A/HRC/55/44 disregard to public opinion and scientific evidence; 97 even more so, they completely violate the right of women to participate in science. They certainly run counter to the view of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights set out in paragraph 33 of its general comment No. 25 (2020), in which the Committee explicitly noted that a gender-sensitive approach was of particular relevance to the right to sexual and reproductive health and that States parties must ensure access to up-to-date scientific technologies necessary for women in relation to this right. The Committee also stated that, in particular, States parties should ensure access to modern and safe forms of contraception, including emergency contraception, medication for abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, and other sexual and reproductive goods and services, on the basis of non-discrimination and equality, as outlined in general comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health and that special attention should be given to the protection of women’s free, prior and informed consent in treatments or scientific research on sexual and reproductive health. The Committee’s comment is also pertinent to the current misinformation and pseudoscientific evidence on the participation of trans women in sporting events. F. Using science without considering its human rights implications: the example of digital technologies 83. The use of digital science, which brings many benefits, should be regulated to ensure that human rights are respected. In medicine, digital advancements allow for the medical history of the patient to become known in any emergency, saving lives. However, that ability also redefines the doctor-patient relationship and has an impact on the rights of patients, caregivers, families and practitioners. 84. In migration, the use of science and technology currently being explored by the European Union to predict and manage migration is being developed with little consideration to the human rights of migrants and refugees, who are seen mainly through a security lens. Scientific research emphasizes that flow prediction tools can lead to serious human rights violations, as data are unreliable and biased.98 85. In education, digital technology has allowed distance learning. However, as stressed by the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and UNESCO, while digital technologies in education can bring important benefits, they cannot, on their own, solve the many issues faced by education systems and carry many risks that can be detrimental to the right to education and other human rights within education systems.99 G. Bypassing democracy and the rule of law 86. Emergencies, real or inflated, have been used to bypass democratic control in scientific use. There is a need to use law, including human rights law, in implementing science, and to reinforce the legal, regulatory and policy framework to allow for democratic control over the scientific enterprise. Democratic control does not equate with state control. States must allow a variety of voices rather than ensuring its monopoly in decision-making regarding scientific matters. 97 98 99 GE.24-01813 See joint contribution from IPAS and the Expanding Medication Abortion Access Project. See also contribution from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Mengia Tschalaer, Alexandra Xanthaki and Ermioni Xanthopoulou, “Migration flows prediction tools and asylum policy commitments in alignment with human rights”, IT Flows, Policy Brief No. 5 (2023), available at https://www.itflows.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ITFLOWS-Policy-Brief-5D8.1.pdf. A/HRC/50/32, para. 94; and Mark West, An Ed-Tech Tragedy? Education Technologies and School Closures in the Time of COVID-19 (Paris, UNESCO, 2023). 19