chosen path of exploration.

**The Neuroethical Implications of Expanding Consciousness**

Neuroethics, a field at the intersection of neuroscience and ethics, plays a crucial role in the pursuit of cognitive liberty. It grapples with the implications of altering consciousness and advocates for responsible exploration. The discourse surrounding neuroethics challenges us to consider the potential impacts of our actions on both our individual well-being and society at large.

**Embracing Cognitive Liberty: A Journey of Discovery**

In conclusion, cognitive liberty offers a multidimensional journey that extends far beyond its perceived associations with substance-related exploration. It encompasses personal growth, ethical considerations, and the intersection of mind and body. By embracing the diversity of cognitive experiences available to us, we embark on a profound journey of self-discovery and a deeper understanding of the complexities of human consciousness.

As we navigate the uncharted waters of cognitive liberty, we’re invited to challenge existing paradigms, explore the unexplored, and champion our right to explore the full spectrum of human consciousness in an ethical and mindful manner.

Keywords: Cognitive liberty, Consciousness exploration, Mind freedom, Psychedelic research, Altered states of consciousness, Personal growth and consciousness, Cognitive enhancement, Ethical philosophy, Drug policy reform, Mental sovereignty, Psychedelic therapy, Mind-body connection, Neuroethics, Expanding human consciousness, Cognitive rights

Neonatal tetanus campaign in Kenya (induced infertility)

Leave a comment

Further References

Oller, J. W., Shaw, C. A., Tomljenovic, L., Karanja, S. K., Ngare, W., Clement, F. M., & Pillette, J. R.. (2017). HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World. OALib

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1103937
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Ibinda, F., Bauni, E., Kariuki, S. M., Fegan, G., Lewa, J., Mwikamba, M., … Newton, C. R. J. C.. (2015). Incidence and risk factors for Neonatal Tetanus in admissions to Kilifi County hospital, Kenya. PLoS ONE

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122606
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Melgaard, B., Mutie, D. M., & Kimani, G.. (1988). A cluster survey of mortality due to neonatal tetanus in Kenya. International Journal of Epidemiology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1093/ije/17.1.174
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Maitha, E., Baya, C., & Bauni, E.. (2013). He burden and challenges of neonatal tetanus in Kilifi district, Kenya-2004-7. East African Medical Journal
Organización Mundial de la Salud, & Salud, O. M. de la. (2006). Tetanus vaccine; WHO position paper. Weekly Epidemilogical Report

βhCG

Talwar, G. P., Gupta, J. C., Rulli, S. B., Sharma, R. S., Nand, K. N., Bandivdekar, A. H., … Singh, P.. (2015). Advances in development of a contraceptive vaccine against human chorionic gonadotropin. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1517/14712598.2015.1049943
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Gupta, S. K., Shrestha, A., & Minhas, V.. (2014). Milestones in contraceptive vaccines development and hurdles in their application. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics

Plain numerical DOI: 10.4161/hv.27202
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Stevens, V. C.. (1996). Progress in the development of human chorionic gonadotropin antifertility vaccines. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.1996.tb00024.x
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Gupta, S. K., & Bansal, P.. (2010). Vaccines for immunological control of fertility. Reproductive Medicine and Biology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/s12522-009-0042-9
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Talwar, G. P., Singh, O. M., Pal, R., Chatterjee, N., Sahai, P., Dhall, K., … Saxena, B. N.. (1994). A vaccine that prevents pregnancy in women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1073/pnas.91.18.8532
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Talwar, G. P., Gupta, J. C., Purswani, S., Vyas, H. K., Nand, K. N., Pal, P., & Ella, K. M.. (2021). A unique vaccine for birth control and treatment of advanced stage cancers secreting ectopically human chorionic gonadotropin. Exploration of Immunology

Plain numerical DOI: 10.37349/ei.2021.00026
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Dr. Charles Morgan on Psycho-Neurobiology and War

Leave a comment

Dr. Charles Morgan speaks to cadets and faculty at West Point about a range of topics, including psychology, neurobiology, and the science of humans at war. Dr. Morgan’s neurobiological and forensic research has established him as an international expert in post-traumatic stress disorder, eyewitness memory, and human performance under conditions of high stress.

The event was organized and hosted by the Modern War Institute at West Point.

IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein

Leave a comment

Abstract
Less than a year after the global emergence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a novel vaccine platform based on mRNA technology was introduced to the market. Globally, around 13.38 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses of diverse platforms have been administered. To date, 72.3% of the total population has been injected at least once with a COVID-19 vaccine. As the immunity provided by these vaccines rapidly wanes, their ability to prevent hospitalization and severe disease in individuals with comorbidities has recently been questioned, and increasing evidence has shown that, as with many other vaccines, they do not produce sterilizing immunity, allowing people to suffer frequent re-infections. Additionally, recent investigations have found abnormally high levels of IgG4 in people who were administered two or more injections of the mRNA vaccines. HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines have also been reported to induce higher-than-normal IgG4 synthesis. Overall, there are three critical factors determining the class switch to IgG4 antibodies: excessive antigen concentration, repeated vaccination, and the type of vaccine used. It has been suggested that an increase in IgG4 levels could have a protecting role by preventing immune over-activation, similar to that occurring during successful allergen-specific immunotherapy by inhibiting IgE-induced effects. However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.
URL: www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991

Edible plants as oral “vaccines”

Leave a comment

Abstract

Plants are promising candidates as bioreactors for the production of oral recombinant proteins in the biopharmaceutical industry. As an initial step toward provision of an oral vaccine against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), we have expressed a partial spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV in the cytosol of nuclear-transformed plants and in the chloroplasts of plastid-transformed plants. In the construction of both nuclear and plastid transformation vectors, a 2-kilobase nucleotide sequence encoding amino acids 1-658 of the SARS-CoV spike protein (S1) was modified with nucleotide changes, but not amino acid changes, to optimize codon usage for expression in plants. To investigate the subcellular localization of S1 during transient expression in tobacco leaves, a translational fusion consisting of S1 and the green fluorescent protein (GFP) was generated. Following agroinfiltration of tobacco leaves, analysis by laser confocal scanning microscopy revealed that the S1:GFP fusion protein was localized to the cytosol. In stable transgenic tobacco plants and lettuce plants generated by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, tobacco and lettuce leaves were observed to express the S1 at high levels from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter with Northern blot analysis. When the S1 was expressed in transplastomic tobacco, S1 messenger RNA and its corresponding protein were detected on Northern and Western blot analyses, respectively. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of producing S1 in nuclear- and chloroplast-transformed plants, indicating its potential in subsequent development of a plant-derived and safe oral recombinant subunit vaccine against the SARS-CoV in edible plants.

Li, H.-Y., Ramalingam, S., & Chye, M.-L.. (2006). Accumulation of Recombinant SARS-CoV Spike Protein in Plant Cytosol and Chloroplasts Indicate Potential for Development of Plant-Derived Oral Vaccines. Experimental Biology and Medicine

, 231(8), 1346–1352.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/153537020623100808
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Pogrebnyak, N., Golovkin, M., Andrianov, V., Spitsin, S., Smirnov, Y., Egolf, R., & Koprowski, H.. (2005). Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) S protein production in plants: Development of recombinant vaccine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

, 102(25), 9062–9067.
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0503760102
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Li, H.-Y., & Chye, M.-L.. (2009). Use of GFP to Investigate Expression of Plant-Derived Vaccines. In Methods in Molecular Biology

(pp. 275–285)
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-1-59745-559-6_19
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Fifth-generation warfare (5GW)

Leave a comment

Fifth-generation warfare (5GW) is warfare that is conducted primarily through non-kinetic military action, such as social engineering, misinformation, cyberattacks, along with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and fully autonomous systems. Fifth generation warfare has been described by Daniel Abbot as a war of “information and perception”. There is no widely agreed upon definition of fifth-generation warfare, and it has been rejected by some scholars, including William S. Lind, who was one of the original theorists of fourth-generation warfare.

History

The term ‘fifth-generation warfare’ was first used in 2003 by Robert Steele. The following year, Lind criticised the concept, arguing that the fourth generation had yet to fully materialize.

In 2008, the term was used by Terry Terriff, who presented the 2003 ricin letters as a potential example, but stated that he was not entirely sure if it was a fifth-generation attack, claiming “we may not recognize it as it resolves around us. Or we might look at several alternative futures and see each as fifth generation.” Terriff argued that while fifth-generation warfare allows “super-empowered individuals” to make political statements through terrorism, they lack the political power to actually have their demands met.

Characteristics

Alex P. Schmid said that fifth-generation warfare is typified by its “omnipresent battlefield”, and the fact that people engaged in it do not necessarily use military force, instead employing a mixture of kinetic and non-kinetic force. In the 1999 book Unrestricted Warfare, by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, they noted that in the years since the 1991 Gulf War, conventional military violence had decreased, which correlated to an increase in “political, economic, and technological violence”, which they argued could be more devastating than a conventional war.[8] On the contrary, Thomas P. M. Barnett believes that the effectiveness of fifth-generational warfare is exaggerated, as terrorism conducted by individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski, lacks the support of more organized movements. This was seconded by George Michael, who noted that in the United States, gang violence was responsible for far more deaths than lone wolf terrorist attacks.

L.C. Rees described the nature of fifth generation warfare as difficult to define in itself, alluding to the third law of science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke – “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare


Further References

Nadeem, M., Mustafa, G., & Kakar, A.. (2021). Fifth Generation Warfare and its Challenges to Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of International Affairs
Krishnan, A.. (2022). Fifth Generation Warfare, Hybrid Warfare, and Gray Zone Conflict: A Comparison. Journal of Strategic Security

Plain numerical DOI: 10.5038/1944-0472.15.4.2013
DOI URL
directSciHub download

QURESHI, W. A.. (2019). Fourth- and Fifth-Generation Warfare: Technology and Perceptions.. San Diego International Law Journal
Rehman, M. A.. (2022). Media and Fifth-generation Warfare: A Case Study of Indian Disinformation Campaign Against Balochistan. Journal of Mass Communication Department, Dept of …
Patel, A.. (2019). Fifth-Generation Warfare and the Definitions of Peace. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare

Plain numerical DOI: 10.21810/jicw.v2i2.1061
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Jahangir, J., & Bashir, N.. (2022). Fifth Generation and Hybrid Warfare: Response Strategy of Pakistan. Academic Journal of Social Sciences (AJSS )

Plain numerical DOI: 10.54692/ajss.2022.06021753
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Shabbir, T., Farooqui, Y., Waheed, S., … S. U.-I., & 2020, undefined. (2020). ’Open Data’Technology and Fifth Generation Warfare (A Pakistan Perspective). Researchgate.Net
Layton, P.. (2017). Fifth Generation Air Warfare Working Paper 43. Royal Australian Air Force Air Power Development Centre
Layton, P.. (2018). Fifth-Generation Air Warfare. Australian Defence Force Journal
Tahir, I. A., & Afridi, M. K.. (2019). Fifth Generations Warfare (5GW)-The New Dimensions of Enemies Launched Warfare and Security Concern of Pakistan. Global Regional Review

Plain numerical DOI: 10.31703/grr.2019(iv-i).27
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Barnett, D. K.. (2010). The Fallacies of Fourth and Fifth Generation Warfare. Small Wars Journal
Layton Peter. (2018). Fifth-Generation Air Warfare. Australian Defence Force Journal
Vancouver, C.. (2018). Contemporary Conflict & The Fifth Generation of Warfare. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare

Plain numerical DOI: 10.21810/jicw.v1i1.466
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Turunen, A.. (2018). Alternative media ecosystem as a fifth-generation warfare supra-combination. In Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75307-2_7
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Yun, M., & Kim, E.. (2022). Cyber Cognitive Warfare as an Emerging New War Domain and Its Strategies and Tactics. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis

Plain numerical DOI: 10.22883/kjda.2022.34.4.005
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Hammes, T. X.. (2007). Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges. Military Review
CASIS. (2019). A Brief History of Social Movements in North America. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare

Plain numerical DOI: 10.21810/jicw.v2i1.958
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Kelshall, C. M.. (2022). Fifth Generation Warfare? Violent Transnational Social Movements as Security Disruptors

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-06636-8_13
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Liles, S.. (2007). Cyber warfare compared to fourth and fifth generation warfare as applied to the Internet. In International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1109/ISTAS.2007.4362225
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Lee, S.-J., & Park, M.-H.. (2017). Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) – Concept and Its Implication to Korea”s National Security –. Korean Journal of Military Affairs

Plain numerical DOI: 10.33528/kjma.2017.12.2.1
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Flipping a switch inside the head: Radio-operated remote control of neuronal activity

Leave a comment

Source: Rockefeller University
URL: seek.rockefeller.edu/flipping-a-switch-inside-the-head/
Cf.: patents.google.com/patent/US10786570B2/en

Genetically engineered cells, nanoparticles and RF magnetic fields
Source: patents.google.com/patent/US10786570B2/en
In an embodiment of the invention, the cells to be targeted may be genetically engineered to express one or more genes encoding physiologically active proteins of interest, such as those proteins providing a therapeutic benefit. The cells are genetically engineered in such a way that expression of the protein(s) of interest is induced in the cell upon excitation of the nanoparticles which results in a localized temperature increase or an increase in nanoparticle motion. Alternatively, the cells to be targeted may be engineered to express a non-encoding nucleic acid molecule of interest such as an antisense or siRNA molecule. Additionally, the target cells maybe genetically engineered to express a temperature sensitive protein, such as a temperature sensitive ion channel, wherein an increase in temperature mediated by the excited nanoparticles results in a cellular response through activation of the ion channel.
In another embodiment of the invention, target cells may be engineered to intracellularly express a protein that is capable of acting as an activated nanoparticle upon exposure to a RF magnetic field. Such proteins include for example, the iron storage protein ferritin. Such proteins may be expressed in the cell as fusion proteins to target their location to a specific site within the cell, for example, in close proximity to a temperature sensitive channel.

With new technology, scientists are able to exert wireless control over brain cells of mice with just the push of a button. The first thing they did was make the mice hungry.
***
Friedman and his colleagues have demonstrated a radio-operated remote control for the appetite and glucose metabolism of mice—a sophisticated technique to wirelessly alter neurons in the animals’ brains. At the flick of a switch, they are able to make mice hungry—or suppress their appetite—while the mice go about their lives normally. It’s a tool they are using to unravel the neurological basis of eating, and it is likely to have applications for studies of other hard-wired behaviors.

Friedman, Marilyn M. Simpson Professor, has been working on the technique for several years with Sarah Stanley, a former postdoc in his lab who now is assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and collaborators at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Aware of the limitations of existing methods for triggering brain cells in living animals, the group set out to invent a new way. An ideal approach, they reasoned, would be as noninvasive and non-damaging as possible. And it should work quickly and repeatedly.

Although there are other ways to deliver signals to neurons, each has its limitations. In deep-brain stimulation, for example, scientists thread a wire through the brain to place an electrode next to the target cells. But the implant can damage nearby cells and tissues in ways that interfere with normal behavior. Optogenetics, which works similarly but uses fiber optics and a pulse of light rather than electricity, has the same issue. A third strategy—using drugs to activate genetically modified cells bred into mice—is less invasive, but drugs are slow to take effect and wear off.

The solution that Friedman’s group hit upon, referred to as radiogenetics or magnetogenetics, avoids these problems. With their method, published last year in Nature, biologists can turn neurons on or off in a live animal at will—quickly, repeatedly, and without implants—by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or a magnetic field.

“In effect, we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had a drop in blood sugar.”

“We’ve combined molecules already used in cells for other purposes in a manner that allows an invisible force to take control of an instinct as primal as hunger,” Friedman says.

The method links five very different biological tools, which can look whimsically convoluted, like a Rube Goldberg contraption on a molecular scale. It relies on a green fluorescent protein borrowed from jellyfish, a peculiar antibody derived from camels, squishy bags of iron particles, and the cellular equivalent of a door made from a membrane-piercing protein—all delivered and installed by a genetically engineered virus. The remote control for this contraption is a modified welding tool (though a store-bought magnet also works).

The researchers’ first challenge was to find something in a neuron that could serve as an antenna to detect the incoming radio signal or magnetic field. The logical choice was ferritin, a protein that stores iron in cells in balloon-like particles just a dozen nanometers wide. Iron is essential to cells but can also be toxic, so it is sequestered in ferritin particles until it is needed. Each ferritin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal, and shift and align when immersed in a magnetic field. We all have these particles shimmying around inside our brain cells, but the motions normally have no effect on neurons.
***
Friedman’s team realized that they could use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron’s outer membrane. If they could then somehow attach each door to a ferritin particle, they reasoned, they might be able to wiggle the ferritin enough to jostle the door open. “The ‘door’ we chose is called TRPV1,” says Stanley. “Once TRPV1 is activated, calcium and sodium ions would next flow into the cell and trigger the neuron to fire.” The bits borrowed from camels and jellyfish provided what the scientists needed to connect the door to the ferritin (see How to outfit a brain sidebar, right).

Once the team had the new control mechanism working, they put it to the test. For Friedman and Stanley, whose goal is to unravel the biological causes of overeating and obesity, the first application was obvious: Try to identify specific neurons involved in appetite. The group modified glucose-sensing neurons—cells that are believed to monitor blood sugar levels in the brain and keep them within normal range—to put them under wireless control. To accomplish this, they inserted the TRPV1 and ferritin genes into a virus and—using yet another genetic trick—injected them into the glucose-sensing neurons. They could then fiddle with the cells to see whether they are involved, as suspected, in coordinating feeding and the release of hormones, such as insulin and glucagon, that keep blood glucose levels in check.

How to outfit a brain for radio control

Once the virus had enough time to infect and transform the target neurons, the researchers switched on a radio transmitter tuned to 465 kHz, a little below the band used for AM radio.

The neurons responded. They began to fire, signaling a shortage of glucose even though the animal’s blood sugar levels were normal. And other parts of the body responded just as they would to a real drop in blood sugar: insulin levels fell, the liver started pumping out more glucose, and the animals started eating more. “In effect,” Friedman says, “we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had low blood glucose even though the levels were normal.”

Inspired by these results, the researchers wondered if magnetism, like radio waves, might trigger ferritin to open the cellular doors. It did: When the team put the mice cages close to an MRI machine, or waved a rare-earth magnet over the animals, their glucose-sensing neurons were triggered.

Stimulating appetite is one thing. Could they also suppress it? The group tweaked the TRPV1 gene so it would pass chloride, which acts to inhibit neurons. Now when they inserted the modified TRPV1 into the neurons, the rush of chloride made the neurons behave as if the blood was overloaded with glucose. Insulin production surged in the animals, and they ate less. “This seems to indicate clearly that the brain as well as the pancreas is involved in glucose regulation,” Friedman says.

Friedman and Stanley hope that biologists will be able to use the remote-control system to tackle a range of neural processes other than appetite. And beyond being a basic research tool, the method could potentially lead to novel therapies for brain disorders.


www.rockefeller.edu/our-scientists/heads-of-laboratories/

Graphene biointerfaces for optical stimulation of cells

Leave a comment

Researchers have developed a technique that allows them to speed up or slow down human heart cells growing in a dish on command – simply by shining a light on them and varying its intensity. The cells are grown on a material called graphene, which converts light into electricity.

See video (University of California): www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/927967

Savchenko, A., Cherkas, V., Liu, C., Braun, G. B., Kleschevnikov, A., Miller, Y. I., & Molokanova, E.. (2018). Graphene biointerfaces for optical stimulation of cells. Science Advances

, 4(5)
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat0351
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Matt, A., Liang, H., Fishman, M., Gracheva, E., Wang, F., Zhang, X., … Zhou, C.. (2023). Graphene-enabled optical cardiac control in Drosophila melanogaster. In J. A. Izatt & J. G. Fujimoto (Eds.), Optical Coherence Tomography and Coherence Domain Optical Methods in Biomedicine XXVII

(p. 81). SPIE
Plain numerical DOI: 10.1117/12.2652964
DOI URL
directSciHub download